School choice has been “nudged” in a new direction as DFE adopts behavioural economics

Ian McGimpsey

“Choice” has been central to education policy for many years now. Today, offering more and more opportunities for individual choice forms part of the common sense of public service reform. But it now looks as though the role of choice in policy might be changing as ideas of what “choosing” means are revised, and the language of ‘behaviour change’ is utilised by government.

The school system exemplifies choice in education. Money follows parental choice. Therefore, so the policy story goes, schools that perform better can expect to be better attended and thus better funded. By this logic, to remove choice would run counter to the interests of parents, young people, tax payers and the best providers. Education sociologists have developed critical tools to examine this story of choice. And research suggests it has not led to improvements in performance across the system or for all young people.

Nevertheless, choice has remained a resilient concept in policy even in the face of these challenges, drawing on deep cultural roots in mainstream liberal politics. Yet, in recent years, it has become clear that this resilience also owes something to changing ideas about the chooser. Until recently, choosing has been generally conceived as a conscious process in which people consider their options using the best information available, and then pick the best one. Now there is evidence that in policy these fundamental assumptions about who choosers are and how they choose are evolving.

School “Choice Advisors” were introduced by the Labour Government in 2006 to assist parents in picking a school for their child. This was an acknowledgement that the school choice system was not working for all young people. The aim was to change the choosing behaviour of parents. Policy makers’ underpinning concern was that people were not choosing “rationally”.  Policy appears to have developed a language to describe such an intervention – that of “behaviour change” which draws heavily on behavioural economics, popularised by Thaler and Sunstein’s book Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness.

This notion takes a different view of an individual’s capacity to choose rationally, suggesting “choices” are likely to be shaped by a series of cognitive biases. We might put too much weight on the risk of loss and pay too little attention to reward, put off a choice rather than deal with bureaucracy, or we might never change a long-term choice (like a pension provider) even if better options become available. The school choice intervention relies on a social influence by a personal advisor who can call, meet or text the parent about school choice. Moreover, it is argued that these biases are predictable tendencies within populations. This provides the basis for the development of new policy tools.

Significant effort has gone into developing policy that utilises these ideas. For example, the Department for Education currently funds the Centre for Understanding Behaviour Change (CUBeC), while the Cabinet Office has a Behavioural Insights Team. The goal is to design systems that will tend to produce desirable outcomes, not by relying only on ‘rational’ choices being made, but by predicting ‘irrational’ behaviour to design systems or environments that will change the ‘choices’ being made.

There is still doubt about the effectiveness of these policy interventions. However, they raise important issues and new questions.  What are the social justice implications of system design that positions the policy maker as “choice architect”? What policy problems are being solved by changing the idea of the rational chooser?

Perhaps the most important issue is the way that the revision of the rational chooser provides a survival strategy for large scale systems of choice. Even as the social justice limitations of choice-based policy strategies persist, “behaviour change” provides new explanations for their failure, and new policy interventions to act upon. So, although predictable irrationality contradicts the fundamental story about the chooser as a rational operator, yet it may act to preserve “choice” within the system.

This blog is based on Revising Rationality: the use of ”Nudge” approaches in neoliberal education policy by Alice Bradbury, Ian McGimpsey and Diego Santori. The article has been accepted for publication by the Journal of Education Policy.

Alice Bradbury and Ian McGimpsey presented a paper based on these ideas at the BERA Conference 2012 at Manchester University, on Wednesday 5 September. For more details contact Ian McGimpsey:

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized
3 comments on “School choice has been “nudged” in a new direction as DFE adopts behavioural economics
  1. behrfacts says:

    My only concern about his whole area is that it ignores the fact that political regimes have used all kinds of ‘strategies’ to convince their citizens that what they i.e. the citizens are doing is right, sometimes for the worst possible reasons. This is why education is so important to equip these citizens to make their own rational choices whatever (unseen) pressures are put on them. Few people really understand probabilities and risk, but they need to just to make every day decisions about which product is more environmentally friendly or less damaging to your health.

  2. littlemavis says:

    I skimmed this quickly so forgive me if I have misunderstood, but isn’t this saying that having given parents a choice, they now intend to make that choice be what suits the current regimen? They do not understand that not all parents will value the same things they value. (the whole Downhills affair being a case in point). In other words the subtext is “if you don’t make the same choice we would in the circumstances, you are just being stupid. This is what you should choose”. All in all, providing no more real choice than before.

  3. Sara says:

    As in the UK, Chile’s school choice has not reached the goal to increase the quality of education. The system has blamed families to choose “irrationally”, BUT shouldn’t be the system responsible for the presence of the minimum conditions so families will choose always between good schools and only the action of choice would be brought on the criterion of a different “educational project”?.

    Academic freedom is behind the idea of school choice, where families can choose different educational projects whether they are confessional or not, but freedom nowadays is associated with the choice between a good or a bad school. This means that the freedom has been reduced to its minimum expression.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

UCL Institute of Education

This blog was written by academics at the UCL Institute of Education (IOE), for anyone interested in current issues in education and related social sciences.
IOE Tweets
%d bloggers like this: