IP: Privatization of Education

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 13:14:53 -0800
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> From: Dennis Paull <dpaull () svpal org>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> The following post paints a sorry picture for the future of
> public education in the UK. Is such a future possible in the US?
>
> You better believe it!
>
> Public education advocates had better understand the full
> implications of what is happening here and abroad or we will
> get run over by a herd of elephants (pun intended).
>
> This is for the IP if you feel it appropriate.
>
> dennis
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> [From the futurework list]
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,629209,00.html
> >
> >Schooling up for sale
> >
> >The creeping corporate takeover of education is being fostered to build up
> >exports
> >
> >George Monbiot
> >Tuesday January 8, 2002
> >The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk>
> >
> >For many children, a new school term begins with apprehension. But yesterday
> >it wasn't just the children who were worried about what they might
> >encounter. Every term now brings another government scheme to refinance,
> >outsource, subcontract, reclassify, zone or cluster some aspect of the
> >handling of our children. And parents, reasonably enough, are becoming ever
> >more suspicious.
> >
> >What these changes mean, confusing as they are, is privatisation. It won't
> >happen all at once, as Labour is anxious to avoid the confrontations that
> >have taken place between parents and private companies in the US. But we
> >should be foolish to mistake the government's purpose. The general
> >privatisation of schooling in Britain has begun.
> >
> >Several theories have been advanced to account for Labour's strange
> >enthusiasm for disposing of our schools, but the most convincing that I have
> >seen is the one articulated last year by a lecturer at the University of
> >Central England, Richard Hatcher, in the journal Education and Social
> >Justice.
> >
> >Years ago, prompted by the powerful European Roundtable of Industrialists,
> >Tony Blair identified the knowledge economy as the driver of future British
> >growth. The UK would specialise in industries such as information
> >technology, biotech and second generation services. As the export value of
> >manufacturing, farming and even some of the traditional service industries
> >declined, Britain would become a market leader in exporting a new
> >international business: privatisation.
> >
> >This strategy has so far been resoundingly successful. The private finance
> >initiative was pioneered in the UK, then exported by British companies to
> >countries like Finland, Canada and South Africa. Though their sales of
> >hospitals, roads, prisons and waterworks are of dubious value to the
> >recipients, they are massively profitable for our corporations, not least
> >because, having arrived on the scene before anyone else, they are all but
> >free from foreign competition. Now Blair wants to do the same in education.
> >
> >The UK's private education industry, Hatcher argues, "has to be fostered and
> >nourished by the state until it is strong enough to compete with US and
> >other competitors". Once they have gathered enough money and experience in
> >the domestic economy, schooling companies can then try to penetrate the
> >markets of other countries. While the UK's schools might one day be worth
> >£25bn a year to potential "investors", the US system has been valued at
> >$700bn. Worldwide, education is worth trillions. If the UK can seize an
> >early and substantial share of this market, our economy will become, to all
> >intents and purposes, recession-proof.
> >
> >So our own children are, in this picture, simply the crash dummies with
> >which the UK tests its future export policies. Companies will practise on
> >them until they find the right economic formula and attain sufficient
> >economies of scale. They they will apply that formula worldwide.
> >This theory appears to explain the remarkable variety of privatisation and
> >part-privatisation schemes currently being tested in Britain. Education
> >action zones and city technology colleges have failed to produce the
> >necessary cash, so they have been superseded by a new experiment - the city
> >academies. These schools receive 80% of their money from the state, but are
> >controlled by private companies. Elsewhere, existing comprehensives, like
> >King's Manor in Guildford and Abbeylands in Addlestone (both in Surrey),
> >have been franchised to corporations. Private schools are now considering
> >the purchase of parts of the state sector.
> >
> >The government has also been experimenting with the management of local
> >education authorities, privatising either some of the services they offer,
> >or, in the case of Leeds, the entire outfit. In some places, the government
> >has sold off school inspections; in others, teachers' pay and pensions. It
> >has been market testing several different versions of the private finance
> >initiative, in which companies provide buildings and services to education
> >authorities for a fee.
> >
> >It has developed a private market, already worth some £1bn, in e-learning,
> >or computer-based education. These efforts have established a climate in
> >which corporations are able to gain unprecedented access to children at
> >school.
> >
> >Last year, for example, the government agency Scottish Enterprise
> >distributed 20,000 copies to schools of a magazine called Biotechnology and
> >You. This purports to be a teacher's resource helping children to navigate
> >the moral and scientific complexities surrounding genetically- engineered
> >crops.
> >
> >But Scottish Enterprise failed to warn teachers that the Biotechnology
> >Institute which published it is a lobby group funded by Monsanto, Novartis,
> >Pfizer and Rhone-Poulenc. The magazine repeats Monsanto's misleading claim
> >that its best-selling herbicide is "less toxic to us than table salt". It
> >attacks organic farming and suggests that it would be "immoral" not to
> >develop GM crops.
> >
> >In England, the old careers advisory service run by the Department for
> >Education is gradually being replaced by a new agency called Connexions.
> >Once they have registered with this service, children are given a swipe
> >card, on which they accumulate points every time they turn up. They trade
> >the points for discounts from the consumer goods listed on the Connexions
> >website. The choices they make are monitored, and the information is then
> >given to the service's "commercial partners".
> >
> >Last year, the education firm Capita, which runs Connexions for the
> >government, told the Times Educational Supplement that companies such as
> >McDonalds and PlayStation Magazine would have "the opportunity of seeing
> >what these young people take up. They can be a very difficult group to
> >reach."
> >
> >By themselves, few of these developments will bring people on to the
> >streets. "Labour," Richard Hatcher predicts, "will move cautiously and
> >gradually, carefully preparing each step ideologically."
> >
> >Or, as the chief executive of the edubusiness firm Nord Anglia commented
> >when he read the white paper that the government released in September:
> >"This is an astonishingly important point of transition. It is tentative,
> >because it's politically sensitive, but it opens the door for the private
> >sector to get involved, bit by bit."
> >
> >We could argue about whether or not these steps towards full-scale
> >privatisation improve or damage standards in education. In the US, the
> >evidence suggests that privatisation has been disastrous. In the UK, so far,
> >the results are mixed. But this really isn't the point of the argument.
> >Our schools are being privatised not for the benefit of our children, but
> >for the benefit of our corporations, and the export economy to which, the
> >government hopes, they will one day contribute.
> >
> >Children are simply the raw materials with which they work. They will,
> >unless their parents demand an end to this experiment, be traded on the
> >world's stock markets like so many barrels of oil.
> >
> >

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/