Open doors events as a mechanism for schools to improve/reaffirm status in the local education market

• In Event: Markets and school choice

Proposal

In the Spanish education system, the transition to upper secondary education (1) is of crucial importance in the educational political arena as it is conceived by several international organism such as OECD and UE as the minimum educational level to ensure social and labour inclusion. There is a common rationale in policy documents that frame these transitions as a matter of individualistic and rational choice, and related to young people’s academic achievements, talents and aspirations (Tarabini, Curran, Castejón, Montes, 2017). In fact, as it is the first transition after the end of compulsory education in Spain, it is conceived as the first “real choice” provided to students. Nevertheless, as we have demonstrated elsewhere (Tarabini et al. 2017), there are systemic and institutional elements that mediate post 16 choices and educational transitions.

Based on a broader study that explores the impact of secondary schools in framing post16 years-old educational opportunities, this paper aims to better understand how open doors events represent key institutional devices to position schools in the education market. Specifically, the aim of this paper is to explore how these devices contribute to the reproduction and transformation of educational inequalities in the access to upper secondary education (Podolny, 1993; Van Zanten and Legavre, 2014). In this sense, we understand open door events as socially structured spaces, fields in Bourdiesian terms, in which agents - in this case upper secondary schools- struggle to maintain or improve their position in the educational market.

To discuss this, the article draws on a data from a qualitative study based on observations in 26 open doors events during the academic year 2017/18 in the city of Barcelona. The schools selected include a variety of public/private schools (2), different social composition and the main selection criteria was that they offer both academic and professional tracks.

The paper explores differences in discourses among observed schools when providing information to attract students from a twofold perspective: on the one hand, material resources related to facilities, selection process, and pedagogic methodologies are analysed and, on the other hand, symbolic discourses on how vocations are built, about different prestige related to academic and professional tracks, or about the factors that explain successful trajectories in each kind of track.

The initial findings of this study highlight the presence of a variety of discourses among analysed schools related to their strategies for attracting students: discourses oriented to maintaining their current status, discourses oriented to improving the status, and discourses oriented to “surviving” the pressure of the market. The paper contributes in better understanding of the dynamics of school competition in upper secondary education and how these dynamics shape educational opportunities of young people in this context.

(1) The Spanish education system is compulsory and formally comprehensive from the ages of 6 to 16 years old. At the end of compulsory schooling all students achieve the same certificate, which allows them to access to upper secondary education. Upper secondary education in Spain is organized into two tracks: academic or general (Bachillerato, ISCED 3A) and vocational (Formación Profesional de Grado Medio, ISCED 3B). Both tracks last for two years (from 16 to 18 years old). Thus, the transition from lower to upper secondary education is the most relevant in the Spanish case.

(2) The provision of upper secondary education is developed by public and private institutions (both completely private or publicly subsidized). In the case of the city of Barcelona, academic track is provided by public schools (40%), private-subsidized (40%) and completely private (20%), while vocational track is provided in public schools (30%), private-subsidized (40%) and completely private (30%).

Authors

• Marta Curran Fàbregas, Autonomous University of Barcelona

• Alba Castejon, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

• Martí Manzano Moliner, Autonomous University of Barcelona

• Aina Tarabini Castellani, Autonomous University of Barcelona