This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 19 October 2014, At: 07:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Discourse: Studies in the CulturalPolitics of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdis20

Mothers Marketing Work: theexperiences of mothers makingchoices for children with specialneedsHeather Wilkinson aa Lancaster University , Lancaster, UKPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Heather Wilkinson (1996) Mothers Marketing Work: the experiences ofmothers making choices for children with special needs, Discourse: Studies in the CulturalPolitics of Education, 17:3, 315-324, DOI: 10.1080/0159630960170302

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0159630960170302

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, Vol. 17, Mo. 3, 1996 315

Mothers Marketing Work: the experiences of mothersmaking choices for children with special needs

HEATHER WILKINSON, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

In this paper I explore the themes of choice and markets by focusing on the relationshipbetween the local and personal experiences of 15 mothers of children with specialeducational needs (SENs) to the wider theoretical and social changes occurring ineducation in England and Wales in the 1990s. I focus on this group as an interestingexample of the changing balance between market individualism and social collectivism,which creates new tensions and issues in education and welfare as a whole.

Central to my research are the questions of how these mothers negotiate their positionwithin the statementing1 and choice process and how their child's school place is secured.What happens when the discourses of the competitive market place meets the discoursesof special needs? I begin with a discussion on the implications of gender in the marketsystem and then, drawing on my empirical data, I discuss the work involved and somestrategies and resources used by mothers in securing a school place for their child withSENs. I conclude with a discussion of the conflicting discourses and their implications forthis particular group of education consumers.2

Factors of Choice—Gender and Work

The concept of 'choice' denotes some kind of active and gendered decision making(David et al., 1994, p. 12) as a key part of the market mechanism. I will begin bydiscussing the gendered work involved in the 'choice' process. Parental 'choice' can beseen as work because the process involves several time and resource consuming stagesrequiring committed organisation. Firstly, it involves a significant amount of time (toattend meetings, to visit schools, to read the school literature and to spend timediscussing and considering the options) for at least a few months, but often more,depending on the level of involvement of the parent. Secondly, this work is affected byeconomic resources, a car and telephone, for example, make the work easier and moreeffective. Thirdly, the concept of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) is essential forunderstanding the importance of each stage and the differential outcomes of theassessment and choice processes. For many parents the work of gaining a place in thechosen school can be seen as work paid off by securing the 'best' education for theirchild.

0159-6306/96/030315-10 © 1996 Journals Oxford Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

316 H. Wilkinson

This process represents work for all parents but is even more so for parents whosechildren have SENs as it requires extra effort in additional meetings and stages associatedwith health and educational identification, assessment and the subsequent statementingprocesses. For example several of the children in the study had to attend speech therapy,physiotherapy and hydrotherapy sessions, often in different locations.

Mothers have long been assumed as taking the central responsibility within the familyfor the education of their children, and the main policy shift in the 1980s and 1990sreflects and refocusses on these underlying policy assumptions around the key concept of'choice' through the shifting of parental responsibility from that of partner to consumer(Woods, 1988, p. 325). Although parental choice policy appears to be gender neutral—broadly aimed at and referring to 'parents', the actual work of school choice is often leftto mothers, especially for the primary aged children. This is part of a historical patternof the domestic division of labour which has changed relatively little (David, 1994,p. 47)—mothers take on the market through their responsibility for school 'choice'. Withthe rhetoric of the market in education now being almost unavoidable mothers are nowtaking on the subliminal and more explicit messages around their responsibility for theeducation of their child. In cases of families who have a child with SENs thisresponsibility falls even more under the remit of the mother due to the extra care andattention often required by a child with special needs.

This can be due to with the way parents cope with a child having SENs—in severalof my families the fathers rejected the concept of SEN and proclaimed that their childwould 'grow out of it' or wasn't as 'bad' as everyone thought. However the mothers,whilst often taking time to adjust to the idea, were more likely to be in contact with orhave more experience of other children with whom they could compare their own child'sdevelopment. For a school aged child the mothers were more likely to be in regularcontact with the teacher, when dropping off or collecting the child, so the mother tendedto be the first point of contact for discussion and thus to receive more first handinformation on their child's needs. The mothers in the research made most of thedecisions and then referred to the fathers at a later stage, for example several of themothers would go and look at a school then describe it to the father afterwards. In thenext section I look at how market discourses affect mothers and the differences whichoccur for mothers whose child has SENs.

Mothers, Markets and Choice

What is Choice?

The 'ideal' inherent in the choice scenario is best suited to middle class committedparents who have access to a range of schools and undertake an active 'choice processby collecting and assessing information in order to make a rational informed decision.The process of exercising choice becomes part of the private realm of individual'empowered' families and the responsibility for obtaining a school place lies with them.However for families with a child with special needs this process is not a private one. Itis side-tracked into the assessment and allocation system with the majority of decisionsbeing made by key professionals within the education and health systems.

The concept of 'choice' also carries assumptions about availability of different optionsto choose from, an availability dependant upon legislation, local policy, religious andethnic differences and demands, geography, transport costs, school response, and so on.Furthermore opportunities to make choices are generally limited to points of school entry

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Mothers Marketing Work 317

such as entry to primary school, the transfer from primary to secondary level and theoptions at post 16. Finally, the decision making process is far from rational or controlledand is far more likely to be based on an incremental and impressionistic evolutionaffected by a variety of influences (see also David, 1994, p. 131). The changes ineducation and to the welfare state more generally were also based on an ideal that marketforces would solve economic, social and political problems by shifting the balance ofpower from producer to consumer. In practice, however it is proving to be ratherdifferent—most of the current mainstream research, most notably that of Gewirtz et al.(1995), indicates that market opportunity for parents may reproduce and increase therange of existing class, geographical and economic inequalities. In the next section Iwould like to explore the complexities in the operation of choice in more detail.

Choice and SEN

When a child is identified as having special needs requiring additional support orresources to access educational provision then the system of statementing plays asignificant, if not crucial, role in securing a school place. Prior to the 1988 EducationReform Act several key problems around the statementing process had been identifiedincluding regional disparity, unnecessarily lengthy time frames for assessment, a diversityin approach and commitment to integration and the limited and marginalised role ofparents (Audit Commission, 1992). It became clear that inequalities existed even withinthis specific sector of education with some groups of parents being able to secure a higherlevel of provision than others with little regard to actual learning need (Riddell, 1994).

As in the general education sector, the role of the parents was becoming increasinglysignificant but it was unclear whether the introduction of market forces would be theanswer to some of the problems specific to the SEN sector. Initially the ERA (1988)ignored or overlooked this sector. Speculation around the effects of the market weremostly negative (Bowe et al., 1992; Lee, 1992; Vincent et al., 1993) and indeed much ofthe recent research gives cause for concern (Lunt & Evans Lunt, 1994, p. 30 in Riddell& Brown). Gerwirtz et al. (1995, p. 97) briefly hint at the impact of changes in producerorganisation and marketing strategies which see:

a redistribution of resources and a shift in emphasis away from the mosteducationally vulnerable towards the most academically able. We are alsoseeing school management and organisation increasingly geared towards realis-ing instrumental, narrowly focused academic ends.

Despite these fears the imposition of market forces on the special education sector wentahead and 1993 saw the issuing of the Code of Practice for SEN followed closely by the1993 Education Act. This legislation addressed the issue of SEN in the market place byincreasing the emphasis on the role of parents in the assessment and decision makingprocess and by extending budgetary and management powers through Local Manage-ment of Schools to special schools.

Tensions between Mothers, Special Needs and the Market

These changes in themselves create some of the more problematic aspects of marketchoice in special needs education. The mothers in my research were situated within thecurrent SEN rhetoric, media debates, and other mothers' discussions, and some of themothers also had older children with whom they had already gone through the schoolchoice process, so they did identify themselves with the notion of choice and as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

318 H. Wilkinson

consumers to varied degrees. However once their child was identified as having SENsthey underwent a gradual change in perception and self identity—they no longer feltthey were the 'choosers' in that most of the power in the decision making, negotiationand final decision rested with producers, especially the Educational psychologist, andultimately the schools. The mothers went through the process and to varying degrees feltinvolved in it, but none of the mothers in the sample felt it was ultimately their choice.The following quote is from the mother who was probably one of the most involved andaware mothers in the sample:

I don't think there is any choice. I think it's very misleading because yes it doessay parental choice you can choose, but I felt that my hands are tied, that Idon't really have very much choice. (Penny Metro Local Education Authority)

In the next section I explore some of the actual processes and strategies used by mothersin the school choice process.

Mothers Marketing Work: process and stages

Although the work varies for the mothers according to geography, time, economic andcultural resources they all played the following roles to some extent: coper, carer,networker, negotiator, decision maker and consumer. The roles of carer and coper arewell documented elsewhere (Finch & Groves, 1983; Ribbens, 1994) so I will focus on theother roles and strategies available to mothers in differing degrees.

Networker

All mothers are part of both formal and informal social networks with varied degrees ofinvolvement and contact. In my research, these networks clearly informed and influencedmothers' understanding and participation in the parental choice process in general. Theimportance of networks as 'shapers' of consumer desire and also as informing producersabout parental demand is beginning to be recognised in the mainstream research onschool choice:

such networks acting as powerful influences shaping parent's perceptions ofschools but also as significant channels which shape whether, and how,parental voice is heard by the school. (David et ai, 1994, p. 14)

However, networks of mothers whose children have special needs may be different fromthe mainstream networks encountered by mothers who undertake the ordinary choiceprocess. This is frequently the result of the identification of special needs resulting inperceived or actual stigma and lack of understanding. Many of the mothers built theirinformal networks through other mothers, perhaps through play groups or nurseryschool, but when a child's needs were identified as being different, the common pointsof sharing and contact began to fall away. Several of the mothers felt out of place in theirprevious networks and mentioned the sense of relief they felt when they accessed newnetworks where the mothers had had similar experiences and required similar types ofinformation and support. For example one mother said:

we went down to Mencap and that was like, just opened doors for me ... so itwas other parents there really helped me I think. I didn't find that I was onmy own. I thought I was on my own before. Nobody else had got problems,nobody else had a child with cerebral palsy. (Claudia Met Area)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Mothers Marketing Work 319

The themes of supportive, informative and powerful aspects of networks for the mothersreoccurred throughout my research, such networks had a clear impact upon theoutcomes of the assessment and allocation procedure. Mothers who were most dis-satisfied with the process and outcome were those who had economically and geographi-cally limited access to networks ... It is also significant that the networks encountered bythe mothers were in themselves gendered as friends, people in the voluntary organisa-tions, primary teachers, and other key people throughout the process tended to bewomen too. Networks tended to fall into three different types:

(i) informal networks based on reciprocal friendship and kin groups,(ii) semi formal networks based on voluntary organisations such as Mencap or special

needs parents groups,(iii) formal networks which involved educational and health authority professionals.

The impact of this access to networks can be seen at several levels. Firstly, there is thevery practical level of everyday support and sharing which is found through sharingcommon experiences and occurs mainly in the informal and semi formal networks. Thispractical support tends to have a significant emotional element, including access tocoping strategies offered in an empathetic manner. Such a network often helped mothersto come to terms with their child's needs and abilities and can be a significant point ofstress reduction.

So it's nice to speak to somebody like that because it gives you hope, you know,because you're always reading in the magazines and things, you always hearthe worst. So it's lovely to speak to somebody like that who can say you know,her Don is 16 and he's alright. (Ann Metro LEA)

Networks also offered information about benefits, charities, other specific support groupsand organisations:

They've been like a backbone really. They've really supported me and my son.When I went for his disability living allowance I ended up going to a tribunaland Mary came with me and she was like, you know, she was like my talkersort of thing really. And sort of said all the things, eventually we won. (SueMetro LEA)

Several of the mothers gained important information through networking allowinggreater insight into their child's needs and possibilities. Once mothers could build ontheir experiences they often felt more positive towards their child and the possibilities,previously painted quite negatively by the professionals involved. Mothers felt able to askquestions and express their emotions and dissatisfactions in this more supportiveenvironment. Finally, regular involvement in these groups offered the mothers anopportunity to have a break, to have some time to focus on themselves.

The opportunity and ability to access supportive networks improved mothers' 'marketposition' vis a vis school choice. Most of them benefited emotionally and practically froma higher level of information which increased their ability to understand and thereforeparticipate in negotiation and decision making. Mothers who had knowledge about thesystem and their child's needs and also mothers who used the semi formal networks foradvocacy were able to increase their localised power.

Two of the mothers felt quite strongly that their position improved just by making theprofessionals, especially the EPs, aware that they had certain information, and othermothers felt personally empowered to be more active in the process by having certaininformation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

320 H. Wilkinson

Importantly mothers felt they benefited on a variety of levels from having moreinformation on their child's needs and the statementing system. In the ideal marketinformation is freely available and in practice school prospectuses and newspapers' 'goodschool guides' have increased the proliferation of often confusing, producer information.Information such as league tables and examination results are not always helpful tomothers of children with SENs and indeed can be totally irrelevant. The kinds ofinformation which would be useful is often not openly available, or only gained fromothers' experiences or more specialised sources. In some cases it became clear thatmothers were basing decisions on partial or biased information and that informationcontrol was a strategy deliberately used by professionals to influence the negotiationprocess.

iator and Decision Maker

Possessing information and having a supportive network appears to place mothers in amuch stronger, but not necessarily strong, negotiating position. This positioning is linkedto the fluid and complex power relations which occur throughout the choice process. Tobe able to participate in the assessment and allocation process, a mother has to be awarethat it exists to begin with, its meanings, stages and the key people, implications andpossible outcomes.

Despite the opportunities for parental involvement now beginning to appear in theformal procedure, not all mothers undertook an active role. The assessment andallocation procedure has developed from the assumptions of rational decision makingunderlying the Warnock report (1978) indicating a process of negotiation between severalindividuals (Cornwall, 1987, p. 107). Health and educational professionals have differentvested interests, including personal, political and economic agendas, and maintain theirdifferent negotiating positions with a range of strategies which all add to the complexityof the situation with which mothers have to engage. Mothers' ability to do this is linkedto cultural, economic and social capital. For example one mother felt that her access tofacilities such as computers and photocopiers allowed them an advantage:

getting Adrian statemented was just like another aspect of the business really.(Lucy Rural LEA)

What is interesting in this complex process is that what appears to be based on a rationalchoice model is in fact more likely to be a process of negotiation around a decision whichhas already been made, usually by the Educational Psychologist (EP). For several of thechildren in my study, EPs and even some administrative staff, were confidently predictingoutcome at very preliminary stages. This capacity to preempt the process often appearsto be linked to the availability of resources, about which the EPs have a clear 'insiders'understanding as Cornwall points out:

Much of the discussion and negotiation appears to take place about a decisionto be made, whereas in fact the decision has already been taken by virtue oflimited alternatives. (Cornwall, 1987, p. 114)

For mothers having an 'insider' position may not be enough to gather significantknowledge. For example a mother in the Rural LEA, who is also a nurse, was under thefalse impression that the administrative assistant she was dealing with was a key personin the process. Gate keeping roles such as this are also crucial in maintaining the profileof 'expert' knowledge/power.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Mothers Marketing Work 321

During the negotiation process mothers are already in a position of disadvantage withregard to more knowledgeable professionals whose own agenda have been set accordingto resources available to the SEN 'market'. It is crucial, if the mothers are to make anydifference to the outcome, for them to get a foothold in the process. Most of the mothers'involvement was limited to completing a background report, especially in the Rural LEAwhere none of the mothers were asked to attend decision making meetings. Practically,mothers have to maintain contact with the process by understanding different stages andcontacting key personnel; and have time and transport to attend meetings. However,three mothers in the study had made a point of attending every meeting, keeping inregular contact with professionals, and accumulating detailed files on the process, but thefinal outcomes were no more satisfactory or participatory than for the other mothers. Forthe mothers to make some impact on the process by challenging the professionals theyhave to take an incredibly proactive role drawing on practical and more abstract time,economic and cultural resources.

Mothers also need to have the cultural resources to be able to speak and makethemselves heard at meetings, especially if they are in disagreement. This is particularlydifficult as mothers are not perceived as powerful or expert and therefore have toconvince the professionals of their ability before they can play a more active role:

I can't tell you exactly what his needs are because I'm just the mother, I'm nota professional. (Sally Metro LEA)

Not even the most empowered and self aware mother in my sample reached thisposition. In one case (Jake/Penny Metro LEA) I observed two meetings in which theprofessionals appeared to be listening to and taking the mother seriously and on bothoccasions they made decisions and held significant discussions after the mother had leftthe meeting. In another case (Harry/Jenny Metro LEA) the mum knew far more abouther sons' rare needs than the EP, but the outcome of this case was actually a negotiateddeal between the EP and the head of a school, whose hidden agenda was to retain aqualified member of staff.

Consumer/Producer Relationships

Despite supportive networks, despite power accrued through knowledge, mothers remainunder influence of professionals and their strategies. The introduction of market forcesinto the special needs system has implications for this unequal power balance andtherefore for wider ideologies about special needs. This problem is perhaps bestillustrated by the choice between mainstream and special school placements.

The 'choice' between mainstream and special school provision has always been anintegral part of the statementing assessment but by giving special schools a place asproducers in a competitive environment the implications of this choice have subtlychanged. Previously location was mainly based on level of need and where best thoseneeds could be met and in the main (but by no means consistently) special schools wereincreasingly for children with the most 'severe' needs.

Despite claiming to be pro integration for children with special needs, both LEAsstudied had retained a range of special schools, and both areas introduced LMSS at anearly stage. It is difficult to assess the extent to which the 'type' of special need impactedupon placement decisions, but both LEAs met speech and language needs in resourcedunits and in these cases statements were invariably made for this type of provision.Related to this allocation it is interesting that the Metro LEA had its speech and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

322 H. Wilkinson

language units attached to mainstream primary schools whilst the Rural LEAs' unitswere attached to special schools. This policy remit effectively removed parental choice aschildren were located in the available provision which was discussed in terms of the 'best'or 'only' alternative.

However the option is now more complex in that parents may see the choice not interms of the wider collective debate on integration (and resources) but as an individual'choice' in terms of meeting their own child's needs from a diversity of provision. Severalof my mothers saw the special schools as providing a range of services and facilitiesbeneficial to their child and not easily accessible through a mainstream placement.

I'm not one of these people that I want her to go to a mainstream school forthe sake of it. If I think a special school can provide what she wants, then that'swhere she'll go. (Ann Metro LEA)

The reorganised structure of power for the producers and the introduction of LMS intospecial schools means that they are competing with mainstream schools for pupils; andmainstream schools are looking less favourably on pupils with complex or less 'mar-ketable' needs, (e.g. behavioural problems or statements without additional resources).This 'market' situation means that the professional agenda is less likely to be straightfor-wardly pro-integration. Professionals may have knowledge of special units with spareplaces, which appeared to be an underlying agenda in two of the families in my study,with the parents being 'encouraged' to visit special provision when they clearly were notin favour of segregated provision and the needs of the child were not yet fully assessed.It was also apparent that mothers were basing their decision on emotional reasons whichwere often used by the professionals to justify a decision, for example one mother feltemotionally pressurised into accepting a special school place:

Because they, you know, seemed to me that they were saying that that schoolwas better than the other, and I want the best for my son. (Penny Metro LEA)

The choice between mainstream and special school provision is important as mothersmay 'choose' a special school as a result of push factors (where mainstream schools rejecttheir child) and pull factors (where the special school may be more open and 'caring' orhave extra 'specialised' resources). 'Choice' in these cases is not based on educationalneeds but on the extra social or health needs of the child.

All these complex issues highlight the tension which exists for mothers making 'marketbased' choices for children with special needs. The parental relationship with the schoolis another important dimension. If a child is already in a school when special needs areidentified, the mothers may have an easier time maintaining the mainstream provision,depending on the attitude of the individual school/head and the degree to which it is aschool initiated statement. For children awaiting a school place judgements based on typeof SEN and value of statement were often made by the schools over which neitherparents nor the other professionals had much control.

The problem is balancing the rights of individual parents as consumers to chooseagainst the collective possibility of mainstreaming. This is an interesting dilemma, as therights of parents as consumers are closely linked to the market mechanism, but evidenceshows how a positive individual action can adversely affect the collective group(Jonathon, 1991). Adler et al. (1989) for example, indicated that the decisions of 10% ofparents would affect the options for the remaining 90% of parents. Can this individual-istic competitive element help meet the needs of children with SENs?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Mothers Marketing Work 323

Can the Market Meet Special Needs?

It is apparent from the local and personal experiences of my mothers that the theoreticalideals of the markets create significant practical and ethical tensions. Negotiating a schoolplace indicates a shift away from collective interests to a more individualistic andcompetitive basis for the allocation of resources and mainstream school places.

Accessing supportive networks and possession of cultural and economic capital canincrease the potential market position of the mother. However, despite the marketrhetoric around parental choice, securing a school place for children with special needsremains problematic for mothers because the ultimate allocative decision making restswith the producer not the consumer. Instead of parents increasing their share of marketpower, it appears that the struggle is based on a more complex power division in a threetier structure (schools, LEA and parents).

Furthermore once a school place has been secured this is not the end of the mothers'work, due to ongoing reviews and the protection of extra provision. Several mothers said"the statement's only the beginning not the end".

Correspondence: Heather Wilkinson, Dept of Applied Social Science, Lancaster University,Lancaster, LA1 4YL, E-mail: heather@ehl6.demon.co.uk.

NOTES

1. In England and Wales a statement of special educational needs is a document outlining educational needs

and the necessary additional in-school provision following a multi agency assessment. This system of

allocation and provision was introduced by the 1981 Education Act and was underpinned by the notion

of integration (Warnock Report, 1978).

2. For the purpose of this article I am using the term 'special needs education' and 'SEN' to indicate the

continuum of provision for children with a range of special needs.

3. For different interpretations of choice see Macbeth et al. (1986); Gerwirtz et at. (1995) and David (1993).

REFERENCES

ADLER, M., PETCH, A. & TWEEDIE, J . (1989) Parental Choice and Educational Policy (Edinburgh, Edinburgh

University Press).

AUDIT COMMISSION (1992) Getting in on the Act: provision for pupils with special educational needs—the national picture

(London, HMSO).

BALL, S. (1994) Education Reform: a critical and post structuralist approach (Buckingham, Open University Press).

BOURDIEU, P. (1986) Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste (London, Routledge).

BOWE, R. & BALL, S. WITH G O L D , A. (1992) Reforming Education and Changing Schools (London, Routledge).

Bowe, R., BALL, S. & GEWIRTZ, S. (1994) Captured by the discourse? issues and concerns in researching

'parental choice', British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(1), pp. 63-78.

CORNWALL, N. (1987) Statementing and the 1981 Act the process of decision making (Cranfield Press).

DAVID, M. (1993) Parents Gender and Educational Reform (Cambridge, Polity Press).

DAVID, M., W E S T , A. & RIBBEXS, J . (1994) Mothers Intuition? choosing secondary schools (London, Falmer Press).

D E E M , R., BREHONY, K. & H E A T H , S. (1995) Active Citizenship and the Governing of Schools (Buckingham, Open

University Press).

DEPT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (DES) (1978) Special Educational Needs: report of the Committee of Enquiry into the

education of handicapped children and young people, The Warnock Report (London, HMSO).

DEPT F O R EDUCATION (1992) Choice and Diversity: a new framework for schools, Cmnd 2021 (London, HMSO).

EDUCATION A C T 1981 (London, HMSO).

EDUCATION REFORM A C T 1988 (London, HMSO).

EDUCATION A C T 1993 (London, HMSO).

FINCH, J . & G R O V E S , D. (Eds) (1983) A Labour of Love—women work and caring (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4

324 H. Wilkinson

FULTON, O. (1994) Consuming education, in: R. KEAT, N. WHITELEY & N. ABERCROMBIE (Eds) The Anatomyof the Consumer (London, Routledge).

GEWIRTZ, S., BALL, S. & BoWE, R. (1995) Markets Choice and Equity in Education (Buckingham, Open UniversityPress).

HADLEY, R. & WILKINSON, H. (1995) Integration and its future: a case study of primary education and physicaldisability, Disability & Society, 10(3), pp. 309-323.

HILL, M. (Ed.) (1993) The Policy Process (London, Harvester Wheatsheaf).HIRSCHMANN, A.O. (1970) Exit Voice and Loyalty (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).HOYLES, L. & MEANS, R. Implementing the White Paper on Community Care, Studies in Decentralisation and Quasi

Markets, Paper 4 (Bristol, School for Advanced Urban Studies).JONATHON, R. (1990) State education service or prisoners dilemma: the 'hidden hand' as a source of education

policy, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 22(1).

KENWAY, J . (1995) The Marketisation of Education: mapping the contours of a feminist perspective, paper presented at

ECER Conference, Bath 1995.LEE, T. (1992) Local management of schools and special educational, in: T. BOOTH, W. SWANN, M.

MASTERTON & P. POTTS (Eds) Policies for Diversity in Education (London, Routledge).LE GRAND, J. & BARTLETT, W. (1991) Quasi Markets and Social Policy (London, Macmillan).LUNT, I. & EVANS, J. (1994) Dilemmas in special educational needs—some effects of LMS, in: S. RIDDELL &

S. BROWN (Eds) Special Educational Needs Policy in the 1990s—Wamock in the Market Place (London, Routledge).

RIDDELL, S. & BROWN, S. (Eds) (1994) Special Educational Needs Polity in the 1990s—Wamock in the Marketplace

(London, Routledge).THOMPSON, G. (1991) Introduction, in: G. THOMPSON,J. FRANCES, R. LEVACIC & J. MITCHELL (Eds) Markets,

Hierarchies & Networks: the co ordination of social life (London, Sage with OUP).

TOMLINSON, S. (1981) Educational Subnormality: a study in educational decision making (London, Routledge & Kegan

Paul).WILKINSON, H. (1994) The Experience of Choice by Parents whose Children have Special Educational Needs, paper

presented to BERA Conference, Oxford 1994.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

7:13

19

Oct

ober

201

4