Flow of Ideas: articles - In the Dentist's Chair

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

Freedom

Freewill

French New Wave Cinema
Full Report Ruth Rikowski[a]s Book Launch for Globalisation, Information and Libraries

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[a]s Chair

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[a]s Book - Part 1

New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 1
New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski[a]s Book - Part 2

New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 2

New Labour Policy for Schools
Nietzsche[a]s School

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

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)

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[a]t Ever Get What They Want

Why Employers Can't Ever Get What They Want

Will Hutton and His E-Foss

Wolf on Marx Without Sparks

Women in World Wars

**In the Dentist’s Chair: a Response to Richard Hatcher’s Critique of Habituation of the Nation - Part One**

Glenn Rikowski School of Education, University of Northampton

"A true renewal of thinking about educational and social reform must pass through a regeneration of Marxist theory if the great and fertile meaning of human rights and equality is to reverberate in the hopes of aggrieved populations throughout the world. Education in its current incarnation is bound up with the fate of corporate-led global capitalism and its unbridled capacity for accumulation" (Peter McLaren, An Address to La Fundación McLaren de Pedagogia Critica, Tijuana, Mexico, 31 July, 2004).

Introduction

On 5th November, Richard Hatcher sent his Business Sponsorship of Schools: For-profit takeover or agents of neoliberal change? A Reply to Glenn Rikowski’s ‘Habituation of the Nation: School Sponsors as Precursors to the Big Bang?’ paper to me personally, to a bunch of email lists and to many of the people I work with at the University of Northampton (Hatcher, 2005b). It was a critique of a paper I had written and posted onto my web log, Volumizer on 19th October – Habituation of the Nation: School Sponsors as Precursors to the Big Bang? (Rikowski, 2005b) and had also been circulated to a number of e-lists and individuals. This paper is a response to Hatcher’s Bonfire Night paper (Hatcher, 2005b), constituting both a defence of my own views but also an attack on Hatcher’s – and written in the same spirit that Hatcher wrote his original attack upon me. I do not typically like doing this sort of thing, but Hatcher seems to want to undermine not just my own views on New Labour’s education White Paper (Her Majesty’s Government, 2005) but also the version of Marxist analysis to which I am committed, and perhaps to using Marxian analysis in order to grasp developments in capitalist education in toto, it could be argued. Thus for me, there is a lot at stake and the arguments have wider significance.

Before starting the critique of Hatcher’s paper it is important to establish a few preliminary points. Hatcher’s attack on my ‘Habituation’ paper (Rikowski, 2005b) centres on my analysis and interpretation of the education White Paper. However, in that paper, written on 19th October, six days before the White Paper was published, I mentioned the White Paper only once in the original paper as posted on The Volumizer, and three times if the Preface to the version posted to the MASSES (Marxian Analysis of Schools, Society, and Education SIG) e-list is taken into account [1]. I said in the Preface that:

"However, with the White Paper on education policy due for publication next week the key question is whether New Labour is rushing the habituation phase. If the White Paper promises a Big Bang approach where companies can take over schools and run them for profit on a hugely expanded scale there could be significant opposition emerging" (p.3).

Thus, with the benefit of having the actual White Paper before him, and writing five days after it came out, Richard Hatcher decided to critique my ‘analysis’ of the White Paper as set out in the above paragraph. But the target of my ‘Habituation’ paper was not principally the White Paper at all. I was attempting to explain the significance of the ‘habituation’ process where, as I had expounded in my Silence on the Wolves pamphlet:

"Within the schools system as a whole schools will increasingly be forming long-term social and economic relationships with companies: they will progressively be in the company of companies. Through this process, teachers, parents, pupils, school governors, what is left of LEAs (if anything) and local politicians will become habituated to working with capital and capitals (i.e. individual companies)" (Rikowski, 2005a, pp.30-31 – original emphasis).

This was the focus of my Habituation paper; that and calling the bluff of Fiona Millar on the issue, who claimed to be genuinely perplexed regarding why rich folk should sponsor state schools, particularly Academies (see Millar, 2005; and also my comments on her article in Rikowski, 2005b). I put forward a series of propositions, based within Marxian analysis that functioned as a first shot in trying to explain the significance of the sponsorship phenomenon.

Secondly, Hatcher goes on to say that:

"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’" (Hatcher, 2005a, p.1) [2].

But I did not make such a prediction regarding the White Paper in the Habituation paper (Rikowski, 2005b) at all. I did, however, predict that the White Paper would ‘push the business takeover of schools in England on to new pastures’, in the Preface to the MASSES posting of the Habituation paper. And I still stand by this. However, the second part of the quotation (also from the Preface) was quoted out of context. As I said in the Preface to the MASSES version, it was leaks in The Times that indicated there would be ‘more federations of schools run by private schools and companies’ – not me. However, on this point the White Paper also came good: although the details have to be unpacked to see what is going on.

Indeed, only the third part of the composite quotation above actually comes from the original Habituation paper. Hatcher’s lack of page numbers and referencing for this composite quotation also suggests that his critique of central arguments of the original Habituation paper was not what he was really after. By the time he had written his ‘reply’ to my Habituation paper I had only produced one paper that was more or less wholly on the White Paper: The Education White Paper and the Marketisation and Capitalisation of the Secondary Schools System in England (Rikowski, 2005c). This had also come out on my web log, Volumizer (in two parts) on 24th October – the day before the publication of the White Paper. Yet Hatcher decided not to critique this, my main contribution to analysis of the White Paper, at the time when he was writing his critical piece on me (i.e. Hatcher, 2005b). Maybe he did not know of it. But then if this was the case he was critiquing me on the White Paper via the Habituation paper when, as far as he knew, I had written only one paragraph on it (plus two references to it in the Preface of the MASSES version) – and that in relation to an argument in the Habituation paper that was not primarily about the White Paper!

Another consideration is that I did not in fact make the precise ‘prediction’ that Hatcher says I did when all these points are strung together as he arranged them. It could be argued, however, that I had anticipated the following: that the White Paper would ‘push the business takeover of schools in England on to new pastures’ (which is true), and that this is part of ‘schools metamorphosing into units of capital with the capacity to generate value and surplus-value’ – which I also stand by. Finally, The Times leakers’ (not necessarily my) view that the White Paper would mean ‘more federations run by private schools and companies’ is partially validated by the White Paper’s intentions too. It is interesting that Hatcher airbrushed out ‘private schools’ from my original quotation. Anyhow, I shall return to these points later on.

Thirdly, Hatcher did not give any indication regarding where my original Habituation paper could be found. Now, he may have thought that this was not necessary as people on the e-lists that he had sent it to would have access to it anyway. On the other hand, in drawing attention to where my Habituation paper could be found he would have been running the risk that second-time readers might have sussed out that his so-called ‘reply’ to it was a sham: there was virtually nothing on the White Paper in it! This would have been even more obvious if they had looked at the original version in The Volumizer (minus the Preface). Anyway, Hatcher plays fast and loose with page numbers and references, and his piece is fundamentally unsound. As Ruth Rikowski (2005a) has noted, sometimes those with more academically secure and higher status positions do not feel the same need for accuracy as those who are more likely to have to defend their positions or outlooks, or to justify their existence [3]. Given the tackiness of the paper (i.e. Hatcher, 2005b) with its chronic lack of page numbers and references it may have been that Hatcher wanted the piece out quickly on that 5th November. If that is so, and he was in a hurry, then only he might enlighten us regarding the need for such haste.

I have taken several weeks to reply to him, lack of time being the only relevant factor in that respect, rather than lack of intellectual courage. So: on to Hatcher’s critique of my position on the White Paper, and much else besides.

Hatcher’s Enigmatic Neoliberalism

The first point I would like to make about Hatcher’s Business Sponsorship of Schools (Hatcher, 2005b) is that the subtitle poses a false dichotomy: that business sponsorship of schools is either about for-profit takeover of schools (apparently my position), or about them (the sponsors of schools?) being agents of neoliberal change (Hatcher’s position?). Of course he fails to pose it as clearly as this, and perhaps that was a wise move on his part. Nowhere in his ‘reply’ does he go into what he means by neoliberalism. Yet it does seem that Hatcher is arguing that, from the government’s perspective, school sponsors are ‘change agents’, though he does not relate this explicitly to neoliberalism.

However, it has been argued by a number of those who provide Marxian analyses of neoliberalism (e.g. Clarke, 2005; Lapavitsas, 2005; Hill, 2003, 2004, 2005a and 2006; McLaren, 2005; and McLaren and Farahmandpur, 2005) that the takeover of state services by capital are processes to be included within the constitution of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is not just a market phenomenon. The obsession with education markets in the writings of education researchers and theorists (especially in the UK) to the exclusion of the commodification of practices and processes in educational settings, and viewing education as a form of production, has been commented on previously (see Rikowski, 1996b).

Hatcher seems to be implying in his title that a for-profit takeover of schools has nothing much to do with schools being an agent of neoliberal change. For him, they are two perspectives on how the schools system in England is developing. I would disagree with this; the deepening of neoliberalism in the schools system in England is related to opening up processes for the capitalisation of schools, schools as value- and eventually profit-producing units, which can take a number of forms. First, state revenue can be turned into private profit providing the requisite conditions (including the weakening of education trade unions and creating debilitating divisions in the schools’ workforce), models of practice and sufficient regulation and legal frameworks are in place. What is crucial here is that private operators can run schools for less than the price stipulated in the contract they have signed to run them. For this, they need substantial and effective control of teachers’ wages and conditions of work – something they do not currently have. The Big Bang scenario I pointed to in the Habituation paper (Rikowski, 2005b) referred to a rapid and substantial increase in state schools being run for profit. At present this seems some way off.

Secondly, a voucher system would provide state revenue that parents could use in attempting to get a school of choice for their children, and businesses could cash these in and turn them into profits. Thirdly, forms of “co-payment” might be instituted in schools where fees play part of the costs of providing educational services. Whilst it is difficult to see how these alone could generate profits they could be an addition to the previous two methods. Furthermore, over time, the payment could rise as a proportion of the total cost of providing educational services – which is what happened with dental charges in this country. Co-payment is alive in relation to higher education in England, with university fees set to rise next September. Indeed, in the Tory leadership election joust, David Cameron argued specifically for “some form of co-payment” in higher education in England (see Hill, 2005) – which is what we already have under New Labour! Finally, schools could be sold off and companies would therefore not be just running them but owning them. In addition, there are also ways of generating profits out of the schools system via the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) that I have previously written about (see Rikowski, 2003b and 2005a). Other methods of capitalising schools may yet emerge, of course.

However, I would not wish to give the impression that education markets are not important, nor that their creation, development and deepening are not crucial aspects of neoliberalism as ideology and as state policy practice. As Costas Lapavitsas (2005) notes:

"The neoliberal ascendancy in economic theory and policy commenced during the second half of the 1970s. Its prevalent characteristic is the conviction that free markets provide the optimal organising mechanism for capitalist economies" (p.30).

Yet neoliberalism cannot be just a market ideology and marketising practice for government policy makers. The idea of markets without commodities, without reference to products, and productive processes makes no sense: something has to be sold in markets. Thus: in the marketisation of the schools system in England we are witnessing the gradual development and extension of educational services operating within markets, but also their becoming commodities. For Marx, as is well known (see Marx, 1867, p.43; and also Moseley, und, p.6), the starting point for the analysis of capital is the commodity, so in analysing how educational services are being transformed into commodities and how their corresponding markets develop is a key task for Marxist educational theorists. Part of this project will be to research into and demonstrate how schools in the developing system produce value and surplus-value, and how through various means profits are derived from the surplus-value so produced. However, according to Hatcher (2005b), for-profit schools are not on the agenda anyway [4], so this Marxian educational research and theoretical project is a waste of time.

The basic point is that neoliberalism, as I understand it, in general and when applied to the schools system in England, is about the development of capital as well as markets, which takes us into the realm of the commodity and commodification – with value, surplus value and profit in tow. Neoliberalism nurtures the development of capital and seeks to crash down any barriers to capital accumulation. As Simon Clarke has it, in a neoliberal outlook and state policy mind-set everything is judged by its capital-inducing or capital-denying capacity or potential, and:

"The point for neoliberalism is not to make a model that is more adequate to the real world, but to make the real world more adequate to its model. This is not merely an intellectual fantasy; it is a very real political project. Neoliberalism has conquered the commanding heights of global intellectual, political and economic power, all of which are mobilised to realise the neoliberal project of subjecting the whole world’s population to the judgment and morality of capital" (Clarke, 2005, p.58 – my emphasis).

Neoliberalism is a theory of economy and society that is in hock to capital. Thus, insofar as the business sponsors of schools are ‘agents of neoliberal change’ (Hatcher), then they are simultaneously sponsors of the for-profit takeover of schools, whatever their motivations might be. ‘Neoliberal change’ in the context of schools is intimately connected with their capitalisation: aiding in turning schools into value and surplus-value units, and opening up possibilities for their existence as profit-making units. If this is not so, then either Hatcher is working with a very impoverished, superficial and bourgeois liberal-Left concept of ‘neoliberalism’ or he fails to see the inner connections between the development of the ‘for-profit takeover of schools’ and ‘neoliberal change’, or refuses to acknowledge such connections. If business sponsors of schools are agents of neoliberal change then they are also paving the way for the capitalisation of schools.

The White Paper, Education Markets and Hatcher’s Analytical Limitations

Even at the level of the market the White Paper opens further possibilities for the capitalisation of schools and hence their profit-making potential. To some extent Hatcher acknowledges this in a later paper (see Hatcher, 2005c, p.1).

The White Paper proposes two developments that will deepen market relations in the schools system in England. First, it is proposed by Tony Blair in the Foreword to the White Paper (Blair, 2005a) that:

"Our aim is the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying schools" (p.4).

Thus, schools on this scenario will become discrete units for the production of educational services. This enhanced organisational isolation increases competitive pressures between schools through generating increased parental choice (referred to repeatedly in the White Paper), it could be argued, and makes forms of sharing, partnership and co-operative more problematic ceteris paribus. Secondly, the White Paper advocated the abolition of local education authorities (LEAs) as currently constituted and that their role be redefined and exercised within the local authority as a whole. Regarding education, rather than providing educational services in schools, local authorities have a new role; they are to act as:

"…the commissioners of services and the champions of users (Her Majesty’s Government, 2005, p.104) … [and]… we propose to remove the term ‘local education authorities’ in our publications and our new legislation (p.105) … [and finally]… we will place local authorities under a new duty to promote choice, diversity and fair access" (Ibid.).

Hatcher draws the following conclusions from these proposals:

"‘Contestability’ is the current euphemism for competition. When New Labour came to power it introduced new measures of central control over the school system, believing that Thatcherite marketisation was not a powerful enough motor of change. Now it concludes that state intervention is not enough and that two additional mechanisms of change need to be stepped up.

One is more marketisation in the form of breaking up the LEA system into individual competing schools driven by consumer choice by parents and league tables of performance. Marketisation of course tends to reinforce middle-class advantage, and this is the predictable and intended consequence of the White Paper, cementing Labour’s electoral strategy" (2005c, p1).

Whilst agreeing entirely with Hatcher that the White Paper’s proposals regarding the further marketisation of the system will reinforce (and even extend) middle-strata advantage, especially in the arena of school choice, this is a very limited conclusion to draw.

First, the White Paper advocates the extension and deepening of education markets by more sharply defining schools as competing, independent units of production. Adam Smith would have recognised (and approved) of this point. The fact also that the White Paper advocates successful schools should be encouraged to expand (Her Majesty’s Government, 2005, p.107), that failing schools are closed sooner, and that there be competitions for selecting new schools to open (see Her Majesty’s Government, 2005, p.106) – all further enhances market and competitive elements within the system.

Secondly, any protection by the LEA, such as it is, against predators, chancers and opportunists from the private sector will be reduced. This is especially so when local authorities are charged with the duty under the White Paper of promoting diversity and choice within the schools system. Protection from central government foisting pro-business agendas on schools is also a consideration. Furthermore, Malcolm Horne, General Secretary of the Socialist Educational Association, indicated in a recent letter to The Guardian (Horne, 2005) how effective LEAs were in protecting schools from Tory cuts during 1992-97. Says Horne (2005):

"Tony Blair reminds us of the education funding cuts between 1992 and 1997 (We must never concede the politics of aspiration for all, November 18) [5]. What he doesn’t appear to remember is that we were rescued from even more damaging cuts by local education authorities, both Tory and Labour, which refused to carry out government diktats. It is those LEAs which he now proposes to divest of powers, leaving schools with no defence in future against any government that decides to cut education spending."

There will no such defence against a government hell-bent on nurturing the business takeover of schools by capital-friendly policies or plain diktats forcing individual schools to be run by a private sector operator, which the Secretary of State can do under powers deriving from Education Act 2002 (Her Majesty’s Government, 2002), either.

All-in-all, the White Paper promotes ‘freer’ markets for educational services in schools. Hatcher’s blinkered analysis focuses only on how the White Paper advantages middle strata parents and children. However, the deepening of market relations in the schools system has consequences that go far beyond Hatcher’s obvious point about middle-strata advantage. There has always been such advantage since the establishment of a national system of schools. In deepening market relations in the state schools system in England, the White Paper opens the door further to capital and the capitalisation of schools. It is easier to see this if some of Karl Marx’s writings on capitalisation and markets are examined.

In the Grundrisse, Marx (1858) indicates that the most developed form of capital and capitalism is not when the conditions making for the social reproduction of capital are financed out of state revenue, but when capital directly produces socially reproductive processes. Marx notes that:

"The highest development of capital exists when the general conditions of the process of social reproduction are not paid for out of deductions from the social revenue, the state’s taxes – where revenue and not capital appears as the labour fund, and where the worker, although he is a free wage worker like any other, nevertheless stands economically in a different relation – but rather out of capital as capital. This shows the degree to which capital has subjugated all conditions of social reproduction to itself, on one side; and, on the other side, hence, the extent to which social reproductive wealth has become capitalized, and all needs are satisfied through the exchange form; as well as the extent to which the socially posited needs of the individual, i.e. those which he consumes and feels not as a single individual in society, but communally with others – whose mode of consumption is social by the nature of the thing – are likewise not only consumed but also produced through exchange, individual exchange" (Marx, 1858, p.532 – original emphases).

The schools system is a socially reproductive form in contemporary capitalism. This is because it is involved in producing labour-power (the capacity to labour) which Hatcher (2005b) recognises (p.3), Monty Neill (2005) also noted [6], and on which I have written extensively (e.g. Rikowski, 2002a-b; and 2003a). At one extreme, the state finances (out of taxation) the running of schools and also runs them directly, through both the central state and/or through local or regional states, or through various relations of these. Though value and maybe even surplus-value is generated in this process, any portion of surplus-value is not transformed into profit [7].

On the other hand – during the ‘highest development of capital’ – capital owns and runs schools out of capital itself, underpinned by payments (fees) from the buyers (parents, employers or students), and generates value, and surplus-value. Some of the latter is socially transformed into profit – which finds its way into the hands of definite individuals or groups of people (be they owners of the school, shareholders or institutions). This is when capital acts as capital in the schools system in a more developed fashion. As Marx notes in the first volume of Capital, the nearer schools approach these circumstances then the more do they become ‘teaching factories’:

"Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value. The labourer produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce surplus-value. That labourer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive labourer, when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation" (Marx, 1867, p.477 – my emphases).

Even some currently constituted private schools, which have charitable status in England, do not approach the status of ‘teaching factories’ in Marx’s sense as there is underdevelopment of the category of profit. However, operators such as GEMS and Cognita in England, which run chains of private schools and are expanding rapidly (especially the latter), more readily approach the form of schooling that Marx describes as the ‘teaching factory’. In these schools, surplus-value and especially profit attain more effective and clear social definition.

Somewhere in between these two forms of schooling is what I have described as the ‘business takeover of schools’ (Rikowski, 2003b). This is where the state raises the finance for schools but they are run on a contract, either singly or throughout a local education authority, by a company or companies for profit. Profits are made by running the school(s) for less than the contract price (taking into account clawbacks when stipulated targets are not reached). Here, state revenue is transformed into private profit in the process. Thus, movement away from the first social form of schooling described above towards this middle form also constitutes a movement towards schools as capital, the capitalisation of schools (as outlined in the teaching factory example above). As can be seen in the Marx quotation on ‘the highest development of capital’ (Marx, 1867, p.477), Marx described the capitalisation process as where aspects and areas of life become subjugated by capital, and function as value and surplus-value generating sites and practices. He notes particularly that the higher the development of capital then the more ‘all conditions of social reproduction’ (which would include education, health and other social services) become capitalised. He also emphasises in the same quotation that the other side of this development is that communal activities (such as education) are simultaneously transformed into individualised modes of consumption and produced ‘through exchange, individual exchange’ (Marx, 1858, p.532). Thus, markets are correspondingly developed as these formerly communal activities are transformed (over time) into commodities incorporating surplus-value. Furthermore, the greater the development of capital, the more capitalisation takes hold of a social and communal activity, then the more the market is required to facilitate the realisation of profit in individual exchanges. As Marx notes:

"The product becomes a commodity, leaves the production phase, only when it is on the market" (Marx, 1858, p.672 – original emphasis).

Furthermore:

"The more developed the capital […] the more extensive the market over which it circulates, which forms the spatial orbit of its circulation, the more does it strive simultaneously for an even greater extension of the market and for greater annihilation of space by time" (Marx, 1858, p.539).

Thus, in the movement away from a state system of schools towards a business takeover of schools (as outlined earlier), which also constitutes a movement towards a system of ‘teaching factories’, the development of markets in the schools system facilitates the development of capital in the schools system. The processes are linked. As Marx notes, there is a tendency within capital to ‘create the world market’ which is ‘given in the concept of capital itself’ (Marx, 1858, p.408). Indeed, a ‘constant expansion of the market becomes a necessity for capitalist production’ (Marx, 1866, p.967 – original emphases). In the context of educational services, this tendency can be viewed to be at work in the role that the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) plays in seeking to reduce these to internationally tradable commodities (see Rikowski, 2001a for more on this). It can also be witnessed in the UK government’s drive to encourage the export of educational services (see Rikowski, 2003b for more on this; and Hill, 2006).

The development of the market form is both precondition and result of the development of capital and processes of the capitalisation of socially reproductive and communal activities and practices. In addition, in the social universe of capital, the deepening and diversification of markets and the development of capital are mutually reinforcing. Keeping this in view, then even Hatcher’s limited focus on competition between parents in the scramble for valued school places in the developing school market is more sinister than he seems to realise. This is because in conditions of the capitalisation of schools and the development and deepening of markets in the schools system, any further emphasis on competition is very concerning. Marx explains why:

"Free competition is the relation if capital to itself as another capital, i.e. the real conduct of capital as capital. The inner laws of capital – which appear merely as tendencies in the preliminary historic stages of its development – are for the first time posited as laws; production founded on capital for the first time posits itself in the forms adequate to it only in so far as and to the extent that free competition develops, for it is the free development of the mode of production founded on capital; the free development of its conditions and of itself as the process which constantly reproduces these conditions. It is not individuals who are set free by free competition; it’s, rather, capital which is set free" (Marx, 1858, p.650 – original emphasis).

Of course, in the world of the White Paper, absolutely ‘free competition’ is a long way off – as it is in fact in most markets throughout the world. Governments regulate markets in a multitude of ways. However, it is the intention to moving towards freer competition in the emphases on parental choice and independence, and autonomy of schools, which is evident in the White Paper, which also constitutes a movement towards yielding greater freedom of capital in the schools system in England. Thus, the ‘law of value’, mentioned by Hatcher in his critique of my Habituation paper (Hatcher, 2005b, p.2), gains greater social force and reality with the developments of freer markets and enhanced competition [8].

Altogether, Hatcher has made a very obvious point about the development of education and markets in the vistas of the White Paper in terms of middle strata advantage, yet he ignores crucial ways in which the White Paper appears to want to nurture markets and competition within a context of the capitalisation of schools. He misses vital points in terms of possibilities for the development of the schools system in England; in particular schools being opened up further to capital.

Having indicated a few of the limitations and superficialities of Hatcher’s overall position and mode of analysis, the following sections examine some of his misreadings and woeful misrepresentations of my work. These are tackled as they appear in his paper (i.e. Hatcher, 2005b). The concluding section, ‘In the Dentist’s Chair’ indicates how Hatcher’s outlook regarding the development of the schools system in England can lead to a dangerous complacency and lack of understanding of the inner dynamics involved.

Sheep to the Pastures?

Hatcher says (2005b, p.1) that I “predicted that the White Paper would ‘push the business takeover of schools in England on to new pastures’”. To recap: I did not say this in my actual Habituation paper (Rikowski, 2005b) but did so in a Preface to the paper that was posted to the MASSES e-list. However, I would stick by this. A number of points support this view.

First, there is the deepening of school markets and how this is linked to the capitalisation of the schools system in England. This was examined above. Secondly, there is the consolidation of the embedding of business folk and organisations in school life – most notably as sponsors of schools (and in particular of Academies). Now, the key argument of the original Habituation paper (Rikowski, 2005b) was that the nurturing of relationships between business folk and schools on a stable and expanding basis – through such practices as sponsoring – provided the possibility that parents, teachers, students and others involved in school life would grow used to these partnerships. I pointed out how this could be politically disarming, but also as these groups became ‘habituated’ to working with those with business values then further moves along the business takeover of schools track might provoke less resistance. This might not work out; familiarity might breed contempt!

Thirdly, the abolition of local education authorities with the transference of some of the former LEAs’ functions into a downgraded part of the local authority most concerned with regulating school choice and admissions shatters a layer of protection from the capitalisation of schools. Fourthly, the re-establishment of federations of schools provides another way in which the White Paper pushes the business takeover of schools further along. The next section looks at how federations figure in the White Paper.

Dead Feds?

Hatcher (2005b, p.1) also claims that I predicted that the White Paper would seek to talk about including ‘more federations of schools run by […] private companies’. It does. I was right. There is a whole section in the White Paper on ‘Expansion and federation’ (Her Majesty’s Government, pp.32-33). Indeed, the White Paper resuscitates the notion of federations of schools.

In Silence of the Wolves (Rikowski, 2005a, pp.2-10) I provided a narrative concerning the development of federations of schools in England. This included commentary on Charles Clarke’s attempts to ditch and then re-brand federations as ‘foundation partnerships’. But the White Paper not only restates the importance of federations of schools in terms of there being ‘formal federations’ (Her Majesty’s Government, p.33), that is, several schools sharing a single governing body, it also points towards the formation of new 14-19 and extended school federations:

"Federations and other forms of collaboration will be particularly important in the delivery of 14-19 and extended school reforms. We expect schools increasingly to choose to work together with other schools, including independent schools, colleges and services to deliver the full range of opportunities which children and young people should be able to access" (p.33 – my emphasis).

If private profit-seeking school chains (such as GEMS and Cognita) are brought into a federation then this is like inviting wolves into the sheepfold. Furthermore, where the emphasis in previous New Labour documents (e.g. Education Act 2002 – Her Majesty’s Government, 2002) had been on federations of schools in the secondary sector, in the White Paper the range of schools urged to federate is extended. Federations including a mixture of secondary schools with feeder primary schools, federations of special schools, and federations of primary schools – are all put forward in the White Paper (Her Majesty’s Government, 2005, p.33). Finally, local authorities will gain a new power of being able to force failing schools, and schools ‘at risk’ of failure, to join a federation ‘or enter other collaborative arrangements’ (Her Majesty’s Government, 2005, p.36).

The significance of federations for the business takeover of schools is that they give scope to greater economies of scale – and hence for profits. If companies can run significant numbers of schools then overheads, administrative and some other costs go down as joint systems are used. Losses from some school might be offset by profits on others. Companies seeking to run schools on contracts for profit have long pestered New Labour to let them get hold of large numbers of schools (see Rikowski, 2005a, p.3; and Beckett, 1998 and 1999). The White Paper seeks to consolidate and extend school federations – and I predicted correctly on that one.

Been There, Done That – with Refinements

Hatcher (2005b, p.1) also said that I predicted that the White Paper would result in ‘schools metamorphosing into units of capital with the capacity to generate value and surplus-value’. The thing is: I made no such prediction. This quotation is part of a point I was making in a long chain of argument about the significance of school sponsorship for the business takeover of schools in England. The source is:

"The business takeover of schools in England is an aspect of the becoming of capital in schools in this nation: schools metamorphosing into units of capital with the capacity to generate value and surplus-value" (Rikowski, 2005b, point 8, p.3).

Here, I was defining the nature of the business takeover of schools, what it entailed, rather than predicting that the White Paper would lead to schools becoming units of capital. Indeed, this point had no direct reference to the White Paper at all, though I would hold – given the arguments of the previous sections – that the White Paper is, in general, a document that opens further the schools system in England to the forces of capital.

It could also be argued that once again Hatcher confuses value and profit in relation to the schools sector here. It is possible that value and even surplus-value could be produced and yet a portion of the latter is not transformed into profit; it does not take the profit form in relation to specific schools. Hatcher’s position seems to be linked to a commitment that either, value, surplus-value and profit come as a trinity, a package, or, they are all not present in the schools system. Thus, only schools turning a profit (appropriated by specific individuals or institutions) can be deemed to be strictly capitalist schools. But Hatcher provides no evidence or reasons as to why anyone should agree with this perspective; especially if the notion that the state is a form of capital is taken seriously. From this alternative perspective, state schools are parts of various capitalist states. Furthermore, as John Holloway (2002) notes:

"To criticise the state means in the first place to attack the apparent autonomy of the state, to understand the state not as a thing in itself, but as a social form, a form of social relations (p.92) … [And]… seeing the state as a form of social relations obviously means that the development of the state can only be understood as a moment of the development of the totality of social relations: it is part of the antagonistic and crisis-ridden development of capitalist society. As a form of capitalist social relations, its existence depends on the reproduction of those relations: it is therefore not just a state in capitalist society but a capitalist state, since its own continued existence is tied to the promotion of the reproduction of capitalist social relations as a whole" (pp.93-94 – my emphasis).

In relation to state schools, then, the task for Marxist critique is the analysis of the capitalist forms they assume; to show how they are implicated in the reproduction of the totality of social relations. Marx is helpful at this point. In Theories of Surplus Value – Part One (1863), Marx indicates that in capitalist society there are two classes or categories of commodities:

"The whole world of “commodities” can be divided into two great parts. First, labour power; second, commodities as distinct from labour power itself" (p.167).

He reiterates this point further on in Theories of Surplus Value – Part One, where ‘the world of commodities is divided into two great categories: On the one side, labour-power. On the other side, commodities themselves’ (Marx, 1863, p.171) [9].

Now, in Capital Marx (1867) focused primarily on the analysis of ‘commodities themselves’; there was no sustained analysis of ‘that other great class of commodities’: labour power. As I have argued elsewhere (Rikowski, 2000 and 2002b), Marx assumed that labour power was ‘ready to hand’ in the first two volumes of his Capital. He saw no need for, or did not have the time to develop, a separate yet complementary account of the social production of labour power. This was partly because what I have called the social production of labour power in capitalism, where state schooling systems are involved in developing and nurturing this strange commodity, hardly existed in Marx’s day – especially in England, the principal contextual focus of Marx’s analysis and critique of the development of capital. Indeed, state schooling as an element in the institutionally fragmented process of the social production of labour power only really attained clear social definition and existence after the 1944 Education Act in England. Ironically, Hatcher (2005b) argues that the business sponsorship of schools in England today:

"…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" (p.3 – my emphasis).

Hatcher goes on to say that on this point he and I have no disagreement; and he is correct, we do not. I have written for many years on the social production of labour power (see Rikowski, 1990 and 1996b, for example). However, what Hatcher seeks to avoid is that the state in the context of England has a role in developing educational services as instances of the ‘general class of commodities’ or ‘commodities themselves’, as expressed by Marx. This seems to be the key issue dividing Hatcher and myself, and we shall return to this point. For now, I will continue to track Hatcher’s arguments, pinpointing their limitations.

Hatcher’s Faith in the Trusts

Returning to the set of three ‘predictions’ I had made according to Hatcher, after the final part, i.e. ‘schools metamorphosing into units of capital with the capacity to generate value and surplus-value’ he adds: ‘But the White Paper does not bear out this analysis’. Now, as argued earlier: I made no such prediction regarding ‘schools metamorphosing into units of capital … etc.’; this was part of a process of defining the nature of the business takeover of schools. However, even if I had made such a prediction I would still have been vindicated by what appeared in the White Paper. This is because Hatcher fails to realise how the White Paper can be read as a manifesto for the primitive and forced accumulation of capital in the schools sector in England [10].

Hatcher argues that the White Paper does not bear out my ‘prediction’ about schools ‘metamorphosing into units of capital with the capacity to generate value and surplus-value’ as ‘It explicitly rules out companies running state schools for profit’ (2005b, p.1). But does it? As I see it, Hatcher’s assertion has no backup in the White Paper. It is just plain wrong. Nowhere in the White Paper does it say that companies cannot run state schools for profit. Hatcher misleads on this issue, or else my several readings of the White Paper have missed the vital evidence. What the White Paper does say is something quite different, subtle and more interesting than what Hatcher divines.

First, according to Tony Blair the new independent schools referred to in the White Paper will not charge fees. Says Blair in the Foreword to the White Paper:

"Our aim is the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying state schools. It will be for schools to decide whether they wish to acquire a Trust" (2005a, p.4).

Thus, the non-fee paying issue is set within the context of the proposed new school Trusts. This point is established later on:

"Trusts will be not-for-profit organisations, able to appoint governors to the school, including – where the Trust wishes – the majority of the governing body, as in existing voluntary aided schools" (Her Majesty’s Government, 2005, p.25).

So: no fees, but this does not necessarily rule out some form of “co-payment” by parents – just that these charges will not be known as ‘fees’. As some of my own undergraduate students have told me, their former schools already ask for voluntary payments by parents for each pupil. Co-payment is where the user pays a proportion of the cost of consuming a public service. In February 2003, Tony Blair argued that the government should be ‘willing to experiment with new forms of co-payment in the public sector’ (Guha and Timmins, 2003). However, the furore this caused led Blair’s Downing Street spokespeople to deny that this principle would be extended to schools and health (even though it was already embedded in higher education and dentistry) (see Paveley, 2003). Blair was egged on by people like Anthony Seldon from the Social Market Foundation, his own official biographer and also head of Brighton College (an independent school), who argued that if the nation were to have thriving state schools then some form of co-payment was essential (see Seldon 2001a and 2001b). Yet over a year later Downing Street policy gurus were still discussing co-payment (see Slater, 2004). Thus, Blair’s statement that the new independent schools envisioned by the White Paper are to be non-fee paying needs to be treated with scepticism – though Hatcher believes Blair’s promise on this issue, it seems.

Secondly, Hatcher also misses the point that, although the Trusts cannot be profit-making, schools can be – as there is nothing in the White Paper that rules out this possibility. Indeed, any money generated by the proposed Trusts has to be passed on to the schools:

"All Trusts which hold land and appoint Governors to schools must be charities and will be regulated by the Charity Commission. They will be required to use any income that they receive or generate for their charitable purposes. Trusts cannot receive any income from the schools’ budget" (Her Majesty’s Government, 2005, p.29 – my emphasis).

Tony Blair, in his Foreword to the White Paper, also emphasised the new economic freedoms gained by Trusts:

"We want to create a spectrum along which schools have the freedom to develop further: if they want to control their assets and staffing, they will be free to do so by acquiring a Trust" (2005a, p.3).

Not only do Trusts distribute monies made downwards to the schools over which they have jurisdiction, they are also to assist in aiding these schools to become financially sound in the following ways:

1. By employing their own staff, and thus gaining greater control over staff costs (Her Majesty’s Government, 2005, p.26).

2. By controlling assets judiciously (Ibid).

3. By being able to gain additional ‘flexibilities’ regarding staff pay and conditions, though it must be demonstrated to the Secretary of State that these will ‘raise standards’ (Ibid.).

4. By securing efficiencies through having a central administration for all Trust schools and adopting the most efficient management systems across the Trust’s operations (Her Majesty’s Government, 2005, p.27).

Even if schools are in turn instructed to spend all funds made from these savings passed on to them by Trusts on their core activities (though there is nothing in the White Paper on this, despite what Hatcher says), this raises an interesting possibility: the forced accumulation of capital.

Primitive and Forced Accumulation and Lost Horizon

Even if what Hatcher said about the White Paper was true, i.e. both Trust and schools cannot make profits, what he fails to realise is how the White Paper can be read as a manifesto for the primitive and forced accumulation of capital in the schools sector in England [10]. Thus, schools can generate portions of surplus value – especially by making staff savings through changing pay and conditions – but they must reinvest this surplus directly into their operations.

The first point, that we have an instance of ‘primitive accumulation’ before us, is contentious. Paul Zarembka (2002) and Werner Bonefeld (2002) have debated whether the concept of primitive accumulation is applicable to contemporary society. In summary: the former holds that the term refers to the original, time-referenced era when capitalist development was in its early, primal stages; whilst the latter holds that it has resonance today. Bonefeld argues, that in the original German, Marx does not mention ‘primitive accumulation’ but rather points to ‘ursprünglich’, that can be translated as ‘original’, ‘initial’, ‘unspoiled’, and ‘beginning’ (2002, pp.2-3). Bonefeld also discusses the concept of ‘Ursprung’ that ‘refers to a beginning which is not the result of what comes afterwards but, instead, its presupposition, its constitutive basis’ (p.3). For Bonefeld (as opposed to Zarembka):

"Capital is not constituted once and for all. It has continuously to return to its Ursprung: on the one hand, labour is reproduced on an expanded scale as free labour and, on the other, capitalist ownership of the means of production. Capital achieves this permanent return to it Ursprung with no cost: it is the outcome of accumulation" (2002, p.3).

For Bonefeld, primitive accumulation does not ‘refer to a specific chronology but is rather a process of continuously re-constituted new ‘beginnings’’ (2002, p.5). The problem in what Bonefeld is arguing for my own analysis is that capitalist ownership does not apply. I would argue that what the White Paper paves the way for is a form of primitive accumulation consonant with a business takeover of schools that does not in the first instance entail ownership; which has been my argument for about the last six years. The White Paper is an element in a series of legislations (the principal one being Education Act 2002) that opens up opportunities for a kind of proto-capitalist development in the schools system in England, that develops the forces of value and surplus-value production, and thus the potential for profit-making, whilst denying outright ownership of schools by capital. Malcolm Richardson (2005) argues that ‘the Trust model, the federating of schools, and the severance from LEAs is a kind of ‘primitive accumulation’ process in the education sector’. He goes on to argue that these developments can be viewed as a prelude to a ‘very significant expansion of the private sector’ in the schools system through either a future Tory or Labour government – if we let it happen. For me, the significance of what Richardson points towards is the need to consider the concept of primitive accumulation in the context of the capitalisation of schools. Both Bonefeld and Zarembka seem to be viewing it very narrowly and not taking into account the ‘new beginnings’ that the forces of capital can engender in terms of virusing state services such as education.

On the second point, regarding forced accumulation, it appears that the White Paper writers may well be familiar with the writings of Max Weber on the Protestant Work Ethic. Schools should continually reinvest any surpluses. Nothing should be taken out of the proceeds of accumulation in the form of profit or expenditures on non-educational products. This is efficient, effective accumulation – storing up value. This forced accumulation runs counter to previous legislation, however: Education Act 2002.

In his comments on the White Paper and whether or not schools can make profits, Hatcher – along with everything else I have read by members of the liberal educational Left on the White Paper – appears to have forgotten about Education Act 2002 (Her Majesty’s Government, 2002). This myopia has important consequences for the analysis of the White Paper. Thus, even if it is true that Trusts cannot make profits (which it is in the White Paper) and that schools cannot make profits (which is not true according to the White Paper), schools and Trusts can still set up companies which can make profits. Education Act 2002 sanctioned the following:

1. School governing bodies can constitute themselves as companies

2. Once they have set themselves up as companies, schools can invest in other companies

3. School companies can enter into deals with private sector operators

4. School companies can be part of a ‘federation’ or chain of schools. Private companies can lead these federations

5. Schools can also set up educational services and sell them to other schools.

6. The Secretary of State for Education has the power to form companies for involvement in any area of school life or LEA service

(Rikowski, 2003b, p.99).

I am sure Hatcher knows all of this. The White Paper is totally silent on all of the above bullet points too. Hatcher’s collusion with the White Paper’s lost horizon is hardly the mark of a competent, let alone radical Left, analyst of the White Paper.

Having made a number of charges against my interpretation of the White Paper, Hatcher then goes on to link this with what he sees as my totally untenable, primitive and simplistic form of Marxian analysis. Noting that the White Paper emphases the sponsorship of school Trusts by non-business bodies (religious organisations, charities, universities, parents’ groups and so on), Hatcher notes that:

"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 be simply read off, they require concrete analysis of concrete situations" (2005b, pp.1-2).

According to this, my analysis of the White Paper shows me to be a reductionist and an economic determinist. Apparently, I am also unaware of how the development of capital’s social universe is a mediated process. If these charges are true then my analysis of the White Paper (and by default of all educational and social phenomena) is simplistic and basically hopeless.

End of Part One - for Part Two click Next Page, below

© Copyright, Glenn Rikowski, 31st December 2005

Next Page - Print Friendly - Print Friendly with links

current date time:

Website Design and Coding by Digo PC

Site optimisation by Bytec Solutions