Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:Industrial & Commercial Training:Vol32.Issue5.2000:
Marketing schools and consumer choice
Janet A. Harvey Department of Educ ation, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, UK and
Hugh Busher Division of Educ ation, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
States that the concept of
marketing is regarded with
suspicion by many in education because of its commercial implications. Marketing
is seen as a potential tool for
the application of market
forces and is therefore
regarded as ethically undesirable. Argues that the methods
and ideology of commercial
marketing, if properly understood and correctly applied
by professionals in education,
can be benefi cial rather than
harmful, and may be imperative for schools and colleges
wishing to attract students
and to offer them the most
relevant provision.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [ 1996] 2 6 –3 2
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 26 ]
What can marketing of fer
education?
E du ca tion is a ser vice to cu stom er s or clien ts,
a lth ou gh th a t sta tem en t r a ises qu estion s
a bou t th e n a tu r e of th e ser vice a n d th e iden tity of its con su m er s/ clien ts. Ma r k etin g in
a n y sph er e is con cer n ed w ith th e qu a lity of
th e r ela tion sh ips between pr odu cer s a n d
con su m er s. As a con cept m a r k etin g is n ot th e
sa m e th in g a s m a r k et for ces or m a r k et
a ccou n ta bility. Petch [1] felt th a t m a r k et
a ccou n ta bility is m a r k ed m or e by con fr on ta tion th a n by th e co-oper a tion desir a ble in
edu ca tion between sch ools a n d th eir stu den ts
a n d pa r en ts.
Wr a gg[2] expr essed str on g h ostility to edu ca tion becom in g su bject to m a r k et for ces.
Ma r k etin g su bsu m es a n ideology th a t m a k es
th e n eeds a n d w ish es of a n or ga n iza tion ’s
cu stom er / pu r ch a ser s m or e im por ta n t th a n
its m em ber s’ pr efer r ed m eth ods of wor k in g.
It ca n a lso a ppea r to defin e th e va lu e of a
pr odu ct or ser vice solely in ter m s of wh a t
pu r ch a ser s a r e pr epa r ed to pay for it a n d
th er efor e to en cou r a ge pr ovider s of ser vices,
su ch a s sch ools, to con sider qu estion s of cost
of ser vice m or e im por ta n t th a n eth ica lly
r ou n ded pr ocesses of pr a ctice. Tea ch er s fi n d
th e com m er cia l va lu es of com petition a n d
in dividu a l ch oice in com pa tible w ith edu ca tion a l goa ls of pr ovidin g equ ita ble oppor tu n ities for th e lea r n in g a n d developm en t of a ll
people. Ma r k etin g th eir pr ofession a l ser vices
a ppea r s to cr ea te a ten sion between a n
em ph a sis on socia l va lu es wh ich pu t th e good
of th e in dividu a l a bove th a t of society a n d
th ose socia l va lu es wh ich give pr efer en ce to
th e gr ea test good of th e gr ea test n u m ber of
people in a com m u n ity.
Th is pa per con sider s h ow a deta iled u n der sta n din g of m a r k etin g ca n a llow tea ch er s to
im plem en t th eir edu ca tion a l va lu es m or e
su ccessfu lly wh en fa cin g th e pr essu r es of
com petition a n d pa r en ta l ch oice, wh eth er in
in depen den t sch ools or in sta te sector edu ca tion su ch a s th a t br ou gh t a bou t by edu ca tion
le gisla tion in th e UK sin ce 1980.
Marketing a service
In th e com m er cia l wor ld m a r k etin g h a s
evolved over th e la st h a lf-cen tu r y, th e focu s of
in ter est ch a n gin g fr om con su m er goods in
th e 1950s th r ou gh con cer n w ith in du str ia l
m a r k ets in th e 1960s to a tten tion on n on -pr ofit
or ga n iza tion s a n d th e ser vices sector in th e
1970s a n d 1980s. Recen t tr en ds tow a r ds r ela tion sh ip m a r k etin g, w ith its r ecogn ition th a t
m a r k etin g a ffects a fir m ’s em ployees a n d
su pplier s a s well a s its cu stom er s[3], pa r ticu la r ly su ggest th e r eleva n ce of m a r k etin g to
edu ca tion .
Th e Br itish In stitu te of Ma r k etin g defin es
m a r k etin g a s:
…th e m a n a gem en t pr ocess r espon sible for
iden tifyin g, a n ticipa tin g a n d sa tisfyin g
cu stom er r equ ir em en ts pr ofita bly[4,p. 3].
In m a n u fa ctu r in g in du str y th is w a s
expr essed a s th e fou r P s: pr odu ct, pr ice, pr om otion a n d pla ce. P r odu cts wer e th e goods
sold; pr ice h a d to cover th e cost of m a n u fa ctu r e a n d a r ea son a ble m a r gin of pr ofit; pr om otion a dver tised th ose fea tu r es wh ich distin gu ish ed a pr odu ct fr om its com petitor s;
pla ce r efer r ed to th e poin t of sa le a n d th e
distr ibu tion n etwor k wh ich su pplied it. It w a s
believed th a t th ese fou r in gr edien ts n eeded to
be ba la n ced to for m a “m a r k etin g m ix”[5].
Alth ou gh th e m a r k etin g of ser vices su ch a s
leisu r e a ctivities, telecom m u n ica tion s a n d
edu ca tion h a s m a n y sim ila r ities to th e m a r k etin g of goods, th er e a r e som e im por ta n t
differ en ces. For exa m ple, con ceptu a lly th er e
a ppea r s to be n o u n iver sa lly a ccepted defin ition of a ser vice. In pa r t th is is beca u se ser vices cover su ch a n en or m ou s r a n ge of fu n ction a l differ en ces, fr om tr a n spor t h ir e to
ba n k in g[6], wh ich m a k e it difficu lt to pr escr ibe com m on str a te gies for m a r k etin g.
F u r th er, ser vice in du str ies h ave n o ta n gible
pr odu cts, a lth ou gh m a n y h ave ta n gible goods
in sepa r a ble fr om th eir pr ovision – a secr eta r y’s docu m en ts, for exa m ple, or a n a ir lin e’s
sea ts in its a ir cr a ft. Mor eover it is a lm ost
im possible to deta ch th e sa le of a ser vice fr om
its pr ovider – wh en clien ts pu r ch a se le ga l
ser vices th ey u su a lly see a law yer, too. Sin ce
in m a n y ser vice in du str ies a lm ost a n y
m em ber of sta ff m ay com e in to con ta ct w ith
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
th e cu stom er s th er e is a n eed for a ll sta ff to be
aw a r e of a n or ga n iza tion ’s policies a n d pr efer r ed pr a ctices[7].
Ru sh ton a n d Ca r son [8] defin ed th e ch a r a cter istics wh ich ser vice in du str ies h ave in
com m on , a n d wh ich distin gu ish th em fr om
m a n u fa ctu r in g in du str y, a s in ta n gibility
(ser vices ca n n ot be iden tifi ed by th e sen ses);
h eter ogen eity (th e h u m a n elem en t in volved
in th eir pr ovision m ea n s th ey ca n n ot be sta n da r dized); per ish a bility; a n d in sepa r a bility
(th e pr ovision of a ser vice ca n n ot be sepa r a ted fr om its con su m ption ). Th ese fa ctor s
led Cowell[9] to a dd th r ee fu r th er P s – people,
pr ocess, a n d ph ysica l eviden ce th a t a ser vice
is bein g deliver ed – to th e or igin a l “fou r P s”
m a r k etin g m ix. Th e la st ca te gor y h e m en tion s in clu des th e cu ltu r e a n d en vir on m en t
in wh ich a ser vice is deliver ed. Ba teson [10]
str essed th e im por ta n ce of m a n a gin g th is
effectively, a poin t wh ich ca n h a r dly be over sta ted in th e con text of sch oolin g.
Service characteristics in
education
Ru sh ton a n d Ca r son [8] r e ga r ded in ta n gibility
a s th e sin gle m ost im por ta n t differ en ce
between goods a n d ser vices. Gr ay[11, p. 14]
poin ted ou t th a t th er e a r e va r yin g de gr ees of
in ta n gibility, w ith edu ca tion bein g:
r igh t a t th e “in ta n gible” en d of th e spectr u m , w ith few if a n y ta n gible pr odu cts
n or m a lly pr ovided a s pa r t of th e ser vice.
In ta n gibility m a k es it difficu lt for poten tia l
clien ts to a ssess th e qu a lity of a ser vice,
except by look in g a t th e ta n gible elem en ts
a ssocia ted w ith it, wh eth er it be th e tidin ess
a n d em ptin ess of du stbin s in r efu se collection
or exa m in a tion r esu lts a n d stu den t beh aviou r in sch ools. Lovelock [12] poin ted to th e
im por ta n ce in ser vice in du str ies of th e cu stom er ser vice fu n ction to en su r e th a t cu stom er s’ n eeds a n d expecta tion s wer e m et
effectively.
On e of th e m a jor pu r poses of m a r k etin g,
th er efor e, is to expla in to poten tia l clien ts th e
ser vices or pr odu cts th ey a r e a bou t to pu r ch a se, a s well a s tr yin g to per su a de th em to
bu y a pa r ticu la r br a n d. Ma r k etin g fu n ction s
in clu de cu stom er edu ca tion a s well a s sa les.
Sch ools, for exa m ple, ca n expla in wh a t oppor tu n ities a r e offer ed to stu den ts, su ch a s h ow
a n d wh a t th ey a r e ta u gh t. Gr ay[11] th ou gh t
th a t th e pr epa r a tion a n d pr om otion of a n
in stitu tion ’s m ission sta tem en t, th e u se of a
logo, a n d ca r efu l pu blic r ela tion s wou ld h elp
pa r en ts a n d stu den ts to iden tify th e pa r ticu la r ser vices offer ed. P a r dey[13] su ggested th a t
pr ocess or m eta -va r ia bles, su ch a s eva lu a tion
of th e en vir on m en ts w ith in wh ich a ser vice is
pr ovided – h ow, for exa m ple visitor s to a
sch ool a r e welcom ed – h elp clien ts to eva lu a te
th e qu a lity of ser vice th ey r eceive.
Th e pr ovision of ser vices ten ds to be a h eter ogen eou s pr ocess. To som e exten t th e qu a lity of pr ovision depen ds on th e per son a l
sk ills a n d a ttr ibu tes of ea ch pr ovider w ith in
a n or ga n iza tion wh o is in con ta ct w ith th e
clien ts. Hom ogen eity of ser vice, u n lik e th a t of
goods on a pr odu ction lin e, is difficu lt to
a ch ieve sin ce th e people in volved, pr ovider s
a n d clien ts, a r e a ll differ en t. Tea ch in g a s a
cr a ft is depen den t on tea ch er s’ in ter per son a l
sk ills a n d th e socia l in ter a ction s of gr ou ps of
stu den ts. E ven if a cu r r icu lu m is pr escr ibed,
a s it h a s been in sta te sch ools in E n gla n d a n d
Wa les sin ce 1988, h ow sta ff tea ch a n d h ow
stu den ts r espon d to th eir peda gogy w ill va r y.
Sch ools, lik e oth er ser vices, pr ovide som eth in g wh ich is per ish a ble a n d wh ich , in its
cr ea tion , is la r gely in sepa r a ble fr om th e
in ter a ction s of tea ch er / pr ovider s a n d stu den t/ clien ts. Th e pr ocess of edu ca tion is
per ish a ble beca u se it is “con su m ed” a t lea st
pa r tia lly a t th e poin t of deliver y[6]. In edu ca tion , a lesson m issed by a n a bsen t stu den t
ca n n ot be r ecr ea ted iden tica lly, a lth ou gh its
con ten t m ay be con veyed. Lin k ed to th is per ish a bility is in sepa r a bility: tea ch in g a n d
lea r n in g a r e in extr ica bly in ter tw in ed. To
com plica te m a tter s fu r th er, stu den ts u su a lly
in ter a ct w ith on e a n oth er in com plex w ays
du r in g lesson s, h elpin g on e a n oth er to lea r n
a s well a s lea r n in g w ith th e tea ch er. E ffectively, stu den ts both pr odu ce a n d con su m e
th e edu ca tion a l pr odu ct, k n ow ledge. Som e
ser vice in du str ies tu r n in sepa r a bility to
th eir a dva n ta ge by fea tu r in g th e pr ovider s a s
pa r t of th e ben efi t of th e ser vice[11]. Sch ools
ca n pr om ote th e pa stor a l ca r e, extr a cu r r icu la r a ctivities a n d a ca dem ic qu a lifica tion s of
th eir sta ff a s va lu a ble fea tu r es, a ttr a ctive to
stu den ts a n d th e loca l com m u n ity.
Identifying the client customers of
education
In a ddition to its edu ca tive a n d sa les fu n ction s, m a r k etin g h a s, per h a ps pr im a r ily, a
r esea r ch fu n ction . To su r vive, a n in du str y
m u st iden tify th e n eeds of its poten tia l clien ts
a n d develop pr odu cts or ser vices wh ich w ill
m eet th ese n eeds[14] a t a pr ice wh ich th e
cu stom er s ca n a ffor d to pay. Th is a ppea r s to
cr ea te a n eth ica l m in efield for pu blic ser vices: to wh a t exten t sh ou ld th e qu a lity of
th eir pr ovision be gea r ed on ly to th a t for
wh ich clien t cu stom er s a r e w illin g or a ble to
pay? To wh a t exten t sh ou ld th eir qu a lity of
pr ovision be deter m in ed by pr ofession a l
exper tise a pplied a ltr u istica lly to per ceived
[ 27 ]
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
a n d iden tified clien t/ cu stom er n eed r e ga r dless of th e costs in volved? To wh a t exten t
sh ou ld th e pr ice m ech a n ism , wh ich is th eor etica lly su pposed to r e gu la te m a r k ets, deter m in e both th e qu a lity of pr ovision a n d wh ich
cu stom er s r eceive wh a t qu a lity of pr ovision ?
F u r th er m or e, wh o pr ecisely a r e th e cu stom er s of edu ca tion ?
In edu ca tion , iden tifyin g th e cu stom er s or
clien ts, i.e. th e people wh o ben efi t fr om it, is
pr oblem a tic. Gr ay[11] n oted th a t clien ts a r e
often lon g-ter m u ser s of su ch th in gs a s th e
per son a l ser vices of a law yer, wh er ea s cu stom er s ten d to h ave br ief, on e-off con ta cts
w ith pr ovider s wh en pu r ch a sin g goods or
ser vices. On th is a r gu m en t sch ools wou ld
seem to h ave clien ts r a th er th a n cu stom er s.
Stu den ts a n d th eir pa r en ts u su a lly wor k for a
lon g tim e w ith th e sch ools wh ich th e stu den ts
a r e a tten din g, a s well a s ta k in g pa r t in th e
cr ea tion of th e lea r n in g pr ocess. Distin gu ish in g between clien ts a n d cu stom er s in th is
w ay is h elpfu l bu t does n ot a ddr ess th e deeper
pr oblem s of u n der sta n din g for wh om th e
edu ca tion ser vice is con str u cted, i.e. to wh om
it is a ccou n ta ble, even if it is clea r to wh om
th e ser vice of sch oolin g is deliver ed. It does
n ot a ssist sch ools to decide h ow to m a r k et
th em selves.
Petch [1] r e ga r ded pa r en ts a s th e con su m er s
of edu ca tion . Ma cbeth [15] su ggested th a t
th er e a r e fou r gr ou ps of people wh o ben efi t
fr om th e edu ca tion system :
1 th e pu pil (wh o r eceives in str u ction );
2 th e pa r en t (wh o dele ga tes a u th or ity over
th e ch ild to th e tea ch er );
3 th e ow n er s of a sch ool, wh eth er in depen den t or a sta te a u th or ity, wh o em ploy th e
sta ff; a n d
4 society a t la r ge.
He defin ed th e fir st gr ou p a s “con su m er s”
a n d th e secon d a s “th e sch ool’s pr im e
clien ts”[1, p. 16] beca u se in th e UK th ey a r e
le ga lly r espon sible for th e edu ca tion of th eir
ch ildr en u n til th e a ge of 16 yea r s.
An im plica tion of th e pr ecedin g pa r a gr a ph
is th a t sch ools sh ou ld m a r k et th em selves a s
m u ch to th eir pu pils a n d poten tia l pu pils a s
to th eir pu pils’ pa r en ts, both bein g per ceived
a s im por ta n t clien t gr ou ps. Th is is a n im por ta n t per spective wh ich h a s r ecen tly been
given su ppor t by th e wor k of Ru ddu ck et
a l.[16] wh o com m en t on th e a ccu r a cy a n d
per spica city of stu den ts’ view s of sch oolin g.
We wou ld su ppor t th is con ten tion , r e ga r din g
stu den ts, of wh a tever a ge, a s th e dir ect pr im a r y clien ts of edu ca tion , a n d deem in g th e
oth er sta k eh older s – pa r en ts, em ployer s,
society a t la r ge – to wh om a sch ool a lso h a s to
m a r k et itself, to be its secon da r y ben eficia r ies.
[ 28 ]
Stu den ts exer cise va r yin g de gr ees of con tr ol over th eir ch oice of edu ca tion a l in stitu tion s a t differ en t a ges. Alth ou gh m ost pa r en ts
select a ch ild’s pr im a r y sch ool, a t a ge 11 or 12,
ch ildr en m ay expect to con tr ibu te to th e decision [11]. Webster et a l.[17] fou n d th a t 69 per
cen t of fa m ilies in th eir su r vey on secon da r y
sch ool selection th ou gh t th eir ch ild’s opin ion s “ver y im por ta n t”. Stillm a n a n d Maych ell[18] a n d West et a l.[19] a lso fou n d th a t
pa r en ts took sign ifica n t a ccou n t of th eir ch ildr en ’s view s befor e m a k in g a fin a l ch oice. On
th e oth er h a n d, wh a tever in flu en ce ch ildr en
h ave over th eir pa r en ts’ per ception s of a
sch ool[20], pa r en ts a r e still th e m a jor, if n ot
th e sole, edu ca tion ch oice m a k er s for m ost
ch ildr en du r in g th eir yea r s of com pu lsor y
sch oolin g. Stu den ts a r e lik ely to m a k e th eir
ow n decision s a bou t post-com pu lsor y edu ca tion , a lth ou gh “pa r en ts a r e a lso in flu en tia l,
bu t m ay h ave ver y differ en t expecta tion s
fr om th ose of th eir offspr in g”[21, p. 109].
Ign or a n ce a bou t th e con su m er ’s en vir on m en t is on e of th e m a jor pr oblem s fa cin g
ser vice in du str ies[6] a n d edu ca tion is n o
exception . Ma n a gin g th is exter n a l en vir on m en t is on e of th e m a in ch a llen ges of m a r k etin g[4]. Ma r k etin g h elps a n or ga n iza tion to
iden tify h ow a n d wh y its clien ts ch ose it a n d
so to a ct m or e effectively to a ttr a ct clien ts to
it. Im plicit in m a n y m a r k etin g pr ocesses is
th e u n pr oven a ssu m ption th a t clien ts, given
a dequ a te k n ow ledge, w ill a lw ays m a k e r a tion a l ch oices wh ich m a xim ize th eir ben efits.
Th is pr esu pposes th a t clien ts h ave a ch oice,
wh ich is n ot a lw ays th e ca se wh er e th er e is
on ly on e sch ool ser vin g a pa r ticu la r a r ea or
pa r en ts a r e u n a ble to a ffor d th e a lter n a tive
(pr iva te) sch oolin g, if it exists. It a lso a ssu m es th a t in cr ea sin g th e fl ow of in for m a tion
to iden tifi ed clien t gr ou ps, th r ou gh sch ool
pr ospectu ses, for exa m ple, w ill n ecessa r ily
in cr ea se th e stu den t in flow su fficien tly to
cover th e costs of expen ditu r e on pu blic r ela tion s; a ga in , th is a ssu m ption is u n pr oven .
In deed, m a n y h ea dtea ch er s poin t to th e deleter iou s effect of th e costs of ela bor a te m a r k etin g exer cises on th eir bu dgets for cu r r icu lu m
pr ovision , on e of th e cr iter ia by wh ich pa r en ts ju dge th e su ccess of a sch ool.
Alth ou gh pa r en ts gen er a lly ten d to con sider th e sa m e br oa d r a n ge of fa ctor s, pr ior ities va r y fr om su r vey to su r vey. Th is in dica tes th e im por ta n ce of ever y in stitu tion
explor in g its ow n cu stom er ba se in or der to
u n der sta n d its specific n eeds a n d w a n ts[7].
J oh n son [22, p. 28] ou tlin ed th e m a in edu ca tion a l ch oices wh ich sch ools ca n offer pa r en ts:
pu blic or pr iva te; “fr ee” or fee-payin g; selective or n on -selective (by va r iou s cr iter ia );
str on gly or n om in a lly r eligiou s; r esiden tia l
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
No tio ns o f c o nsume r c ho ic e
in e duc atio n and the
atte ndant vie w that mo re
po we rful pe o ple , at le ast
financ ially, are mo re able to
gain the se rvic e pro visio n
the y want, fit in we ll with the
atte mpts by the UK
go ve rnme nt to intro duc e a
marke t into state e duc atio n
in the last 1 5 ye ars
or n on -r esiden tia l sin gle-sex or coedu ca tion a l; a ll-th r ou gh or a ge-r ela ted; in stitu tion a l or h om e-ba sed.
For pr im a r y sch ools, th e P low den Repor t[23]
fou n d th a t loca tion , r eligiou s eth os, wor d-ofm ou th r epor ts a n d pr ior fa m ily con ta cts w ith
a sch ool wer e a ll sign ifica n t fa ctor s a ffectin g
ch oice. Som e pa r en ts a lso con sider ed edu ca tion a l sta n da r ds a n d th e a tm osph er e of th e
sch ool to be im por ta n t.
Wh en ch i ld r en t r a n s fer fr om p r i m a r y t o
s econ d a r y s ch ool, m os t p a r en t s m a k e ei t h er
a ch i ld -focu s ed ch oi ce, b a s ed on t h e h ea lt h ,
a b i li t y a n d t em p er a m en t of t h e ch i ld con cer n ed , or a s ch ool-focu s ed ch oi ce b a s ed on
cr i t er i a s u ch a s s i ze, n a t u r e of s t u d en t i n t a k e (m i xed or s i n gle-s ex), a n d a m en i t i es [24]. Web s t er et a l.[17] fou n d t h a t s i b li n gs a t t h e s a m e s ch ool w er e t h e s i n gle
la r ges t i n flu en ce on p a r en t a l ch oi ce. T h er e
i s ev i d en ce t h a t s om e p a r en t s ch oos e s econ d a r y s ch ools on t h e b a s i s of t h e s u b ject s /
fa ci li t i es offer ed by s ch ools a n d by s t u d en t s ’
p er for m a n ce i n a ca d em i c s u b ject s [25,26].
Ad ler a n d Ra a b [27] n ot ed t h a t s ch ool a t t a i n m en t w a s of s u ffi ci en t i m p or t a n ce t o
en cou r a ge p a r en t s t o s en d ch i ld r en con s i d er a ble d i s t a n ces t o s econ d a r y s ch ool, u s u a lly t o s ch ools t h a t w er e la r ge or t h a t h a d a
s elect ive i n t a k e of s t u d en t s of h i gh s oci oecon om i c s t a t u s. T h e en q u i r i es of J oh n s on [22,28] i n t o p a r en t a l ch oi ce of i n d e p en d en t s ch ools ech o t h i s.
Socia l fa ctor s a lso h ave a m a jor in flu en ce
on pa r en ta l ch oice. E lliott[29] fou n d th a t
pa r en ts pla ced gr ea t va lu e on th e pr ocess of
edu ca tion . Th ey str essed th e im por ta n ce of
per son a l a n d socia l developm en t a n d th e
h a ppin ess of th e ch ildr en in sch ool.
Ha n for d[30, p. 4] fou n d th a t pa r en ts va lu ed
m ost “th e h idden ba sic fu n da m en ta lism of
sch ools” w ith th e beh aviou r of sta ff a n d cu r r en t stu den ts bein g per ceived a s th e k ey in dica tor s. P a r en ts’ per ception s of th ese beh aviou r s wer e m edia ted by a gen cies exter n a l to
th e sch ool, su ch a s th e n eigh bou r h ood
gr a pevin e a n d pa r en ts’ per son a l exper ien ces
of sch oolin g.
N e ga t ive p er ce p t i on s of s ch ools by p a r en t s
d a m a ge t h ei r a b i li t y t o r ecr u i t s t u d en t s.
Wes t et a l.[26] fou n d p a r en t s p a r t i cu la r ly
d i s cou r a ged by r e p or t s of p oor d i s ci p li n e/
b eh av i ou r, by a s ch ool’s b a d r e p u t a t i on , by
d i s li k e of w h a t t h ey s aw on a v i s i t or by a
s ch ool’s loca t i on . Bot h p os i t ively a n d n e ga t ively, t h e i m p or t a n ce of a s ch ool’s r e p u t a t i on loca lly, a n d t h e s t y le of t h e w elcom e
w h i ch i s offer ed t o p a r en t s, m u s t b e s een a s
m a jor fa ct or s i n i t s s u cces s i n r ecr u i t i n g
s t u d en t s.
Marketing for education
F ir m s m a r k et th em selves to a ttr a ct
cu stom er s to sell pr odu cts to ea r n m on ey to
su r vive. To m a r k et itself effectively a n or ga n iza tion n ot on ly n eeds to com m u n ica te w ith
its cu stom er s a n d clien ts bu t a lso to in volve
a ll its per son n el in th e cr ea tion of m a r k et
str a te gy[3]. In sch ools th is in clu des su ppor t
sta ff a s well a s tea ch in g sta ff. All n eed to
sh a r e ow n er sh ip of th e sch ools’ vision of
wh a t it is a im in g to a ch ieve a n d feel th ey h ave
a r ole to play in fu tu r e developm en t[31].
In th e bu sin ess wor ld, n eith er pr odu cts n or
ser vices a r e u su a lly m a r k eted a cr oss th e
wh ole of society. Differ en t k in ds of cu stom er
h ave differ en t w a n ts/ n eeds, wh ich m a r k etin g
sets ou t to iden tify. F a ilu r e by a fi r m to differ en tia te a dequ a tely between th e bu yin g beh aviou r of differ en t cu stom er s lea ds to poor cu stom er focu s[32] a n d u ltim a tely to th e fir m ’s
colla pse. Th e devolu tion of fu n din g to m a in ta in ed sch ools a n d colle ges in th e UK sin ce
th e la te 1980s h a s pr esen ted sch ools w ith th e
sa m e n eed to a ttr a ct a n d k eep stu den t clien ts.
In th e in depen den t sector of sch oolin g th is
situ a tion h a s existed for m u ch lon ger, a lth ou gh dem ogr a ph ic, socia l a n d r ecession a r y
pr essu r es a r e pr om ptin g in depen den t sch ools
a lso to r econ sider th e n eed for positive m a r k etin g.
N otion s of con su m er ch oice in edu ca tion
a n d th e a tten da n t view th a t m or e power fu l
people, a t lea st fin a n cia lly, a r e m or e a ble to
ga in th e ser vice pr ovision th ey w a n t, fi t in
well w ith th e a ttem pts by th e UK gover n m en t
to in tr odu ce a m a r k et in to sta te edu ca tion in
th e la st 15 yea r s. On th e oth er h a n d, th ey lie
u n com for ta bly a lon gside n otion s of socia l
ju stice a n d equ ity of edu ca tion a l pr ovision
wh ich h ave u n der pin n ed th e developm en t of
th e sta te sector of sch oolin g in th e UK for
m or e th a n a cen tu r y. Th is la tter per spective
em ph a sizes a n en titlem en t to edu ca tion
wh ich m eets th e va r yin g n eeds of a ll people
in a com m u n ity, r e ga r dless of th eir a bility to
w ield in flu en ce.
Sta te sch ools th er efor e fa ce a dilem m a ,
pa r ticu la r ly wh er e on ly on e sch ool ser ves a
loca l com m u n ity: wh eth er th ey ser ve th e
n eeds of a n en tir e com m u n ity or wh eth er
th ey ta r get pa r ticu la r gr ou ps of pa r en ts in it.
Ma r k etin g wou ld seem to su ggest th e la tter,
ta r getin g th ose wh o a r e m or e in flu en tia l, for
wh a tever r ea son s, bu t th is con fr on ts issu es of
equ ity of pr ovision . If a sch ool ta r gets on ly
specific clien t gr ou ps, it is lik ely th a t th e
n eeds a n d w a n ts of th ose pa r en ts a n d stu den ts n ot ta r geted w ill be m et less well th a n
th ose ta r geted. In th is r espect, per h a ps, in depen den t sch ools fa ce less of a pr oblem th a n do
sta te sch ools sin ce th ey ca n elect to ser vice a
[ 29 ]
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
n ich e m a r k et for pa r ticu la r pa r en t w a n ts a n d
in com e br a ck ets. If pa r en ts fi n d th e pr ovision
u n sa tisfa ctor y th ey ca n w ith dr aw th eir ch ildr en fr om th e sch ool.
In com petitive a r en a s, loca lities wh er e
sever a l sch ools a r e tr yin g to a ttr a ct th e sa m e
stu den t popu la tion , sch ools m ay w a n t to
a ttr a ct som e pa r en ts in pr efer en ce to oth er s.
Th ey cou ld iden tify th ese pa r en t n ich es in th e
m a r k et by specifi cs or by descr iptor s.
Specifics in clu de su ch item s a s th e r a te a t
wh ich clien ts pu r ch a se ser vices, th e r a n ge of
pr odu cts ava ila ble (in sch ools th is m igh t be
th e r a n ge of cou r ses or extr a cu r r icu la r a ctivities) a n d m edia exposu r e. Descr iptor s cover
va r ia bles su ch a s a ge (sch ools a r e u su a lly
eith er pr im a r y or secon da r y), gen der, geodem ogr a ph ics (socia l str u ctu r e of a sch ool’s
ca tch m en t a r ea ) a n d people’s pr efer r ed
lifestyle. In depen den t sch ools h ave m or e
oppor tu n ity th a n m a in ta in ed sch ools in th e
UK to se gm en t th eir m a r k ets by th ese va r ia bles.
On th e oth er h a n d, a n y sch ool w ish in g to
ser ve th e wh ole com m u n ity ca n u se th e sa m e
pr ocesses to iden tify th e specifi c n eeds of a ll
its poten tia l clien t gr ou ps, a llow in g it to differ en tia te its pr ovision to ea ch of th em . It
cou ld u se su ch pr ocesses to iden tify, for exa m ple, a n y disen ch a n ted gr ou ps of pa r en ts a n d
set ou t to m a k e th em feel m or e welcom e.
The seven Ps for satisfied school
clients
As in a n y oth er in du str y, sch ools m u st fi r st
pla n wh er e th ey w a n t to go, a n a lysin g th e
fou r P s – pr odu ct, pla ce, pr om otion a n d pr ice
– of th e or igin a l m a r k et m ix a s well a s th e
oth er th r ee P s su ggested by Cowell[9] –-people, pr ocess a n d th e ph ysica l eviden ce of
pr odu ction .
A sch ool’s pr odu ct is defi n ed by Ma r la n d
a n d Roger s[33, p. 9] a s “th a t cr ea ted by pr odu cin g – th a t is to lea d (‘du e’) for w a r d
(‘pr o’)”. For th em pr odu ct developm en t is
“…th e wor k of th e sch ool in esta blish in g wh a t
wou ld ben efit th e pu pil a n d r esea r ch in g a n d
pla n n in g it” a n d sepa r a tes deliver y, i.e. th e
a ctu a l tea ch in g/ tu tor in g, fr om con ten t: wh a t
a n d h ow it is bein g ta u gh t. Th ey su ggested
th a t “pr odu ct developm en t” in sch ools is
sh or th a n d for “pr epa r a tion ”: cu r r icu lu m
developm en t, pla n n in g for pa stor a l ca r e pr ogr a m m es a n d a n y oth er for w a r d pla n n in g
wh ich u tilizes th e sk ill of th e sta ff. However,
sch ool m a n a gem en t u su a lly h a s little con tr ol
over its pla ce of pr odu ction , a lth ou gh Bow les
et a l.[34] in dica ted th a t it cou ld con tr ol th e
site pr ovision of r oom s a n d tim e to cou r ses,
wh ile site m a in ten a n ce a n d m in or r epa ir s
[ 30 ]
h ave been th e r espon sibility of m ost sch ools
in th e UK sin ce 1990.
P r om otion of a n edu ca tion a l in stitu tion
m ea n s en su r in g th a t its wor k is u n der stood
a n d a ppr ecia ted by its pr im a r y a n d secon da r y
ben eficia r ies a s well a s by m or e dista n t sta keh older s su ch a s cen tr a l gover n m en t[20], fu r th er edu ca tion [35] a n d h igh er edu ca tion [36].
Devlin a n d Kn igh t[37] iden tified both in ter n a l
a n d exter n a l m a r kets a s r ecipien ts of th is
in for m a tion , th e in ter n a l m a r ket in clu din g a n
“im m edia te fa m ily” of sta ff, stu den ts a n d
gover n or s a n d a n “exten ded fa m ily” of pr esen t
pa r en ts a n d r ela tives, for m er stu den ts a n d
pa r en ts, oth er s wh o u se sch ool fa cilities, a n d
loca l tr a der s a n d ser vice pr ovider s to th e
sch ool[37, p. 16]. In th e exter n a l m a r ket th ey
iden tified feeder sch ools, com m u n ity or ga n ization s, in du str y a n d com m er ce a n d loca l
a u th or ities. Th eir defin ition s r a ise qu estion s
a bou t h ow m em ber sh ip of a sch ool a s a n or ga n iza tion is defin ed.
P r ice ca n n ot be sepa r a ted fr om pr om otion .
In depen den t sch ools obviou sly offer a com m er cia l ser vice bu t a ll sch ools a r e cost cen tr es a n d n eed to ba la n ce th eir bu dgets. Davies
a n d E llison [20] poin ted ou t th a t m a in ta in ed
sch ools in E n gla n d a n d Wa les sin ce 1990 m u st
a ttr a ct en ou gh stu den ts to gen er a te su fficien t
in com e to su r vive, i.e. to cover th eir costs.
Beca u se a t lea st two-th ir ds of th e r u n n in g
costs of a sch ool a r e spen t on per son n el[38],
th e deploym en t of su ch r esou r ces h a s to be
ca r efu lly ta ilor ed to m eet iden tified clien t
n eed. Stott a n d P a r r [31, p. 2] per ceived th a t
“…th e pr ice of edu ca tion , in r ea l ter m s, is
m or e th a n m on ey”. For stu den ts in m a n y
m a in ta in ed sch ools in th e UK th er e a r e, for
exa m ple, sch ool u n ifor m costs, tr avel costs
a n d th e effor ts to ga in a ccess[34]. In in depen den t sch ools su ch item s a r e over sh a dowed by
sch ool fees, offset in som e ca ses by differ en t
types of bu r sa r y su ppor t.
Yet, h istor ica lly th e tea ch in g pr ofession h a s
r esisted th e im plica tion s of th e “com m er cia l”
or “pr ice” a spects of edu ca tion , pr efer r in g to
im plem en t wh a t it per ceives a s edu ca tion a lly
desir a ble pr a ctices, r e ga r dless of cost. Th e
la ck of clea r com m er cia l in dica tor s of effectiven ess is a m a jor ca u se of th is pr oblem ,
a lth ou gh m eta -in dica tor s su ch a s th e popu la r ity of a sch ool or of som e cou r ses ca n be
u sed to a ssess th e lik elih ood th a t a sch ool or a
pa r ticu la r pr a ctice wou ld m a k e a pr ofit wer e
it in a com m er cia l m a r k et.
Of th e r em a in in g th r ee P s, sch ools m igh t be
sa id to h ave lim ited con tr ol over th e people.
Recen t edu ca tion le gisla tion in E n gla n d a n d
Wa les in 1986, 1987 a n d 1988 h a s given m a in ta in ed sch ools qu a si-em ploym en t power s,
power s wh ich in depen den t sch ools h ave h a d
for a lon g tim e, bu t th er e is exten sive em ploym en t le gisla tion in th e UK wh ich lim its h ow
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
su ch power s ca n be u sed. Sch ools a lso h ave
on ly lim ited con tr ol over th eir cen tr a l
pr ocesses of tea ch in g a n d lea r n in g, pa r tly
beca u se of lon g-esta blish ed tea ch er s’ pr ofession a l fr eedom s in th e cla ssr oom , a n d pa r tly
beca u se of th e pr escr iption sin ce 1988 by th e
UK cen tr a l gover n m en t of a N a tion a l Cu r r icu lu m . Th is in h ibits sch ools fr om a da ptin g
th e a ca dem ic cu r r icu lu m to th e iden tified
n eeds of th e com m u n ities wh ich for m th eir
m a r k ets. It is in th eir con tr ol of th e ph ysica l
en vir on m en t, su ch a s th e qu a lity a n d a m bien ce of th eir r oom s, a n d of th e ph ysica l eviden ce of th e lea r n in g pr ocesses, su ch a s th e
u se of open or r esou r ce-ba sed lea r n in g, th a t
sch ools h ave m ost fr eedom [34].
Is marketing ethical for education?
De bate s abo ut the
appro priate ne ss o f
marke ting to no n-pro fitmaking o rganizatio ns are no t
c o nfine d to e duc atio n
Tea ch er s a r e pr ofession a ls wh o, a s Bu r gess
[39] poin ted ou t, u se th eir k n ow ledge a n d
exper ien ce to a ssist th eir stu den ts a s clien ts
a n d wh o a ct in a ccor da n ce w ith a set of va lu es so th a t th eir con du ct tow a r ds th ese
clien ts is both eth ica l a n d pr ofession a l. Th eir
con cer n s a r e u su a lly w ith th e qu a lity of edu ca tion a l exper ien ce wh ich th ey pr ovide to
stu den ts a n d on ly r a r ely a n d r elu cta n tly w ith
th e com m er cia l or m a r k etin g a spects of th eir
wor k . Yet th e la tter pr ovide cr u cia l con str a in ts on r esou r ces wh ich in evita bly a ffect
ou tcom es.
Deba tes a bou t th e a ppr opr ia ten ess of m a r k etin g to n on -pr ofi t-m a k in g or ga n iza tion s a r e
n ot con fin ed to edu ca tion . Ha bgood[40] qu estion ed th e su ita bility of m a r k etin g m eth odologies for th e pu r poses of eva n geliza tion .
However, McIn tosh a n d McIn tosh [41, p. 9]
in dica ted th a t, a lth ou gh th e pu blic often
a ssocia te m a r k etin g w ith “slick a n d, per h a ps,
u n der h a n d pr ofession a lism ”, m a r k etin g w a s
a ctu a lly a n eth ica l im per a tive for ch a r ities. It
is im por ta n t to iden tify ben eficia r ies’ n eeds
a s a ccu r a tely a s possible to avoid w a sta ge of
sca r ce r esou r ces.
Ma r k etin g is a ph ilosoph y of m a n a gem en t
th r ou gh wh ich in stitu tion s con sider, deba te
a n d cla r ify th eir u n der lyin g pr in ciples a n d
pu r poses to m eet th e n eeds of th eir clien ts.
E du ca tion a l m a r k etin g r equ ir es th e iden tifica tion of stu den t a n d com m u n ity n eeds a n d a
com m itm en t to m eetin g th ose n eeds w ith a
h igh qu a lity pr odu ct[20]. P a r dey[13]
su ggested th a t th e clien t-cen tr ed n a tu r e of
m a r k etin g m a de it eth ica lly a ccepta ble in
edu ca tion , poin tin g ou t th a t va lu es sh a pe th e
goa ls a n d decision m a k in g of a n y or ga n iza tion . Gr ay[11] poin ted ou t th a t if a ll sta ff
involved in a sch ool a r e tr yin g to im pr ove th e
qu a lity of ser vice, a ll m u st be in volved in
pr om otin g “cu stom er ca r e” a n d in en h a n cin g
levels of “cu stom er ” sa tisfa ction . Th is is,
effectively, m a r k etin g a sch ool to its pr im a r y
ben eficia r ies, th e stu den ts, a n d th eir pa r en ts,
even if th e sta ff con cer n ed a r e n ot com for ta ble w ith th e u se of com m er cia l ter m in ology
to descr ibe it.
Th e a spect of m a r k etin g wh ich seem s to
ca u se m ost offen ce in sch ools is th a t wh ich
r ela tes to sellin g. It is th ou gh t to be u n pr ofession a l, if n ot u n eth ica l, for pr ofession a l ca r er s to tr y to a ttr a ct cu stom wh en th eir
im plicit pr ofession a l codes em ph a size look in g a fter people a ltr u istica lly. On th e oth er
h a n d, clien ts a n d poten tia l clien ts m ay n eed
to k n ow th e qu a lity of a sch ool’s pr odu ct/
pr ocess a n d th e com peten ce of its sta ff if th ey
a r e to m a k e r ea son ed ch oices a bou t h ow best
to m eet th eir ow n n eeds. Sch ool pr ospectu ses
a n d open days give pa r en ts som e ba sis for
in for m ed ch oices a s well a s bein g m ea n s of
givin g th em som e a ccou n t of h ow well a
sch ool is look in g a fter th eir ch ildr en . Per h a ps
a s Gu m m esson [42, p. 34] says “…it is n ot
u n eth ica l or u n wor th y to expr ess th e a dva n ta ges of a ser vice of a pr ofession a l…a s lon g a s
th e tr u th is told”. Beca u se tea ch er s h ave been
r eticen t in th e pa st a bou t th e com plexities of
th eir job a n d wh a t is involved in per for m in g
it, th ey h ave su ffer ed th e h u m ilia tion of seein g a tr avesty of th eir wor k por tr ayed in
m u ch of th e m a ss-m edia in th e UK in th e
1980s, su ch th a t th e pu blic cou ld h ave been
led to believe th a t tea ch in g w a s a n ea sy job
w ith r ela tively sh or t h ou r s of wor k , th e pr oblem s of wh ich wer e tr ivia l a n d r ela tively
ea sily r esolved by h a r der wor k , tou gh er disciplin e a n d m or e r igor ou s testin g. Wou ld th a t
th e pr oblem s of sch ools wer e solved so ea sily!
Ma r k etin g is a “m a n a gem en t or ien ta tion
pr ocess”[43, p. 48], th e fou n da tion of a sch ool’s
m a n a gem en t str a te gy. Its m a in focu s is n ot on
th ose a spects of a n or ga n iza tion for wh ich
tea ch er s seem to h ave little tim e – th e slick
pr ocesses of im a ge-m a k in g a n d pu blic r ela tion s – n or on th ose in wh ich m ost of th em
ta k e little in ter est – r esou r ce m a n a gem en t –
a lth ou gh it is con cer n ed w ith u sin g sca r ce
r esou r ces a s effectively a s possible to m eet
th e iden tified n eeds of a n or ga n iza tion ’s
clien ts. Th e m a in focu s of m a r k etin g is on a
dia logu e between a n or ga n iza tion a n d its
clien ts, a sch ool a n d its stu den ts a n d pa r en ts,
a n d on h ow th eir differ en t n eeds ca n be m et
m ost effectively, issu es wh ich a r e a t th e h ea r t
of m ost tea ch er s’ pr ofession a l con cer n s. To
m eet th ese n eeds r equ ir es a ll sta ff to be
involved in a con sta n t, system a tic r eview of
th eir pr a ctice in or der to im pr ove th e qu a lity
of th e ser vice of tea ch in g a n d lea r n in g wh ich
th eir sch ool pr ovides. Ma r k etin g, th en , is
cr u cia l if a sch ool is to develop its vision for
its stu den ts a n d m a in ta in th e pr a ctices of
sch ool im pr ovem en t.
[ 31 ]
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
[ 32 ]
References
1 Petch , P., “Sch ool m a n a gem en t: th eor y a n d
pr a ctice”, in Bu r gess, T., A ccou n tab ility in
S ch ools, Lon gm a n , Ha r low, 1992.
2 Wr a gg, E .C., “Hu m a n ity loses ou t in com petition ”, T im es Ed u ca tion a l S u pplem en t, 10 Septem ber 1993, p. 18.
3 Ch r istoph er, M., P ayn e, A. a n d Ba lla n tyn e, D.,
R ela tion sh ip M a rk etin g, Bu tter wor th Hein em a n n , Oxfor d, 1991.
4 Ma ja r o, S., M a rk etin g in Perspectiv e, Geor ge
Allen & Un w in , Lon don , 1982.
5 Bor den , N.H., “Th e con cept of th e m a r k etin g
m ix”, in Sch w a r tz, G. (E d.), S cien ce in M a rk etin g, Wiley, N ew Yor k , N Y, 1965.
6 Cowell, D.W., “Ma r k etin g ser vices”, in Ba k er,
MJ . (E d.), T h e M a rk etin g B ook , 3r d ed., Ch a r ter ed In stitu te of Ma r k etin g, Bu tter wor th Hein em a n n , Oxfor d, 1994.
7 Cow a n , B.J ., “Ma r k etin g sch ools: tr a n scen din g
th e m yopic sta te”, u n pu blish ed P h D disser ta tion , Un iver sity of Rea din g, 1993.
8 Ru sh ton , A.M. a n d Ca r son , D.J ., “Ma r k etin g of
ser vices: m a n a gin g th e in ta n gibles”, Eu ropea n
J ou r n a l of M a rk etin g, Vol. 19 N o. 3, 1985, pp. 1940.
9 Cowell, D.W., T h e M a rk etin g of S er vices,
Hein em a n n , Lon don , 1984.
10 Ba teson , J .E .G., M a n a gin g S er vices M a rk etin g,
Th e Dr yden P r ess, Or la n do, F L, 1989.
11 Gr ay, L., M a rk etin g Ed u ca tion , Open Un iver sity P r ess, Bu ck in gh a m , 1991.
12 Lovelock , C.H., M a n a gin g S er vices, M a rk etin g
Opera tion s a n d Hu m a n R esou rces, P r en ticeHa ll, E n glewood Cliffs, N J , 1988.
13 P a r dey, D., M a rk etin g for S ch ools, Koga n P a ge,
Lon don , 1991.
14 Bla ck sh aw, B., “Ma r k et developm en t in th e
fi n a n cia l ser vices in du str y”, in Th om a s, M.J .
(E d.), M a rk etin g Ha n d b ook , 3r d ed., Gower,
Alder sh ot, 1989.
15 Ma cbeth , A., In volvin g Pa ren ts, Hein em a n n ,
Lon don , 1989.
16 Ru ddu ck , J ., Wa lla ce, G. a n d Ch a pla in , R.,
S ch ool Im prov em en t: W h a t Ca n Pu pils T ell Us?,
David F u lton , Lon don , 1995
17 Webster, A., Owen , G. a n d Cr om e, D., S ch ool
M a rk etin g: M a k in g It Ea sy for Pa ren ts to S elect
You r S ch ool, Avec Design s, Br istol, 1993.
18 Stillm a n , A. a n d Maych ell, K., Ch oosin g
S ch ools: Pa ren ts, L EA s a n d th e 1980 Ed u ca tion
A ct, N F E R-N elson , Win dsor, 1986.
19 West, A., David, M., Ha iles, J . a n d Ribben s, J .,
“P a r en ts a n d th e pr ocess of ch oosin g
secon da r y sch ools: im plica tion s for sch ools”,
Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d A d m in istra tion ,
Vol. 23 N o. 1, 1995, pp. 28-38.
20 Davies, B., a n d E llison , L., M a rk etin g th e S econ d a r y S ch ool, Lon gm a n , Ha r low, 1991.
21 Ada m s Ch a pm a n , M.E ., “Ma r k etin g th e colle ge; som e ben efi ts a n d ba r r ier s”, Ed u ca tion a l
M a n a gem en t a n d A d m in istra tion , Vol. 14, 1986,
pp. 107-11.
22 J oh n son , D., Pa ren ta l Ch oice in Ed u ca tion ,
Un w in Hym a n , Lon don , 1990.
23 Th e P low den Repor t, Ch ild ren a n d T h eir Pr im a r y S ch ools: A R epor t of th e Cen tra l A dvisor y
Cou n cil for Ed u ca tion , HMSO, Lon don , 1967.
24 J oh n son , D. a n d Ra n som , E ., “P a r en ts’ per ception s of secon da r y sch ools”, in Cr a ft, M.,
Rayn or, J . a n d Coh en , L. (E ds), L in k in g Hom e
a n d S ch ool, Ha r per & Row, Lon don , 1980.
25 Hu n ter, J .B., “Wh ich sch ool? A stu dy of pa r en ts’ ch oice of secon da r y sch ool”, Ed u ca tion a l
R esea rch , Vol. 33 N o. 1, 1991, pp. 31-41.
26 West, A., David, M., Ha iles, J ., Ribben s, J . a n d
Hin d, A., Ch oosin g a S econ d a r y S ch ool, Cen tr e
for E du ca tion a l Resea r ch , Lon don Sch ool of
E con om ics & Politica l Scien ce, Lon don , 1993.
27 Adler, M .a n d Ra a b, G., “E xit, ch oice a n d loya lty”, J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion Policy, Vol. 3 N o.4,
1988, pp. 155-79.
28 J oh n son , D., Pr iva te S ch ools a n d S ta te S ch ools,
Open Un iver sity P r ess, Bu ck in gh a m , 1987.
29 E lliott, J ., “How do pa r en ts ju dge sch ools?”, in
E lliott, J ., Br idges, D., Gibson , R. a n d Ma s, J .,
S ch ool A ccou n tab ility, Gr a n t McIn tyr e,
Lon don , 1981.
30 Ha n for d, I., “Secon da r y sch ool im a ge”, M a n a gem en t in Ed u ca tion , Vol. 4 N o. 1, 1990, pp. 4-8.
31 Stott, K. a n d P a r r, H., M a rk etin g You r S ch ool,
Hodder & Stou gh ton , Lon don , 1991.
32 Ton k s, D., “Ma r k et se gm en ta tion ”, in Th om a s,
MJ . (E d.), M a rk etin g Ha n d b ook , 3r d ed., Gower,
Alder sh ot, 1989.
33 Ma r la n d, M. a n d Roger s, R., M a rk etin g th e
S ch ool, Hein em a n n , Lon don , 1991.
34 Bow les, G., F u r se, J . a n d Tom lin son , H., “Ma r k etin g a n d pr om otion : a spects of m a r k etin g in
sch ools”, in F idler, B. a n d Bow les, G. (E ds.),
Effectiv e L oca l M a n a gem en t of S ch ools, Lon gm a n , Ha r low, 1989.
35 Sn ell, M., “Lin k s w ith fu r th er edu ca tion ”, in
Fosk ett, N. (E d.), M a n a gin g Ex ter n a l R ela tion s
in S ch ools: A Pra ctica l Gu id e, Rou tledge,
Lon don , 1992.
36 Fosk ett, N. (E d.), M a n a gin g Ex ter n a l R ela tion s
in S ch ools: A Pra ctica l Gu id e, Rou tledge,
Lon don , 1992.
37 Devlin , T. a n d Kn igh t, B., Pu blic R ela tion s a n d
M a rk etin g for S ch ools, Lon gm a n , Ha r low, 1990.
38 Higgin both a m , J.E., “Th e m a n a gem en t of a n
in depen den t sch ool”, In ter n ation al J ou r n al of
Edu cation al M an a gem en t, Vol. 3 No. 4, 1989,
pp. 9-15.
39 Bu r gess, T., A ccou n tab ility w ith Con fi d en ce,
Lon gm a n , Ha r low, 1992.
40 Ha bgood, J ., “Ma r k etin g th e Ch u r ch of E n gla n d”, in M a k in g S en se, SP CK, Lon don , 1993.
41 McIn tosh , D. a n d McIn tosh , A., M a rk etin g: A
Ha n d b ook for Ch a r ities, Dir ector y of Socia l
Ch a n ge, Lon don , 1984.
42 Gu m m esson , E ., “How pr ofession a l ser vices
a r e bou gh t”, in Rin es, M. (E d.), M a rk etin g
Ha n d b ook , 2n d ed., Gower, Alder sh ot, 1981.
43 Ga u n t, H., Cou ld Do B etter: Crea tin g a M a rk etin g S tra teg y for You r S ch ool, Hor ton P u blish in g, Br a dfor d, 1991.
Janet A. Harvey Department of Educ ation, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, UK and
Hugh Busher Division of Educ ation, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
States that the concept of
marketing is regarded with
suspicion by many in education because of its commercial implications. Marketing
is seen as a potential tool for
the application of market
forces and is therefore
regarded as ethically undesirable. Argues that the methods
and ideology of commercial
marketing, if properly understood and correctly applied
by professionals in education,
can be benefi cial rather than
harmful, and may be imperative for schools and colleges
wishing to attract students
and to offer them the most
relevant provision.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [ 1996] 2 6 –3 2
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 26 ]
What can marketing of fer
education?
E du ca tion is a ser vice to cu stom er s or clien ts,
a lth ou gh th a t sta tem en t r a ises qu estion s
a bou t th e n a tu r e of th e ser vice a n d th e iden tity of its con su m er s/ clien ts. Ma r k etin g in
a n y sph er e is con cer n ed w ith th e qu a lity of
th e r ela tion sh ips between pr odu cer s a n d
con su m er s. As a con cept m a r k etin g is n ot th e
sa m e th in g a s m a r k et for ces or m a r k et
a ccou n ta bility. Petch [1] felt th a t m a r k et
a ccou n ta bility is m a r k ed m or e by con fr on ta tion th a n by th e co-oper a tion desir a ble in
edu ca tion between sch ools a n d th eir stu den ts
a n d pa r en ts.
Wr a gg[2] expr essed str on g h ostility to edu ca tion becom in g su bject to m a r k et for ces.
Ma r k etin g su bsu m es a n ideology th a t m a k es
th e n eeds a n d w ish es of a n or ga n iza tion ’s
cu stom er / pu r ch a ser s m or e im por ta n t th a n
its m em ber s’ pr efer r ed m eth ods of wor k in g.
It ca n a lso a ppea r to defin e th e va lu e of a
pr odu ct or ser vice solely in ter m s of wh a t
pu r ch a ser s a r e pr epa r ed to pay for it a n d
th er efor e to en cou r a ge pr ovider s of ser vices,
su ch a s sch ools, to con sider qu estion s of cost
of ser vice m or e im por ta n t th a n eth ica lly
r ou n ded pr ocesses of pr a ctice. Tea ch er s fi n d
th e com m er cia l va lu es of com petition a n d
in dividu a l ch oice in com pa tible w ith edu ca tion a l goa ls of pr ovidin g equ ita ble oppor tu n ities for th e lea r n in g a n d developm en t of a ll
people. Ma r k etin g th eir pr ofession a l ser vices
a ppea r s to cr ea te a ten sion between a n
em ph a sis on socia l va lu es wh ich pu t th e good
of th e in dividu a l a bove th a t of society a n d
th ose socia l va lu es wh ich give pr efer en ce to
th e gr ea test good of th e gr ea test n u m ber of
people in a com m u n ity.
Th is pa per con sider s h ow a deta iled u n der sta n din g of m a r k etin g ca n a llow tea ch er s to
im plem en t th eir edu ca tion a l va lu es m or e
su ccessfu lly wh en fa cin g th e pr essu r es of
com petition a n d pa r en ta l ch oice, wh eth er in
in depen den t sch ools or in sta te sector edu ca tion su ch a s th a t br ou gh t a bou t by edu ca tion
le gisla tion in th e UK sin ce 1980.
Marketing a service
In th e com m er cia l wor ld m a r k etin g h a s
evolved over th e la st h a lf-cen tu r y, th e focu s of
in ter est ch a n gin g fr om con su m er goods in
th e 1950s th r ou gh con cer n w ith in du str ia l
m a r k ets in th e 1960s to a tten tion on n on -pr ofit
or ga n iza tion s a n d th e ser vices sector in th e
1970s a n d 1980s. Recen t tr en ds tow a r ds r ela tion sh ip m a r k etin g, w ith its r ecogn ition th a t
m a r k etin g a ffects a fir m ’s em ployees a n d
su pplier s a s well a s its cu stom er s[3], pa r ticu la r ly su ggest th e r eleva n ce of m a r k etin g to
edu ca tion .
Th e Br itish In stitu te of Ma r k etin g defin es
m a r k etin g a s:
…th e m a n a gem en t pr ocess r espon sible for
iden tifyin g, a n ticipa tin g a n d sa tisfyin g
cu stom er r equ ir em en ts pr ofita bly[4,p. 3].
In m a n u fa ctu r in g in du str y th is w a s
expr essed a s th e fou r P s: pr odu ct, pr ice, pr om otion a n d pla ce. P r odu cts wer e th e goods
sold; pr ice h a d to cover th e cost of m a n u fa ctu r e a n d a r ea son a ble m a r gin of pr ofit; pr om otion a dver tised th ose fea tu r es wh ich distin gu ish ed a pr odu ct fr om its com petitor s;
pla ce r efer r ed to th e poin t of sa le a n d th e
distr ibu tion n etwor k wh ich su pplied it. It w a s
believed th a t th ese fou r in gr edien ts n eeded to
be ba la n ced to for m a “m a r k etin g m ix”[5].
Alth ou gh th e m a r k etin g of ser vices su ch a s
leisu r e a ctivities, telecom m u n ica tion s a n d
edu ca tion h a s m a n y sim ila r ities to th e m a r k etin g of goods, th er e a r e som e im por ta n t
differ en ces. For exa m ple, con ceptu a lly th er e
a ppea r s to be n o u n iver sa lly a ccepted defin ition of a ser vice. In pa r t th is is beca u se ser vices cover su ch a n en or m ou s r a n ge of fu n ction a l differ en ces, fr om tr a n spor t h ir e to
ba n k in g[6], wh ich m a k e it difficu lt to pr escr ibe com m on str a te gies for m a r k etin g.
F u r th er, ser vice in du str ies h ave n o ta n gible
pr odu cts, a lth ou gh m a n y h ave ta n gible goods
in sepa r a ble fr om th eir pr ovision – a secr eta r y’s docu m en ts, for exa m ple, or a n a ir lin e’s
sea ts in its a ir cr a ft. Mor eover it is a lm ost
im possible to deta ch th e sa le of a ser vice fr om
its pr ovider – wh en clien ts pu r ch a se le ga l
ser vices th ey u su a lly see a law yer, too. Sin ce
in m a n y ser vice in du str ies a lm ost a n y
m em ber of sta ff m ay com e in to con ta ct w ith
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
th e cu stom er s th er e is a n eed for a ll sta ff to be
aw a r e of a n or ga n iza tion ’s policies a n d pr efer r ed pr a ctices[7].
Ru sh ton a n d Ca r son [8] defin ed th e ch a r a cter istics wh ich ser vice in du str ies h ave in
com m on , a n d wh ich distin gu ish th em fr om
m a n u fa ctu r in g in du str y, a s in ta n gibility
(ser vices ca n n ot be iden tifi ed by th e sen ses);
h eter ogen eity (th e h u m a n elem en t in volved
in th eir pr ovision m ea n s th ey ca n n ot be sta n da r dized); per ish a bility; a n d in sepa r a bility
(th e pr ovision of a ser vice ca n n ot be sepa r a ted fr om its con su m ption ). Th ese fa ctor s
led Cowell[9] to a dd th r ee fu r th er P s – people,
pr ocess, a n d ph ysica l eviden ce th a t a ser vice
is bein g deliver ed – to th e or igin a l “fou r P s”
m a r k etin g m ix. Th e la st ca te gor y h e m en tion s in clu des th e cu ltu r e a n d en vir on m en t
in wh ich a ser vice is deliver ed. Ba teson [10]
str essed th e im por ta n ce of m a n a gin g th is
effectively, a poin t wh ich ca n h a r dly be over sta ted in th e con text of sch oolin g.
Service characteristics in
education
Ru sh ton a n d Ca r son [8] r e ga r ded in ta n gibility
a s th e sin gle m ost im por ta n t differ en ce
between goods a n d ser vices. Gr ay[11, p. 14]
poin ted ou t th a t th er e a r e va r yin g de gr ees of
in ta n gibility, w ith edu ca tion bein g:
r igh t a t th e “in ta n gible” en d of th e spectr u m , w ith few if a n y ta n gible pr odu cts
n or m a lly pr ovided a s pa r t of th e ser vice.
In ta n gibility m a k es it difficu lt for poten tia l
clien ts to a ssess th e qu a lity of a ser vice,
except by look in g a t th e ta n gible elem en ts
a ssocia ted w ith it, wh eth er it be th e tidin ess
a n d em ptin ess of du stbin s in r efu se collection
or exa m in a tion r esu lts a n d stu den t beh aviou r in sch ools. Lovelock [12] poin ted to th e
im por ta n ce in ser vice in du str ies of th e cu stom er ser vice fu n ction to en su r e th a t cu stom er s’ n eeds a n d expecta tion s wer e m et
effectively.
On e of th e m a jor pu r poses of m a r k etin g,
th er efor e, is to expla in to poten tia l clien ts th e
ser vices or pr odu cts th ey a r e a bou t to pu r ch a se, a s well a s tr yin g to per su a de th em to
bu y a pa r ticu la r br a n d. Ma r k etin g fu n ction s
in clu de cu stom er edu ca tion a s well a s sa les.
Sch ools, for exa m ple, ca n expla in wh a t oppor tu n ities a r e offer ed to stu den ts, su ch a s h ow
a n d wh a t th ey a r e ta u gh t. Gr ay[11] th ou gh t
th a t th e pr epa r a tion a n d pr om otion of a n
in stitu tion ’s m ission sta tem en t, th e u se of a
logo, a n d ca r efu l pu blic r ela tion s wou ld h elp
pa r en ts a n d stu den ts to iden tify th e pa r ticu la r ser vices offer ed. P a r dey[13] su ggested th a t
pr ocess or m eta -va r ia bles, su ch a s eva lu a tion
of th e en vir on m en ts w ith in wh ich a ser vice is
pr ovided – h ow, for exa m ple visitor s to a
sch ool a r e welcom ed – h elp clien ts to eva lu a te
th e qu a lity of ser vice th ey r eceive.
Th e pr ovision of ser vices ten ds to be a h eter ogen eou s pr ocess. To som e exten t th e qu a lity of pr ovision depen ds on th e per son a l
sk ills a n d a ttr ibu tes of ea ch pr ovider w ith in
a n or ga n iza tion wh o is in con ta ct w ith th e
clien ts. Hom ogen eity of ser vice, u n lik e th a t of
goods on a pr odu ction lin e, is difficu lt to
a ch ieve sin ce th e people in volved, pr ovider s
a n d clien ts, a r e a ll differ en t. Tea ch in g a s a
cr a ft is depen den t on tea ch er s’ in ter per son a l
sk ills a n d th e socia l in ter a ction s of gr ou ps of
stu den ts. E ven if a cu r r icu lu m is pr escr ibed,
a s it h a s been in sta te sch ools in E n gla n d a n d
Wa les sin ce 1988, h ow sta ff tea ch a n d h ow
stu den ts r espon d to th eir peda gogy w ill va r y.
Sch ools, lik e oth er ser vices, pr ovide som eth in g wh ich is per ish a ble a n d wh ich , in its
cr ea tion , is la r gely in sepa r a ble fr om th e
in ter a ction s of tea ch er / pr ovider s a n d stu den t/ clien ts. Th e pr ocess of edu ca tion is
per ish a ble beca u se it is “con su m ed” a t lea st
pa r tia lly a t th e poin t of deliver y[6]. In edu ca tion , a lesson m issed by a n a bsen t stu den t
ca n n ot be r ecr ea ted iden tica lly, a lth ou gh its
con ten t m ay be con veyed. Lin k ed to th is per ish a bility is in sepa r a bility: tea ch in g a n d
lea r n in g a r e in extr ica bly in ter tw in ed. To
com plica te m a tter s fu r th er, stu den ts u su a lly
in ter a ct w ith on e a n oth er in com plex w ays
du r in g lesson s, h elpin g on e a n oth er to lea r n
a s well a s lea r n in g w ith th e tea ch er. E ffectively, stu den ts both pr odu ce a n d con su m e
th e edu ca tion a l pr odu ct, k n ow ledge. Som e
ser vice in du str ies tu r n in sepa r a bility to
th eir a dva n ta ge by fea tu r in g th e pr ovider s a s
pa r t of th e ben efi t of th e ser vice[11]. Sch ools
ca n pr om ote th e pa stor a l ca r e, extr a cu r r icu la r a ctivities a n d a ca dem ic qu a lifica tion s of
th eir sta ff a s va lu a ble fea tu r es, a ttr a ctive to
stu den ts a n d th e loca l com m u n ity.
Identifying the client customers of
education
In a ddition to its edu ca tive a n d sa les fu n ction s, m a r k etin g h a s, per h a ps pr im a r ily, a
r esea r ch fu n ction . To su r vive, a n in du str y
m u st iden tify th e n eeds of its poten tia l clien ts
a n d develop pr odu cts or ser vices wh ich w ill
m eet th ese n eeds[14] a t a pr ice wh ich th e
cu stom er s ca n a ffor d to pay. Th is a ppea r s to
cr ea te a n eth ica l m in efield for pu blic ser vices: to wh a t exten t sh ou ld th e qu a lity of
th eir pr ovision be gea r ed on ly to th a t for
wh ich clien t cu stom er s a r e w illin g or a ble to
pay? To wh a t exten t sh ou ld th eir qu a lity of
pr ovision be deter m in ed by pr ofession a l
exper tise a pplied a ltr u istica lly to per ceived
[ 27 ]
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
a n d iden tified clien t/ cu stom er n eed r e ga r dless of th e costs in volved? To wh a t exten t
sh ou ld th e pr ice m ech a n ism , wh ich is th eor etica lly su pposed to r e gu la te m a r k ets, deter m in e both th e qu a lity of pr ovision a n d wh ich
cu stom er s r eceive wh a t qu a lity of pr ovision ?
F u r th er m or e, wh o pr ecisely a r e th e cu stom er s of edu ca tion ?
In edu ca tion , iden tifyin g th e cu stom er s or
clien ts, i.e. th e people wh o ben efi t fr om it, is
pr oblem a tic. Gr ay[11] n oted th a t clien ts a r e
often lon g-ter m u ser s of su ch th in gs a s th e
per son a l ser vices of a law yer, wh er ea s cu stom er s ten d to h ave br ief, on e-off con ta cts
w ith pr ovider s wh en pu r ch a sin g goods or
ser vices. On th is a r gu m en t sch ools wou ld
seem to h ave clien ts r a th er th a n cu stom er s.
Stu den ts a n d th eir pa r en ts u su a lly wor k for a
lon g tim e w ith th e sch ools wh ich th e stu den ts
a r e a tten din g, a s well a s ta k in g pa r t in th e
cr ea tion of th e lea r n in g pr ocess. Distin gu ish in g between clien ts a n d cu stom er s in th is
w ay is h elpfu l bu t does n ot a ddr ess th e deeper
pr oblem s of u n der sta n din g for wh om th e
edu ca tion ser vice is con str u cted, i.e. to wh om
it is a ccou n ta ble, even if it is clea r to wh om
th e ser vice of sch oolin g is deliver ed. It does
n ot a ssist sch ools to decide h ow to m a r k et
th em selves.
Petch [1] r e ga r ded pa r en ts a s th e con su m er s
of edu ca tion . Ma cbeth [15] su ggested th a t
th er e a r e fou r gr ou ps of people wh o ben efi t
fr om th e edu ca tion system :
1 th e pu pil (wh o r eceives in str u ction );
2 th e pa r en t (wh o dele ga tes a u th or ity over
th e ch ild to th e tea ch er );
3 th e ow n er s of a sch ool, wh eth er in depen den t or a sta te a u th or ity, wh o em ploy th e
sta ff; a n d
4 society a t la r ge.
He defin ed th e fir st gr ou p a s “con su m er s”
a n d th e secon d a s “th e sch ool’s pr im e
clien ts”[1, p. 16] beca u se in th e UK th ey a r e
le ga lly r espon sible for th e edu ca tion of th eir
ch ildr en u n til th e a ge of 16 yea r s.
An im plica tion of th e pr ecedin g pa r a gr a ph
is th a t sch ools sh ou ld m a r k et th em selves a s
m u ch to th eir pu pils a n d poten tia l pu pils a s
to th eir pu pils’ pa r en ts, both bein g per ceived
a s im por ta n t clien t gr ou ps. Th is is a n im por ta n t per spective wh ich h a s r ecen tly been
given su ppor t by th e wor k of Ru ddu ck et
a l.[16] wh o com m en t on th e a ccu r a cy a n d
per spica city of stu den ts’ view s of sch oolin g.
We wou ld su ppor t th is con ten tion , r e ga r din g
stu den ts, of wh a tever a ge, a s th e dir ect pr im a r y clien ts of edu ca tion , a n d deem in g th e
oth er sta k eh older s – pa r en ts, em ployer s,
society a t la r ge – to wh om a sch ool a lso h a s to
m a r k et itself, to be its secon da r y ben eficia r ies.
[ 28 ]
Stu den ts exer cise va r yin g de gr ees of con tr ol over th eir ch oice of edu ca tion a l in stitu tion s a t differ en t a ges. Alth ou gh m ost pa r en ts
select a ch ild’s pr im a r y sch ool, a t a ge 11 or 12,
ch ildr en m ay expect to con tr ibu te to th e decision [11]. Webster et a l.[17] fou n d th a t 69 per
cen t of fa m ilies in th eir su r vey on secon da r y
sch ool selection th ou gh t th eir ch ild’s opin ion s “ver y im por ta n t”. Stillm a n a n d Maych ell[18] a n d West et a l.[19] a lso fou n d th a t
pa r en ts took sign ifica n t a ccou n t of th eir ch ildr en ’s view s befor e m a k in g a fin a l ch oice. On
th e oth er h a n d, wh a tever in flu en ce ch ildr en
h ave over th eir pa r en ts’ per ception s of a
sch ool[20], pa r en ts a r e still th e m a jor, if n ot
th e sole, edu ca tion ch oice m a k er s for m ost
ch ildr en du r in g th eir yea r s of com pu lsor y
sch oolin g. Stu den ts a r e lik ely to m a k e th eir
ow n decision s a bou t post-com pu lsor y edu ca tion , a lth ou gh “pa r en ts a r e a lso in flu en tia l,
bu t m ay h ave ver y differ en t expecta tion s
fr om th ose of th eir offspr in g”[21, p. 109].
Ign or a n ce a bou t th e con su m er ’s en vir on m en t is on e of th e m a jor pr oblem s fa cin g
ser vice in du str ies[6] a n d edu ca tion is n o
exception . Ma n a gin g th is exter n a l en vir on m en t is on e of th e m a in ch a llen ges of m a r k etin g[4]. Ma r k etin g h elps a n or ga n iza tion to
iden tify h ow a n d wh y its clien ts ch ose it a n d
so to a ct m or e effectively to a ttr a ct clien ts to
it. Im plicit in m a n y m a r k etin g pr ocesses is
th e u n pr oven a ssu m ption th a t clien ts, given
a dequ a te k n ow ledge, w ill a lw ays m a k e r a tion a l ch oices wh ich m a xim ize th eir ben efits.
Th is pr esu pposes th a t clien ts h ave a ch oice,
wh ich is n ot a lw ays th e ca se wh er e th er e is
on ly on e sch ool ser vin g a pa r ticu la r a r ea or
pa r en ts a r e u n a ble to a ffor d th e a lter n a tive
(pr iva te) sch oolin g, if it exists. It a lso a ssu m es th a t in cr ea sin g th e fl ow of in for m a tion
to iden tifi ed clien t gr ou ps, th r ou gh sch ool
pr ospectu ses, for exa m ple, w ill n ecessa r ily
in cr ea se th e stu den t in flow su fficien tly to
cover th e costs of expen ditu r e on pu blic r ela tion s; a ga in , th is a ssu m ption is u n pr oven .
In deed, m a n y h ea dtea ch er s poin t to th e deleter iou s effect of th e costs of ela bor a te m a r k etin g exer cises on th eir bu dgets for cu r r icu lu m
pr ovision , on e of th e cr iter ia by wh ich pa r en ts ju dge th e su ccess of a sch ool.
Alth ou gh pa r en ts gen er a lly ten d to con sider th e sa m e br oa d r a n ge of fa ctor s, pr ior ities va r y fr om su r vey to su r vey. Th is in dica tes th e im por ta n ce of ever y in stitu tion
explor in g its ow n cu stom er ba se in or der to
u n der sta n d its specific n eeds a n d w a n ts[7].
J oh n son [22, p. 28] ou tlin ed th e m a in edu ca tion a l ch oices wh ich sch ools ca n offer pa r en ts:
pu blic or pr iva te; “fr ee” or fee-payin g; selective or n on -selective (by va r iou s cr iter ia );
str on gly or n om in a lly r eligiou s; r esiden tia l
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
No tio ns o f c o nsume r c ho ic e
in e duc atio n and the
atte ndant vie w that mo re
po we rful pe o ple , at le ast
financ ially, are mo re able to
gain the se rvic e pro visio n
the y want, fit in we ll with the
atte mpts by the UK
go ve rnme nt to intro duc e a
marke t into state e duc atio n
in the last 1 5 ye ars
or n on -r esiden tia l sin gle-sex or coedu ca tion a l; a ll-th r ou gh or a ge-r ela ted; in stitu tion a l or h om e-ba sed.
For pr im a r y sch ools, th e P low den Repor t[23]
fou n d th a t loca tion , r eligiou s eth os, wor d-ofm ou th r epor ts a n d pr ior fa m ily con ta cts w ith
a sch ool wer e a ll sign ifica n t fa ctor s a ffectin g
ch oice. Som e pa r en ts a lso con sider ed edu ca tion a l sta n da r ds a n d th e a tm osph er e of th e
sch ool to be im por ta n t.
Wh en ch i ld r en t r a n s fer fr om p r i m a r y t o
s econ d a r y s ch ool, m os t p a r en t s m a k e ei t h er
a ch i ld -focu s ed ch oi ce, b a s ed on t h e h ea lt h ,
a b i li t y a n d t em p er a m en t of t h e ch i ld con cer n ed , or a s ch ool-focu s ed ch oi ce b a s ed on
cr i t er i a s u ch a s s i ze, n a t u r e of s t u d en t i n t a k e (m i xed or s i n gle-s ex), a n d a m en i t i es [24]. Web s t er et a l.[17] fou n d t h a t s i b li n gs a t t h e s a m e s ch ool w er e t h e s i n gle
la r ges t i n flu en ce on p a r en t a l ch oi ce. T h er e
i s ev i d en ce t h a t s om e p a r en t s ch oos e s econ d a r y s ch ools on t h e b a s i s of t h e s u b ject s /
fa ci li t i es offer ed by s ch ools a n d by s t u d en t s ’
p er for m a n ce i n a ca d em i c s u b ject s [25,26].
Ad ler a n d Ra a b [27] n ot ed t h a t s ch ool a t t a i n m en t w a s of s u ffi ci en t i m p or t a n ce t o
en cou r a ge p a r en t s t o s en d ch i ld r en con s i d er a ble d i s t a n ces t o s econ d a r y s ch ool, u s u a lly t o s ch ools t h a t w er e la r ge or t h a t h a d a
s elect ive i n t a k e of s t u d en t s of h i gh s oci oecon om i c s t a t u s. T h e en q u i r i es of J oh n s on [22,28] i n t o p a r en t a l ch oi ce of i n d e p en d en t s ch ools ech o t h i s.
Socia l fa ctor s a lso h ave a m a jor in flu en ce
on pa r en ta l ch oice. E lliott[29] fou n d th a t
pa r en ts pla ced gr ea t va lu e on th e pr ocess of
edu ca tion . Th ey str essed th e im por ta n ce of
per son a l a n d socia l developm en t a n d th e
h a ppin ess of th e ch ildr en in sch ool.
Ha n for d[30, p. 4] fou n d th a t pa r en ts va lu ed
m ost “th e h idden ba sic fu n da m en ta lism of
sch ools” w ith th e beh aviou r of sta ff a n d cu r r en t stu den ts bein g per ceived a s th e k ey in dica tor s. P a r en ts’ per ception s of th ese beh aviou r s wer e m edia ted by a gen cies exter n a l to
th e sch ool, su ch a s th e n eigh bou r h ood
gr a pevin e a n d pa r en ts’ per son a l exper ien ces
of sch oolin g.
N e ga t ive p er ce p t i on s of s ch ools by p a r en t s
d a m a ge t h ei r a b i li t y t o r ecr u i t s t u d en t s.
Wes t et a l.[26] fou n d p a r en t s p a r t i cu la r ly
d i s cou r a ged by r e p or t s of p oor d i s ci p li n e/
b eh av i ou r, by a s ch ool’s b a d r e p u t a t i on , by
d i s li k e of w h a t t h ey s aw on a v i s i t or by a
s ch ool’s loca t i on . Bot h p os i t ively a n d n e ga t ively, t h e i m p or t a n ce of a s ch ool’s r e p u t a t i on loca lly, a n d t h e s t y le of t h e w elcom e
w h i ch i s offer ed t o p a r en t s, m u s t b e s een a s
m a jor fa ct or s i n i t s s u cces s i n r ecr u i t i n g
s t u d en t s.
Marketing for education
F ir m s m a r k et th em selves to a ttr a ct
cu stom er s to sell pr odu cts to ea r n m on ey to
su r vive. To m a r k et itself effectively a n or ga n iza tion n ot on ly n eeds to com m u n ica te w ith
its cu stom er s a n d clien ts bu t a lso to in volve
a ll its per son n el in th e cr ea tion of m a r k et
str a te gy[3]. In sch ools th is in clu des su ppor t
sta ff a s well a s tea ch in g sta ff. All n eed to
sh a r e ow n er sh ip of th e sch ools’ vision of
wh a t it is a im in g to a ch ieve a n d feel th ey h ave
a r ole to play in fu tu r e developm en t[31].
In th e bu sin ess wor ld, n eith er pr odu cts n or
ser vices a r e u su a lly m a r k eted a cr oss th e
wh ole of society. Differ en t k in ds of cu stom er
h ave differ en t w a n ts/ n eeds, wh ich m a r k etin g
sets ou t to iden tify. F a ilu r e by a fi r m to differ en tia te a dequ a tely between th e bu yin g beh aviou r of differ en t cu stom er s lea ds to poor cu stom er focu s[32] a n d u ltim a tely to th e fir m ’s
colla pse. Th e devolu tion of fu n din g to m a in ta in ed sch ools a n d colle ges in th e UK sin ce
th e la te 1980s h a s pr esen ted sch ools w ith th e
sa m e n eed to a ttr a ct a n d k eep stu den t clien ts.
In th e in depen den t sector of sch oolin g th is
situ a tion h a s existed for m u ch lon ger, a lth ou gh dem ogr a ph ic, socia l a n d r ecession a r y
pr essu r es a r e pr om ptin g in depen den t sch ools
a lso to r econ sider th e n eed for positive m a r k etin g.
N otion s of con su m er ch oice in edu ca tion
a n d th e a tten da n t view th a t m or e power fu l
people, a t lea st fin a n cia lly, a r e m or e a ble to
ga in th e ser vice pr ovision th ey w a n t, fi t in
well w ith th e a ttem pts by th e UK gover n m en t
to in tr odu ce a m a r k et in to sta te edu ca tion in
th e la st 15 yea r s. On th e oth er h a n d, th ey lie
u n com for ta bly a lon gside n otion s of socia l
ju stice a n d equ ity of edu ca tion a l pr ovision
wh ich h ave u n der pin n ed th e developm en t of
th e sta te sector of sch oolin g in th e UK for
m or e th a n a cen tu r y. Th is la tter per spective
em ph a sizes a n en titlem en t to edu ca tion
wh ich m eets th e va r yin g n eeds of a ll people
in a com m u n ity, r e ga r dless of th eir a bility to
w ield in flu en ce.
Sta te sch ools th er efor e fa ce a dilem m a ,
pa r ticu la r ly wh er e on ly on e sch ool ser ves a
loca l com m u n ity: wh eth er th ey ser ve th e
n eeds of a n en tir e com m u n ity or wh eth er
th ey ta r get pa r ticu la r gr ou ps of pa r en ts in it.
Ma r k etin g wou ld seem to su ggest th e la tter,
ta r getin g th ose wh o a r e m or e in flu en tia l, for
wh a tever r ea son s, bu t th is con fr on ts issu es of
equ ity of pr ovision . If a sch ool ta r gets on ly
specific clien t gr ou ps, it is lik ely th a t th e
n eeds a n d w a n ts of th ose pa r en ts a n d stu den ts n ot ta r geted w ill be m et less well th a n
th ose ta r geted. In th is r espect, per h a ps, in depen den t sch ools fa ce less of a pr oblem th a n do
sta te sch ools sin ce th ey ca n elect to ser vice a
[ 29 ]
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
n ich e m a r k et for pa r ticu la r pa r en t w a n ts a n d
in com e br a ck ets. If pa r en ts fi n d th e pr ovision
u n sa tisfa ctor y th ey ca n w ith dr aw th eir ch ildr en fr om th e sch ool.
In com petitive a r en a s, loca lities wh er e
sever a l sch ools a r e tr yin g to a ttr a ct th e sa m e
stu den t popu la tion , sch ools m ay w a n t to
a ttr a ct som e pa r en ts in pr efer en ce to oth er s.
Th ey cou ld iden tify th ese pa r en t n ich es in th e
m a r k et by specifi cs or by descr iptor s.
Specifics in clu de su ch item s a s th e r a te a t
wh ich clien ts pu r ch a se ser vices, th e r a n ge of
pr odu cts ava ila ble (in sch ools th is m igh t be
th e r a n ge of cou r ses or extr a cu r r icu la r a ctivities) a n d m edia exposu r e. Descr iptor s cover
va r ia bles su ch a s a ge (sch ools a r e u su a lly
eith er pr im a r y or secon da r y), gen der, geodem ogr a ph ics (socia l str u ctu r e of a sch ool’s
ca tch m en t a r ea ) a n d people’s pr efer r ed
lifestyle. In depen den t sch ools h ave m or e
oppor tu n ity th a n m a in ta in ed sch ools in th e
UK to se gm en t th eir m a r k ets by th ese va r ia bles.
On th e oth er h a n d, a n y sch ool w ish in g to
ser ve th e wh ole com m u n ity ca n u se th e sa m e
pr ocesses to iden tify th e specifi c n eeds of a ll
its poten tia l clien t gr ou ps, a llow in g it to differ en tia te its pr ovision to ea ch of th em . It
cou ld u se su ch pr ocesses to iden tify, for exa m ple, a n y disen ch a n ted gr ou ps of pa r en ts a n d
set ou t to m a k e th em feel m or e welcom e.
The seven Ps for satisfied school
clients
As in a n y oth er in du str y, sch ools m u st fi r st
pla n wh er e th ey w a n t to go, a n a lysin g th e
fou r P s – pr odu ct, pla ce, pr om otion a n d pr ice
– of th e or igin a l m a r k et m ix a s well a s th e
oth er th r ee P s su ggested by Cowell[9] –-people, pr ocess a n d th e ph ysica l eviden ce of
pr odu ction .
A sch ool’s pr odu ct is defi n ed by Ma r la n d
a n d Roger s[33, p. 9] a s “th a t cr ea ted by pr odu cin g – th a t is to lea d (‘du e’) for w a r d
(‘pr o’)”. For th em pr odu ct developm en t is
“…th e wor k of th e sch ool in esta blish in g wh a t
wou ld ben efit th e pu pil a n d r esea r ch in g a n d
pla n n in g it” a n d sepa r a tes deliver y, i.e. th e
a ctu a l tea ch in g/ tu tor in g, fr om con ten t: wh a t
a n d h ow it is bein g ta u gh t. Th ey su ggested
th a t “pr odu ct developm en t” in sch ools is
sh or th a n d for “pr epa r a tion ”: cu r r icu lu m
developm en t, pla n n in g for pa stor a l ca r e pr ogr a m m es a n d a n y oth er for w a r d pla n n in g
wh ich u tilizes th e sk ill of th e sta ff. However,
sch ool m a n a gem en t u su a lly h a s little con tr ol
over its pla ce of pr odu ction , a lth ou gh Bow les
et a l.[34] in dica ted th a t it cou ld con tr ol th e
site pr ovision of r oom s a n d tim e to cou r ses,
wh ile site m a in ten a n ce a n d m in or r epa ir s
[ 30 ]
h ave been th e r espon sibility of m ost sch ools
in th e UK sin ce 1990.
P r om otion of a n edu ca tion a l in stitu tion
m ea n s en su r in g th a t its wor k is u n der stood
a n d a ppr ecia ted by its pr im a r y a n d secon da r y
ben eficia r ies a s well a s by m or e dista n t sta keh older s su ch a s cen tr a l gover n m en t[20], fu r th er edu ca tion [35] a n d h igh er edu ca tion [36].
Devlin a n d Kn igh t[37] iden tified both in ter n a l
a n d exter n a l m a r kets a s r ecipien ts of th is
in for m a tion , th e in ter n a l m a r ket in clu din g a n
“im m edia te fa m ily” of sta ff, stu den ts a n d
gover n or s a n d a n “exten ded fa m ily” of pr esen t
pa r en ts a n d r ela tives, for m er stu den ts a n d
pa r en ts, oth er s wh o u se sch ool fa cilities, a n d
loca l tr a der s a n d ser vice pr ovider s to th e
sch ool[37, p. 16]. In th e exter n a l m a r ket th ey
iden tified feeder sch ools, com m u n ity or ga n ization s, in du str y a n d com m er ce a n d loca l
a u th or ities. Th eir defin ition s r a ise qu estion s
a bou t h ow m em ber sh ip of a sch ool a s a n or ga n iza tion is defin ed.
P r ice ca n n ot be sepa r a ted fr om pr om otion .
In depen den t sch ools obviou sly offer a com m er cia l ser vice bu t a ll sch ools a r e cost cen tr es a n d n eed to ba la n ce th eir bu dgets. Davies
a n d E llison [20] poin ted ou t th a t m a in ta in ed
sch ools in E n gla n d a n d Wa les sin ce 1990 m u st
a ttr a ct en ou gh stu den ts to gen er a te su fficien t
in com e to su r vive, i.e. to cover th eir costs.
Beca u se a t lea st two-th ir ds of th e r u n n in g
costs of a sch ool a r e spen t on per son n el[38],
th e deploym en t of su ch r esou r ces h a s to be
ca r efu lly ta ilor ed to m eet iden tified clien t
n eed. Stott a n d P a r r [31, p. 2] per ceived th a t
“…th e pr ice of edu ca tion , in r ea l ter m s, is
m or e th a n m on ey”. For stu den ts in m a n y
m a in ta in ed sch ools in th e UK th er e a r e, for
exa m ple, sch ool u n ifor m costs, tr avel costs
a n d th e effor ts to ga in a ccess[34]. In in depen den t sch ools su ch item s a r e over sh a dowed by
sch ool fees, offset in som e ca ses by differ en t
types of bu r sa r y su ppor t.
Yet, h istor ica lly th e tea ch in g pr ofession h a s
r esisted th e im plica tion s of th e “com m er cia l”
or “pr ice” a spects of edu ca tion , pr efer r in g to
im plem en t wh a t it per ceives a s edu ca tion a lly
desir a ble pr a ctices, r e ga r dless of cost. Th e
la ck of clea r com m er cia l in dica tor s of effectiven ess is a m a jor ca u se of th is pr oblem ,
a lth ou gh m eta -in dica tor s su ch a s th e popu la r ity of a sch ool or of som e cou r ses ca n be
u sed to a ssess th e lik elih ood th a t a sch ool or a
pa r ticu la r pr a ctice wou ld m a k e a pr ofit wer e
it in a com m er cia l m a r k et.
Of th e r em a in in g th r ee P s, sch ools m igh t be
sa id to h ave lim ited con tr ol over th e people.
Recen t edu ca tion le gisla tion in E n gla n d a n d
Wa les in 1986, 1987 a n d 1988 h a s given m a in ta in ed sch ools qu a si-em ploym en t power s,
power s wh ich in depen den t sch ools h ave h a d
for a lon g tim e, bu t th er e is exten sive em ploym en t le gisla tion in th e UK wh ich lim its h ow
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
su ch power s ca n be u sed. Sch ools a lso h ave
on ly lim ited con tr ol over th eir cen tr a l
pr ocesses of tea ch in g a n d lea r n in g, pa r tly
beca u se of lon g-esta blish ed tea ch er s’ pr ofession a l fr eedom s in th e cla ssr oom , a n d pa r tly
beca u se of th e pr escr iption sin ce 1988 by th e
UK cen tr a l gover n m en t of a N a tion a l Cu r r icu lu m . Th is in h ibits sch ools fr om a da ptin g
th e a ca dem ic cu r r icu lu m to th e iden tified
n eeds of th e com m u n ities wh ich for m th eir
m a r k ets. It is in th eir con tr ol of th e ph ysica l
en vir on m en t, su ch a s th e qu a lity a n d a m bien ce of th eir r oom s, a n d of th e ph ysica l eviden ce of th e lea r n in g pr ocesses, su ch a s th e
u se of open or r esou r ce-ba sed lea r n in g, th a t
sch ools h ave m ost fr eedom [34].
Is marketing ethical for education?
De bate s abo ut the
appro priate ne ss o f
marke ting to no n-pro fitmaking o rganizatio ns are no t
c o nfine d to e duc atio n
Tea ch er s a r e pr ofession a ls wh o, a s Bu r gess
[39] poin ted ou t, u se th eir k n ow ledge a n d
exper ien ce to a ssist th eir stu den ts a s clien ts
a n d wh o a ct in a ccor da n ce w ith a set of va lu es so th a t th eir con du ct tow a r ds th ese
clien ts is both eth ica l a n d pr ofession a l. Th eir
con cer n s a r e u su a lly w ith th e qu a lity of edu ca tion a l exper ien ce wh ich th ey pr ovide to
stu den ts a n d on ly r a r ely a n d r elu cta n tly w ith
th e com m er cia l or m a r k etin g a spects of th eir
wor k . Yet th e la tter pr ovide cr u cia l con str a in ts on r esou r ces wh ich in evita bly a ffect
ou tcom es.
Deba tes a bou t th e a ppr opr ia ten ess of m a r k etin g to n on -pr ofi t-m a k in g or ga n iza tion s a r e
n ot con fin ed to edu ca tion . Ha bgood[40] qu estion ed th e su ita bility of m a r k etin g m eth odologies for th e pu r poses of eva n geliza tion .
However, McIn tosh a n d McIn tosh [41, p. 9]
in dica ted th a t, a lth ou gh th e pu blic often
a ssocia te m a r k etin g w ith “slick a n d, per h a ps,
u n der h a n d pr ofession a lism ”, m a r k etin g w a s
a ctu a lly a n eth ica l im per a tive for ch a r ities. It
is im por ta n t to iden tify ben eficia r ies’ n eeds
a s a ccu r a tely a s possible to avoid w a sta ge of
sca r ce r esou r ces.
Ma r k etin g is a ph ilosoph y of m a n a gem en t
th r ou gh wh ich in stitu tion s con sider, deba te
a n d cla r ify th eir u n der lyin g pr in ciples a n d
pu r poses to m eet th e n eeds of th eir clien ts.
E du ca tion a l m a r k etin g r equ ir es th e iden tifica tion of stu den t a n d com m u n ity n eeds a n d a
com m itm en t to m eetin g th ose n eeds w ith a
h igh qu a lity pr odu ct[20]. P a r dey[13]
su ggested th a t th e clien t-cen tr ed n a tu r e of
m a r k etin g m a de it eth ica lly a ccepta ble in
edu ca tion , poin tin g ou t th a t va lu es sh a pe th e
goa ls a n d decision m a k in g of a n y or ga n iza tion . Gr ay[11] poin ted ou t th a t if a ll sta ff
involved in a sch ool a r e tr yin g to im pr ove th e
qu a lity of ser vice, a ll m u st be in volved in
pr om otin g “cu stom er ca r e” a n d in en h a n cin g
levels of “cu stom er ” sa tisfa ction . Th is is,
effectively, m a r k etin g a sch ool to its pr im a r y
ben eficia r ies, th e stu den ts, a n d th eir pa r en ts,
even if th e sta ff con cer n ed a r e n ot com for ta ble w ith th e u se of com m er cia l ter m in ology
to descr ibe it.
Th e a spect of m a r k etin g wh ich seem s to
ca u se m ost offen ce in sch ools is th a t wh ich
r ela tes to sellin g. It is th ou gh t to be u n pr ofession a l, if n ot u n eth ica l, for pr ofession a l ca r er s to tr y to a ttr a ct cu stom wh en th eir
im plicit pr ofession a l codes em ph a size look in g a fter people a ltr u istica lly. On th e oth er
h a n d, clien ts a n d poten tia l clien ts m ay n eed
to k n ow th e qu a lity of a sch ool’s pr odu ct/
pr ocess a n d th e com peten ce of its sta ff if th ey
a r e to m a k e r ea son ed ch oices a bou t h ow best
to m eet th eir ow n n eeds. Sch ool pr ospectu ses
a n d open days give pa r en ts som e ba sis for
in for m ed ch oices a s well a s bein g m ea n s of
givin g th em som e a ccou n t of h ow well a
sch ool is look in g a fter th eir ch ildr en . Per h a ps
a s Gu m m esson [42, p. 34] says “…it is n ot
u n eth ica l or u n wor th y to expr ess th e a dva n ta ges of a ser vice of a pr ofession a l…a s lon g a s
th e tr u th is told”. Beca u se tea ch er s h ave been
r eticen t in th e pa st a bou t th e com plexities of
th eir job a n d wh a t is involved in per for m in g
it, th ey h ave su ffer ed th e h u m ilia tion of seein g a tr avesty of th eir wor k por tr ayed in
m u ch of th e m a ss-m edia in th e UK in th e
1980s, su ch th a t th e pu blic cou ld h ave been
led to believe th a t tea ch in g w a s a n ea sy job
w ith r ela tively sh or t h ou r s of wor k , th e pr oblem s of wh ich wer e tr ivia l a n d r ela tively
ea sily r esolved by h a r der wor k , tou gh er disciplin e a n d m or e r igor ou s testin g. Wou ld th a t
th e pr oblem s of sch ools wer e solved so ea sily!
Ma r k etin g is a “m a n a gem en t or ien ta tion
pr ocess”[43, p. 48], th e fou n da tion of a sch ool’s
m a n a gem en t str a te gy. Its m a in focu s is n ot on
th ose a spects of a n or ga n iza tion for wh ich
tea ch er s seem to h ave little tim e – th e slick
pr ocesses of im a ge-m a k in g a n d pu blic r ela tion s – n or on th ose in wh ich m ost of th em
ta k e little in ter est – r esou r ce m a n a gem en t –
a lth ou gh it is con cer n ed w ith u sin g sca r ce
r esou r ces a s effectively a s possible to m eet
th e iden tified n eeds of a n or ga n iza tion ’s
clien ts. Th e m a in focu s of m a r k etin g is on a
dia logu e between a n or ga n iza tion a n d its
clien ts, a sch ool a n d its stu den ts a n d pa r en ts,
a n d on h ow th eir differ en t n eeds ca n be m et
m ost effectively, issu es wh ich a r e a t th e h ea r t
of m ost tea ch er s’ pr ofession a l con cer n s. To
m eet th ese n eeds r equ ir es a ll sta ff to be
involved in a con sta n t, system a tic r eview of
th eir pr a ctice in or der to im pr ove th e qu a lity
of th e ser vice of tea ch in g a n d lea r n in g wh ich
th eir sch ool pr ovides. Ma r k etin g, th en , is
cr u cia l if a sch ool is to develop its vision for
its stu den ts a n d m a in ta in th e pr a ctices of
sch ool im pr ovem en t.
[ 31 ]
Jane t A. Harve y
and Hugh Bushe r
Marke ting sc ho o ls and
c o nsume r c ho ic e
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 0 / 4 [1 9 9 6 ] 2 6 –3 2
[ 32 ]
References
1 Petch , P., “Sch ool m a n a gem en t: th eor y a n d
pr a ctice”, in Bu r gess, T., A ccou n tab ility in
S ch ools, Lon gm a n , Ha r low, 1992.
2 Wr a gg, E .C., “Hu m a n ity loses ou t in com petition ”, T im es Ed u ca tion a l S u pplem en t, 10 Septem ber 1993, p. 18.
3 Ch r istoph er, M., P ayn e, A. a n d Ba lla n tyn e, D.,
R ela tion sh ip M a rk etin g, Bu tter wor th Hein em a n n , Oxfor d, 1991.
4 Ma ja r o, S., M a rk etin g in Perspectiv e, Geor ge
Allen & Un w in , Lon don , 1982.
5 Bor den , N.H., “Th e con cept of th e m a r k etin g
m ix”, in Sch w a r tz, G. (E d.), S cien ce in M a rk etin g, Wiley, N ew Yor k , N Y, 1965.
6 Cowell, D.W., “Ma r k etin g ser vices”, in Ba k er,
MJ . (E d.), T h e M a rk etin g B ook , 3r d ed., Ch a r ter ed In stitu te of Ma r k etin g, Bu tter wor th Hein em a n n , Oxfor d, 1994.
7 Cow a n , B.J ., “Ma r k etin g sch ools: tr a n scen din g
th e m yopic sta te”, u n pu blish ed P h D disser ta tion , Un iver sity of Rea din g, 1993.
8 Ru sh ton , A.M. a n d Ca r son , D.J ., “Ma r k etin g of
ser vices: m a n a gin g th e in ta n gibles”, Eu ropea n
J ou r n a l of M a rk etin g, Vol. 19 N o. 3, 1985, pp. 1940.
9 Cowell, D.W., T h e M a rk etin g of S er vices,
Hein em a n n , Lon don , 1984.
10 Ba teson , J .E .G., M a n a gin g S er vices M a rk etin g,
Th e Dr yden P r ess, Or la n do, F L, 1989.
11 Gr ay, L., M a rk etin g Ed u ca tion , Open Un iver sity P r ess, Bu ck in gh a m , 1991.
12 Lovelock , C.H., M a n a gin g S er vices, M a rk etin g
Opera tion s a n d Hu m a n R esou rces, P r en ticeHa ll, E n glewood Cliffs, N J , 1988.
13 P a r dey, D., M a rk etin g for S ch ools, Koga n P a ge,
Lon don , 1991.
14 Bla ck sh aw, B., “Ma r k et developm en t in th e
fi n a n cia l ser vices in du str y”, in Th om a s, M.J .
(E d.), M a rk etin g Ha n d b ook , 3r d ed., Gower,
Alder sh ot, 1989.
15 Ma cbeth , A., In volvin g Pa ren ts, Hein em a n n ,
Lon don , 1989.
16 Ru ddu ck , J ., Wa lla ce, G. a n d Ch a pla in , R.,
S ch ool Im prov em en t: W h a t Ca n Pu pils T ell Us?,
David F u lton , Lon don , 1995
17 Webster, A., Owen , G. a n d Cr om e, D., S ch ool
M a rk etin g: M a k in g It Ea sy for Pa ren ts to S elect
You r S ch ool, Avec Design s, Br istol, 1993.
18 Stillm a n , A. a n d Maych ell, K., Ch oosin g
S ch ools: Pa ren ts, L EA s a n d th e 1980 Ed u ca tion
A ct, N F E R-N elson , Win dsor, 1986.
19 West, A., David, M., Ha iles, J . a n d Ribben s, J .,
“P a r en ts a n d th e pr ocess of ch oosin g
secon da r y sch ools: im plica tion s for sch ools”,
Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t a n d A d m in istra tion ,
Vol. 23 N o. 1, 1995, pp. 28-38.
20 Davies, B., a n d E llison , L., M a rk etin g th e S econ d a r y S ch ool, Lon gm a n , Ha r low, 1991.
21 Ada m s Ch a pm a n , M.E ., “Ma r k etin g th e colle ge; som e ben efi ts a n d ba r r ier s”, Ed u ca tion a l
M a n a gem en t a n d A d m in istra tion , Vol. 14, 1986,
pp. 107-11.
22 J oh n son , D., Pa ren ta l Ch oice in Ed u ca tion ,
Un w in Hym a n , Lon don , 1990.
23 Th e P low den Repor t, Ch ild ren a n d T h eir Pr im a r y S ch ools: A R epor t of th e Cen tra l A dvisor y
Cou n cil for Ed u ca tion , HMSO, Lon don , 1967.
24 J oh n son , D. a n d Ra n som , E ., “P a r en ts’ per ception s of secon da r y sch ools”, in Cr a ft, M.,
Rayn or, J . a n d Coh en , L. (E ds), L in k in g Hom e
a n d S ch ool, Ha r per & Row, Lon don , 1980.
25 Hu n ter, J .B., “Wh ich sch ool? A stu dy of pa r en ts’ ch oice of secon da r y sch ool”, Ed u ca tion a l
R esea rch , Vol. 33 N o. 1, 1991, pp. 31-41.
26 West, A., David, M., Ha iles, J ., Ribben s, J . a n d
Hin d, A., Ch oosin g a S econ d a r y S ch ool, Cen tr e
for E du ca tion a l Resea r ch , Lon don Sch ool of
E con om ics & Politica l Scien ce, Lon don , 1993.
27 Adler, M .a n d Ra a b, G., “E xit, ch oice a n d loya lty”, J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion Policy, Vol. 3 N o.4,
1988, pp. 155-79.
28 J oh n son , D., Pr iva te S ch ools a n d S ta te S ch ools,
Open Un iver sity P r ess, Bu ck in gh a m , 1987.
29 E lliott, J ., “How do pa r en ts ju dge sch ools?”, in
E lliott, J ., Br idges, D., Gibson , R. a n d Ma s, J .,
S ch ool A ccou n tab ility, Gr a n t McIn tyr e,
Lon don , 1981.
30 Ha n for d, I., “Secon da r y sch ool im a ge”, M a n a gem en t in Ed u ca tion , Vol. 4 N o. 1, 1990, pp. 4-8.
31 Stott, K. a n d P a r r, H., M a rk etin g You r S ch ool,
Hodder & Stou gh ton , Lon don , 1991.
32 Ton k s, D., “Ma r k et se gm en ta tion ”, in Th om a s,
MJ . (E d.), M a rk etin g Ha n d b ook , 3r d ed., Gower,
Alder sh ot, 1989.
33 Ma r la n d, M. a n d Roger s, R., M a rk etin g th e
S ch ool, Hein em a n n , Lon don , 1991.
34 Bow les, G., F u r se, J . a n d Tom lin son , H., “Ma r k etin g a n d pr om otion : a spects of m a r k etin g in
sch ools”, in F idler, B. a n d Bow les, G. (E ds.),
Effectiv e L oca l M a n a gem en t of S ch ools, Lon gm a n , Ha r low, 1989.
35 Sn ell, M., “Lin k s w ith fu r th er edu ca tion ”, in
Fosk ett, N. (E d.), M a n a gin g Ex ter n a l R ela tion s
in S ch ools: A Pra ctica l Gu id e, Rou tledge,
Lon don , 1992.
36 Fosk ett, N. (E d.), M a n a gin g Ex ter n a l R ela tion s
in S ch ools: A Pra ctica l Gu id e, Rou tledge,
Lon don , 1992.
37 Devlin , T. a n d Kn igh t, B., Pu blic R ela tion s a n d
M a rk etin g for S ch ools, Lon gm a n , Ha r low, 1990.
38 Higgin both a m , J.E., “Th e m a n a gem en t of a n
in depen den t sch ool”, In ter n ation al J ou r n al of
Edu cation al M an a gem en t, Vol. 3 No. 4, 1989,
pp. 9-15.
39 Bu r gess, T., A ccou n tab ility w ith Con fi d en ce,
Lon gm a n , Ha r low, 1992.
40 Ha bgood, J ., “Ma r k etin g th e Ch u r ch of E n gla n d”, in M a k in g S en se, SP CK, Lon don , 1993.
41 McIn tosh , D. a n d McIn tosh , A., M a rk etin g: A
Ha n d b ook for Ch a r ities, Dir ector y of Socia l
Ch a n ge, Lon don , 1984.
42 Gu m m esson , E ., “How pr ofession a l ser vices
a r e bou gh t”, in Rin es, M. (E d.), M a rk etin g
Ha n d b ook , 2n d ed., Gower, Alder sh ot, 1981.
43 Ga u n t, H., Cou ld Do B etter: Crea tin g a M a rk etin g S tra teg y for You r S ch ool, Hor ton P u blish in g, Br a dfor d, 1991.