Is privatized education on the cards?

I was struck by a reply David Willetts made to a student on Newsnight last Thursday. On the issue of funding he said “The money should come through the choices of students”. He repeated this towards the end, adding the word “informed” to “choices”. Willetts didn’t actually respond directly to any of the questions put to him, preferring instead to repeat the government message. Willetts’s remarks are an indication of how this government sees education: it is another commodity to be marketed and sold like loaves of sliced white bread. The fact that Willetts used market language when discussing education should ring alarm bells. Courses like humanities, social sciences and the arts will be scaled back to accommodate an expansion of the courses that the government wants to see more students taking. Business Studies, IT and related disciplines are seen as valid and therefore more worthy of support.

In July, Willetts announced the creation of the country’s second private university. This article says,

That university, offering Business and Law degrees, is run by BPP, a provider of various professional qualifications, listed on the Stock Exchange since 1986. In 2009, BPP became part of Apollo Global Inc. – a joint creation of Apollo Group, an Arizona-based company listed on the NASDAQ, and private equity firm Carlyle Group

The first private university was the University of Buckingham, an obedient Conservative supporting university that offers business, law, sciences, humanities (this includes education, journalism, history and politics) and medicine as its only subjects. Social sciences and the arts are noticeably absent from the prospectus.  The whole aim of this move to create more private universities and to marketize the existing ones is to mould higher education according to the ideological contours of Tory thinking. Disciplines where critical thinking is a major component will disappear entirely. Heaven forbid that we should have a country where people can actually think for themselves! Yet this is a likely possible outcome of privatization. This education campaigner explains what happened in Chile,

Well, you’re talking about a very subtle repression in some ways. Most of the academics were appointed under military rule, they got to university that way and they reproduce the same kind of people in the academy. Academics tend to be very right wing and the student movement tends to be very left wing. The most obvious form of repression is police repression. Every student march will finish with water cannon, with a number of students in prison with batterings, students in hospital; it’s really bad on that point as well. Every student march is the same, loads of tear gas, loads of riot sticks, it’s always the same.

Part of the rationale behind Willetts’s proposals is to create an obedient student body; one that will learn by rote and will not ask awkward questions.

This move to privatize education doesn’t stop at universities, schools will also face privatization. In fact, in Hannan and Carswell’s book The Plan; Twelve Months to Renew Britain, there is a chapter on a privatized school system that appears to be based on the Chilean model. Christian Science Monitor reminds us of what happened in Chile.  A voucher system would lead to a two-tier system that would have a deleterious effect on what remains of the state school system,

Additionally, “cream-skimming” by private schools affects the public schools performance in several ways. First, it drains the public schools of the best students,immediately affecting test scores negatively. Additionally, the group of students that stays in the public schools may perform worse because of negative peer effects. Second, the incentives faced by public schools to increase quality may be reduced since the remaining students are “locked in” and cannot exercise the exit option that would drive competition induced improvements

Free schools are only the start of the move towards a privatized educational system.  The Hon Tobes’s West London Free School may have high profile support from Young himself and his collection of like-minded cronies but other free schools will be run by private companies as this Guardian article explains,

Privatisation is about to take a giant step forward. The coalition government has announced plans – first proposed in opposition by the Conservatives, but apparently accepted in their entirety by the Liberal Democrats – for academies and “free schools“, started by parents, teachers and voluntary groups and receiving, for each pupil recruited, what would be spent on that child in a state school. The vision the Conservatives sold to the public during the election campaign was of parents and public-spirited individuals running schools as they run baby and toddler groups, Scout groups and Rotary clubs. But it won’t be like that. DIY schools will need expert management help, and private companies are the obvious candidates to provide it.

It is clear that some free schools won’t be free; they will have to bend to the will of the companies that own them.

Yesterday, protesters in Exeter demonstrated outside a school that has been identified for privatization. West Exe Technology College is set to become an academy if the plans go ahead.

Education is a right and not a privilege.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Education, Government & politics

6 responses to “Is privatized education on the cards?

  1. Buckingham alumnus

    As someone who actually went to the University of Buckingham, I take issue with your claim that it is an ‘obedient Conservative-supporting university’. While some of its staff may be free-market ideologues, its raison d’être is to be ‘a vocational school for law and business for non-British students’, as its then Vice-Chancellor, Terence Kealey, said back in 2003.

    Few Nigerians, Pakistanis, Malaysians or Bahamians have any interest in the liberal arts, and as a result, it is a glorified crammer run by asset strippers for the benefit of money launderers.

    Humanities was a poor cousin, as indeed were biology and IT – the University didn’t upgrade to Windows until mid-1996, and didn’t introduce email until even later. Since I was there, politics was merged with economics to form something called ‘international studies’.

    The New College of the Humanities is an attempt by A C Grayling to remedy this, but its tuition fees make Buckingham’s look give-away cheap.

    To be fair to Buckingham, I am grateful that it did not offer sociology and linguistics, both of which are left wing pseudosciences.

    • To be fair to Buckingham, I am grateful that it did not offer sociology and linguistics, both of which are left wing pseudosciences.

      Where’s your evidence? It seems to me that you’ve based this assertion on your right-wing prejudices. Though, I suspect you’re one of those who believes economics is an ideologically neutral ‘science’.

  2. Buckingham alumnus

    You suspected wrong – I don’t believe any such thing about economics, and am more likely to read critiques of neoliberalism by Ha-Joon Chang than anything from the Austrian School.

    Sociology not left-wing? Auguste Comte and Karl Marx suggest otherwise, as does Basil Bernstein more recently. Who, apart from Christie Davies, could possibly be described as right wing or libertarian among socialists?

    Linguistics is dominated by sanctimonious descriptivists like David Crystal, Geoffrey Pullum, Jean Aitchison, Deborah Cameron et al. who go along with the ‘change-isn’t-good-or-bad-change-is-change’ when it comes to language, which is supposedly always ‘evolving’ – this is a bogus claim as human language is shaped by its users, even in the English-speaking world, which prides itself on not having a language academy à la française.

    Anyway, that barb was added only to offset the bile I spouted about the University of Buckingham and its deluded former vice-chancellor. The fact that we are having such a discussion here illustrates that it anywhere is more intellectually stimulating than that wretched institution.

    I only ended up there because I got stung for overseas tuition fees as Thatcher didn’t think I was British enough – unlike Daniel Hannan, my old man wasn’t a wealthy landowner with a ranch in Peru.

  3. Buckingham alumnus

    Correction:
    Who, apart from Christie Davies, could possibly be described as right wing or libertarian among sociologists?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s