Flow of Ideas: articles - Business Sponsorship of Schools |
||||||||||||||||||
A Capital Friendly Culture for Further Education Academy Chains After the Hillcole Group Against What We Are Worth 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 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 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 Everything Louder Than Everything Else Finance and Fear Five Endings of Desires Foibles, Frolics and Phantasms Freedom Freewill French New Wave Cinema 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 Hitchcock: classic auteur Human capital, the knowledge economy and business In Retro Glide In the Dentist's Chair 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 Lifelong Learning and the Political Economy of Containment LSBU Strategy Marketisation of the Schools System in England Marx and Education Revisited 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 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 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 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) 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
| Business Sponsorship of Schools: For-profit takeover or agents of neoliberal change?Richard Hatcher, 5th November 2005, Birmingham A reply to Glenn Rikowski’s ‘Habituation of the Nation: School Sponsors as Precursors to the Big Bang?’ [The 'Habituation' paper was posted to the Volumizer on 19 October 2005 - see the Previous Entries: GR] Glenn has developed an argument that the state is promoting close relationships between schools and private companies, at present in the form of non-profit sponsorship, as a softening-up process (‘habituation’) preparatory to a future takeover of the running of state schools by companies for profit. I want to question this analysis and propose a different explanation. First, the White Paper. Glenn predicted that the White Paper would ‘push the business takeover of schools in England on to new pastures’, including ‘more federations of schools run by […] private companies’, which is part of the process of ‘schools metamorphosing into units of capital with the capacity to generate value and surplus-value’. But the White Paper does not bear out this analysis: 1. It explicitly rules out companies running state schools for profit. Sponsorship of the new Trust schools can only be, as now, on a non-profit basis and by charitable trusts (which can be set up by companies and other organisations). 2. Trust status is optional, not compulsory. In my view – and that of commentators such as the general secretary of SHA, the secondary school head teachers’ union – most schools will not be interested, because specialist schools can already benefit from financial donations from sponsors and there is no additional financial incentive from government. 3. It emphases sponsorship of Trusts by non-business bodies – religious organisations, charities, universities, parents’ groups – just as much as it does sponsorship by companies. Glenn would respond, I think, by arguing that although the White Paper is more cautious than he predicted it is still to be explained as part of a process of ‘habituation’ aimed at the business takeover of schools for profit. His explanation for this lies in a ‘logic of capital’ argument – that, in his words, ‘capital’s social universe is a developing totality’. In a general sense this is of course true, but what needs to be added is that it is a mediated process, not one of a linear and reductionist economic determinism, and that therefore the forms it takes in particular social contexts cannot simply be read off, they require concrete analysis of concrete situations. There are two assumptions underlying Glenn’s argument which I want to question: 1. That what he regards as the interests of ‘edubusiness’ and the interests of capital as a whole coincide. 2. That running state schools can be sufficiently profitable. First, the state does not act primarily in the interests of ‘edubusiness’, a growing but still relatively small sector of the economy. It acts in the interests of capital as a whole, and especially big capital, the dominant sectors of the economy. I see no evidence that big capital has lost confidence in the state’s ability to provide its future workforce such that it demands that schools be handed over to the private sector. On the contrary, that function, providing the conditions for accumulation, along with others, is precisely what the state is for, for capital. The model it approves, and which the Blair government provides, is that of ‘public-private partnership’, with government at the helm ensuring capital’s overall objectives are met but private sector involvement to provide business ‘efficiency’ and challenge public sector inertia and resistance. Second, the evidence is that running state schools is not a sufficiently profitable business. The profit in the school system lies in the provision of goods and services to schools and LEAs and the implementation of national policy initiatives. Private companies running state schools for profit, in the form of a management fee, is not forbidden, yet there are only three instances (three schools in Surrey) since the late 1990s. Why is this, if not that it isn’t profitable enough? Even in the US only a tiny proportion of state schools are run for profit, and the companies have found it very difficult to make a profit. Glenn’s ‘logic of capital’ argument oddly omits what drives capital - the law of value: profitability. Where would the profit come from? 85% of schools’ budgets in this country are teachers’ salaries, and increasing ‘productivity’ by increasing class size would simply alienate consumer demand. One indication that ‘edubusiness’ companies do not see sponsorship of schools on a non-profit basis as a stepping stone to running them for profit is that they are notably absent (with only one or two exceptions) from the list of hundreds of companies currently sponsoring specialist schools and, above all, Academies (which the sponsors actually control). Many are large, often international, companies in banking, property, construction and manufacturing making huge profits, far beyond what could conceivably be made from schools. Their motives are quite different, including philanthropy, demonstrating ‘corporate social responsibility’, and promoting business values. There is one further mediating element we need to include: the political relationship of forces between the classes. While there is no doubt that the working class is on the defensive in Britain, there is widespread support still for the idea that core public services should continue to be provided directly by the state, and perceived threats to that provision tend to provoke opposition. The current growing opposition to Academies, locally and nationally, is a case in point. More radical moves to privatise schools would result in a level of resistance which would be very politically risky for Labour, not least in electoral terms. My conclusion is that the purpose of business sponsorship in Labour’s education project, exemplified most recently by the White Paper’s Trust schools, is not to prepare the ground for a business takeover of schools for profit, it is to utilise private companies and individual business entrepreneurs as instruments to transform the schools into more efficient producers of labour-power by shaping them with business management methods and business values. This is the explicit justification which the government gives and it is not a smokescreen to conceal ulterior motives; they are, at least on this occasion, telling the truth. This analysis also explains, as Glenn’s does not, why the government also gives such importance to sponsorship by non-business bodies – it sees them too as key agents of change, whether they bring an entrepreneurial spirit or a Christian ethos. My argument does not depend upon a belief that external sponsorship will satisfy the government’s aims. The extent to which it does remains to be seen. Nor of course does it mean that these forms and motives of sponsorship are any more acceptable than a profit motive: on the contrary, they all tend to subordinate schools to business and other private interests and need to be vigorously opposed (and on this of course Glenn and I have no disagreement). (A more detailed presentation of my argument, written before the White Paper, can be found in my article ‘Privatisation and sponsorship: the re-agenting of the school system in England’ in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Education Policy, and a more detailed analysis of the White Paper in my article ‘The White Paper: what does it intend, what would it mean, will it happen?’ on the Socialist Teachers Alliance website, http://www.socialist-teacher.org). Richard Hatcher Richard.Hatcher@uce.ac.uk 5 November 2005 Originally sent as a personal email to myself, and also sent to colleagues and friends at the University of Northampton (including part-time staff in Education Studies at the university) and also to the MASSES list at Yahoo! Groups For my reply to this paper by Hatcher, see: Rikowski, G. (2005) In the Dentist's Chair: A Response to Richard Hatcher's Critique of Habituation of the Nation, 31st December, in three parts, at The Flow of Ideas: http://www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=In%20the%20Dentist[a]s%20Chair For the original paper of mine that Hatcher critiques here, see: Rikowski, G. (2005) Habituation of the Nation: School Sponsors as Precursors to the Big Bang? London, 19th October, online at: http://www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=Habituation%20of%20the%20Nation Print Friendly - Print Friendly with links |
|||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||