Flow of Ideas: articles - A Capital Friendly Culture for Further Education |
||||||||||||||||||
A Capital Friendly Culture for Further Education A Tribute to My Father Academy Chains Actions Reasons Events After the Hillcole Group Against What We Are Worth Alienated Labour Ambassadors of Capital in Schools An Educational Mansion House for Business Apprenticeship and the Use-value Aspect of Labour Power Artistic Outlook Ayers Rocked In His Own Universe B Generation Bourdieu on Capital Bourdieu on Cultural Capital Bourdieu on Social Capital Brown PFI Monster Business Sponsorship of Schools Business Takeover of Further Education Cambridge University Occupation Capitorg Caught in the Storm of Capital Co-payment in Hospitals and Schools Cold Hands and Quarter Moon Communitarianism for Schools Compulsory Consumption and Uni-Nanny Conforming Schools Conforming Kids Copy/South Dossier Creating Monsters Creeping Privatisation in Higher Education Critical Mass Critical Pedagogy and Capitalism Critical Space in Education Delivering E-Learning Descartes on the Mind and Body Relation Digital Rights Management Distillation Dorothy L. Sayers Douglas Kennedy: best-selling novelist E-learning for Free at the BBC Edison Schools in the UK Education and Inspections Bill (2006) Education As Culture Machine Education Fireworks Education for Debt Education Incorporated Education Markets and Missing Products Education Repetition Education the HSBC Way Education White Paper Education, Globalisation and the Learning Society Employers and School Leavers Evaluating Different Teaching Methods Eve on Top Everything Louder Than Everything Else Finance and Fear Five Endings of Desires Foibles, Frolics and Phantasms Freedom Freewill French New Wave Cinema Freudian Crisis in the Modern Age Full Report Ruth Rikowski's Book Launch for Globalisation, Information and Libraries Gender and Spokesperson in Group Work Issues Global Trading Globalisation and Education Revisited Habituation of the Nation Higher Education and Confused Employer Syndrome Historical Materialism and Functional Explanation Hitchcock: classic auteur Hobbit and Lord of the Rings by Tolkien Human capital, the knowledge economy and business In Retro Glide In the Dentist's Chair Intentionality Jane Austen and Douglas Kennedy Kids in the Land of No Dreams KM Critique Lazy Brit Kids Learning in the Earthworks of Capital Learning Investments Learning to the Max Librarianship and Human Rights Libraries and Society Life in the Higher Sausage Factory Lifelong Learning and the Political Economy of Containment LSBU Strategy Marketisation of the Schools System in England Marx and Education Revisited Marx and Justice Marx and the Future of the Human Marxism and Education Revisited Marxist Educational Theory Unplugged Maturity and Freedom McDonaldization and Education Michael Jackson Michele Roberts Miss Allison and Novel Writing Moneythought in Higher Education Mrs Thatcher and Holes in the Kitchen Floor Multiculturalism and Faith Schools My Tony Blair Never Ending Story New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 1 New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 2 New Labour Policy for Schools Nietzsche's School Nihilism and Educational Values No Learner Left Unhassled Notes on the Confessions of John Denham On Education for Its Own Sake On Education Studies On the Capitalisation of Schools in England On Transhumanism and Education Open Access Outsourcing Public Services Peter Wilby on School Privatisation Physicalism Planet of the Capitorg Plato Playgound Risks and Handcuffed Kids Poems by Gregory Rikowski Poems by Victor Rikowski Post-Fordism and Schools Post-Fordism in Primary Schools Postmodern Dereliction in the Face of Neoliberal Education Policy PowerPointlessness in Higher Education Private Schools as Charities Privatisation of Schools in England Privatisation of Student Debt Races in the Imperial War Rage - Victor Rikowski Readings for Teaching Course Recruitment and Labour Power Revealed Recruitment Criteria through the Use-value Aspect of Labour-power Robotic Ethics Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives) Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives) Saudi Arabia School Fees and the 1944 Education Act Schools: Building for Business Science Fiction Films and Horror Second Time as Farce Snowballs and Risk in Schools Social Contract Theory and Political Obligations Socialism is not Dead Speed of Life - Part One Speed of Life - Part Two Stroppy Individuals and Oppositional Cultures in Schools Sustainability Policy at London South Bank University Ten Points on Marx, Class and Education The Business of Becoming a Business for Academies The Capitalisation of Schools - Federations and Academies The CBI and the Business Takeover of Schools The Commodification of Education The Education White Paper and the Marketisation of Schools The Evolution of Federations of Schools The Last Parents Evening The New Japanisation of Schools The Profit Virus - The Business Takeover of Schools The Standards Language-game for Schools in England The Which Blair Project Three Types of Apprenticeship - Three Forms of Mastery Tony and Caroline Benn Tony Benn: Letters to Grandchildren Transport Turney's and PPU Uninspiring Towers Universe of Capital and My Space Universities in a Neoliberal World Utopia and Education What Can Nietzsche Teach Ya When Bullies Roam the School When the Bowers Break Why Employers Can't Ever Get What They Want Will Hutton and His E-Foss Wolf on Marx Without Sparks Women in World Wars Wonder - a poem by Gregory Rikowski
| A Capital-friendly Culture for Further Education in the UKGlenn Rikowski, London, 17th November 2007 Introduction On April 1st (an appropriate date) 1993, colleges in the further education (FE) sector became ‘incorporated’ educational entities: self-governing organisations free of local education authority (LEA) control. Individual colleges – ranging from general further education colleges servicing the post-compulsory education market, to sixth form, specialist vocational colleges and adult education centres – became responsible for their own management, budget, staff and assets. They had charitable status but were not covered by the Companies Act or company law. At the time, a lot was written and reported in the mainstream and educational press about colleges in the FE sector forging a ‘new culture’. However, only in the last few years have we begun to see some of the logical outgrowths of the kind of ‘culture of change’ UK governments (Conservative and New Labour) had in view for FE colleges. A Personal Account From 1985 to 1994 I worked in the FE sector. My time at Loughton College of Further Education, which became Epping Forest College (EFC) in 1989, was the most enjoyable of my life in terms of the teaching involved. Yet in 1993 I felt that things were changing for worse in the FE sector; especially given the new contracts we were offered after incorporation. In those days, many FE colleges ran substantial programmes for part-time evening and day students in academic subjects. Epping Forest College had significant programmes specifically for mature students, for example in sociology: I taught on the Mature Sociology A-level course, and evening class sociology and GCSE groups. This was a rewarding experience – constituting some of the happiest times of my teaching career. The college also ran higher education Access courses for adults. I’m not denying that these types of courses are being run FE colleges today. Yet from personal experience I feel that they have been downgraded by today’s colleges working under the cosh of the New Labourite obsession with “employability”. When two of my sons tried to get part-time evening courses in A-level Film Studies and Theatre Studies in colleges in east London last summer they faced great difficulties in finding something appropriate. When I looked at the overall offerings in these colleges I was struck by the narrowness of the choice available at A-level. There was more choice for part-time day, and significantly more for full-time day courses aimed at those who wanted to upgrade their A-level points score – but not so much available to working adults wanting part-time evening study. Another thing that struck me was the extent to which the colleges had been vocationalised. But this is in line with the kind of ‘cultural change’ New Labour requires of the FE sector. The Leitch Mission for FE: ‘Employability’ as Labour Power Enhancement What has happened is that the kind of ‘cultural change’ recent governments have wanted for FE colleges is that of increasing “employability” of the nation’s stock of labour power, i.e. labourers' capacity to labour. This is apparent in the Leitch Report which came out in December 2006 (see HM Treasury, 2006a). Lord Leitch was Chairman of the National Employment Panel and had been a Chief Executive of Zurich Financial Services (HM Treasury, 2006a, p.2). He is also Chairman of BUPA and a non-executive director of Lloyds TSB (HM Treasury, 2006b, p.2) – so obviously knows lots about life in FE colleges. Basically, the Leitch Report argued that employers should lead course development in FE (and to some extent in the higher education sector), so that their ‘needs’ (i.e. labour power needs) could be best catered for. As Milner (2006) noted: “The aim will be to create a demand-led framework in which employers determine what is required” (p.1). Milner also indicated (p.2) that the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) were keen for more competition (i.e. the insertion of private sector education and training providers) regarding course provision. However, the Leitch Report downgraded courses that were not concerned primarily with economically valuable skills (e.g. academic A-level courses for part-time and adult evening class students), as: “Economically valuable skills must be delivered through a demand-led approach, facilitated by a new culture of learning, and an appetite for improved skills amongst individuals and employers” (HM Treasury, 2006b, p.2). In this new ‘culture of learning’, all: ‘…public funding for adult vocational skills, apart from “community learning” [courses provided by local education authority adult education centres: GR] and certain courses for people with learning difficulties, should be routed through the new Train to Gain programme, which subsidises training in people’s places of work and compensates their employers for the time it takes …” (in Kingston, 2006, p.1). Hence, adult ‘education’ – apart from the exceptions noted by Kingston – should be transformed into ‘training’ via Train for Gain, or risk being cast into a financial limbo. In Doubt The whole Leitch agenda appears to rest on either ignorance of research in relevant fields, or an ostrich-like attitude to any theoretical or research-based considerations. Thus: some years ago Alison Wolf (2002) pointed out that there was no relationship between expenditure on education and economic growth – which casts doubt on the basic assumption underlying the Leitch Report. This was that investment in ‘skills’ would not only be good for individuals (which, when generalised is dubious) but would also be economically beneficial for UK plc. The sacrifice of adult education for the shibboleth of the ‘skills agenda’ has come under increasing criticism: “Whitehall’s head of FE has been forced to defend the Government against claims that there is no proven connection between skills and economic success. It comes as ministers face increasing criticism at the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills over the emphasis on skills training at the expense of adult education” (Lee, 2007). Dennis Hayes, from Canterbury Christ Church University, and formerly joint President of the University and College Union, argued that: “If you look at studies if the world economy, there is no connection between the qualifications or skill level and economic performance. Utterly no connection. There are countries where the skill level of qualifications is going up hugely and the economy has collapsed. This whole strategy [i.e. Leitch’s: GR] is based on assumptions about the economy that don’t make sense …" (in Lee, 2007). My own research (Rikowski, 2000) suggests that even if it is assumed that employers' labour power needs should determine courses and qualifications in schools, colleges and universities, we cannot assume that employers can provide any coherent account of what their ‘needs’ are. The usually cautious FE Focus Editorial was apoplectic in its wrath when it argued: “Of course, employers must be listened to. But the social wellbeing of our adult population, not to mention its mental health, can be greatly enhanced by studying non-vocational subjects. … [And] … colleges will always believe, rightly, that their students are more than simply the raw material from which profit can be extracted by employers at a later stage” (FE Focus, 2007). Conclusion The culture of change that Leitch and his business cheerleaders want students to embrace is their subservience to enhancing their skills for capital accumulation above any other educational concerns and interests they might have. Hearts and minds have to be changed and shaped on this issue, and Leitch acknowledges this. But ‘Colleges have wider aspirations than this – and so should policymakers’ (FE Focus, 2007). References FE Focus (2007) See people, not pound signs, Times Educational Supplement (FE Focus), Editorial, 16th November, p.4. Kingston. P. (2006) Boost investment to solve skills crisis, Leitch report urges, The Guardian, 5th December: http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/story/0,,1964624,00.html Lee, J. (2007) Leitch philosophy under attack, Times Educational Supplement (FE Focus), 16th November, p.1. Milner, M. (2006) Britain must match training with employers’ needs, urges Leitch report, The Guardian, 5th December: http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/story/0,,1964163,00.html HM Treasury (2006a) Leitch Review of Skills, Her Majesty’s Treasury, 5th December, at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/leitch_review/review_leitch_index.cfm HM Treasury (2006b) Lord Leitch published review of long term skill needs, Press Notice, 5th December, Her Majesty’s Treasury: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2006/press_leitch.cfm Rikowski, G. (2000) Why Employers Can't Ever Get What They Want. In fact, they can't even get what they need, a paper presented at the School of PCET Staff/Student Seminar, University of Greenwich, Queen Anne's Palace, 30 Park Row, Greenwich, London, 27 March: http://www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=Why%20Employers%20Can[a]t%20Ever%20Get%20What%20They%20Want Wolf, A. (2002) Does Education Matter? Myths about education and economic growth, London: Penguin Books. Print Friendly - Print Friendly with links |
|||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||