Flow of Ideas: articles - Business Takeover of Further Education |
||||||||||||||||||
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
| The Business Takeover of Further Education and the Further Education White PaperGlenn Rikowski, London 28th March 2006 The Business Takeover of Further Education Colleges? The further education (FE) White Paper, Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances (DfES, 2006a) was published yesterday. One of the disturbing things about it is that it appears to open up possibilities for the business takeover of further education colleges. According to Jon Boone (2006a): “Plans to allow private companies to take over underperforming further education colleges are to be announced by the government today [in the White Paper]” (Boone, 2006a). Of course, only a simpleton would expect this FE White Paper (or the schools White Paper of October 2005) or any White Paper to blurt out that ‘companies will take over failing colleges’ (or schools) – or some such words. But the FE White Paper does seem to offer up such openings for the private sector. This is set within the context of ‘eliminating failure’ in the FE system. Failing or ‘coasting’ colleges are to be given an improvement notice, and continued poor performance after a year will mean that the college will either be forced to change its leadership (including its governors), merge with another college or ‘opening up the provision to competition’ (DfES, 2006b, p.9). This last option paves the way for private sector companies to run these colleges. The point is made more stridently when the DfES announces that: “To promote dynamism and innovation we will encourage new high quality providers into the FE sector. New competition arrangements will make it easier for new providers to enter the system” (DfES, 2006b, p.10). Good colleges will be allowed to expand, Trusts and federations will be encouraged, and ‘independent and voluntary training providers’ will be enabled to enter the FE sector (Ibid.). In their Foreword to the FE White Paper (Blair, Brown and Kelly, 2006), the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Education and Skills note that: ‘Through competitions we will enable new providers to enter the market’ (p.2). Once again, without shouting it from the rooftops (as some educational Left analysts seem to expect), there is a coded commitment here to ushering in private operators to run further education colleges. There is a whole section on encouraging new providers (DfES, 2006a, pp.62-64) in the FE White Paper, and greater use of competitions and tenders are advanced (p.62). As Jon Boone notes rightly in today’s Financial Times, these FE reforms ‘go further than proposals for schools’, with the government believing that they can get away with more regarding promoting for-profit operations in the FE sector. For Boone, it is clear that on the basis of the FE White Paper: “Failing colleges will be eligible for takeover by a private company if they do not improve after a year, [and furthermore]… The white paper also has provisions for the trial of a voucher-style arrangement, whereby individual “learners” will be able to take their funding to a provider of their choice” (2006b). Thus, the FE White Paper seeks to enhance marketisation of the FE sector. Indeed, it argues that: “we seek to reinforce the role of the autonomous, independent college” (DfES, 2006a, p.85), whilst simultaneously advocating federations, Trusts, collaboration and mergers (in circumstances of failing colleges) elsewhere. In addition, the FE White Paper will provide the legislative foundation for new models of the business takeover of colleges, noting that “new structural models” will be forthcoming, alongside the establishment of new Trusts and federations (DfES, 2006a, p.22). The state is striving here to develop ‘models’ of business takeover that will ‘work’; that is, allow companies to produce profits whilst safeguarding education and training standards, and which minimise political risks. This is a tough call. It is clear, however, that like for schools, the Trusts will be not-for-profit charities (DfES, p.61). Yet the same is not said regarding federations of colleges. But do the Employers want it? The FE White Paper is more concerned with labour-power development than the business takeover of colleges, however. This is established in the Foreword by Blair, Brown and Kelly. So, do business folk want a ‘business takeover of colleges’? First of all, as Jon Boone notes (2006a), only 2 per cent of colleges are now inadequate according to the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), as compared with 20 per cent in 2001. Thus: business penetration of the further education sector is likely to be on a small scale if companies can only run up to 2 per cent of colleges on a for-profit basis. There is, of course, the notion that ‘coasting’ colleges – those underperforming but not ‘failing’ – could also be included, according to the FE White Paper. This would increase the numbers of colleges where for-profit operations might take root. Furthermore, companies could control federations of colleges, thereby making economies of scale. But, even if the situation is currently unclear in certain respects, Jon Boone indicates that: “Some private sector skills providers have expressed interest in running colleges” (2006a). So it seems that Boone has evidence that some private operators are up for the challenge of running FE colleges for profit. Meanwhile, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the leading employers’ organisation in the United Kingdom, has argued that the government needs to be much bolder than it is in the FE White Paper regarding letting companies loose in the FE sector to run colleges for profit: “The White Paper on Further Education Reform is a crucial step towards ensuring people have the skills needed for business to compete in the 21st century, the CBI said today (Monday). But, the CBI believes, the Government should allow the private sector to bid for state funding in all areas of further education, not just where colleges are failing or where there is a gap in provision” (CBI, 2006, p.1). Digby Jones, Director-General of the CBI said that: “The Government should open up the [FE] sector to full competition and contestability to ensure that the provider which supplies courses to business is the best one available, regardless of whether it is public or private” (CBI, 2006, p.2). Thus, if there is any fundamental contradiction between the social production of labour-power and the business takeover of colleges, it is not a contradiction that the CBI are inclined to recognise, or wish to contemplate, or perhaps the CBI believes that it can be resolved. Whatever: the CBI clearly favour the business takeover of FE colleges, and will no doubt press Gordon Brown, who was a signatory to the White Paper, to proceed with this. Those who hold more faith in the radical and Left sympathies of Gordon Brown than they do in Tony Blair may be in for an unpleasant surprise on this issue. For the trade unions, it will be crucial for the merged AUT and NATFHE regarding whether lecturers in the higher education sector support their comrades in the FE sector against the private sector predators who seek to make profits out of running colleges. Barry Lovejoy, head of colleges in NATFHE, said yesterday that: "We don’t agree FE is ripe for private organisations to make a quick buck. It has been shown that where problems of quality are identified, they can be turned around quickly” (in Boone, 2006a). Lovejoy’s words need to be kept in view in the struggles over the heart and soul of the FE sector ahead. References Blair, T., Brown, G. & Kelly, R. (2006) Foreword to Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances, Department for Education and Skills, Cm 6768, March, Norwich: The Stationery Office. Boone, J. (2006a) Failing colleges may face private takeover, Financial Times, 27th March, p.4. Boone, J. (2006b) Further education colleges to focus on employer needs, Financial Times, 28th March, p.2. CBI (2006) Employers’ Needs Should Determine FE Funding – CBI, Press Release, 27th March, http://www.cbi.org.uk DfES (2006a) Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances, Department for Education and Skills, Cm 6768, March, Norwich: The Stationery Office. DfES (2006b) Executive Summary: Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances, Department for Education and Skills, D16/FM/93, DfES Publications: Nottingham. Print Friendly - Print Friendly with links |
|||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||