Illusion of Concessions on the Education Bill

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Illusion of Concessions on the Education Bill

The Government Education White Paper:
A Recipe for Educational Demise instead of Progress

Trust Schools and Human Rights

Schools Risk Missing Out On Millions If Reforms Go Through

In recent days, a furore has been promoted over "concessions" and "compromises" over the government’s forthcoming education bill. Descriptions like "climbdown over education plan to buy off rebel MPs", "cooling the Labour rebellion over education" and "dismay over concessions" have been bandied about. The impression is created that some kind of showdown is in the offing, that rebel MPs have power to change the government’s direction or that the New Labour project is in jeopardy. On not a few occasions in the last parliament, notably over the war against Iraq, a rebellion by the "rebel MPs" was promoted, only for it to melt away, or be defeated in so-called knife-edge votes. This parliament was flagged up as being different with Labour’s reduced majority, and that the Conservative support would be needed for the more controversial legislation. Perhaps the defeat of the government by one vote on the "religious hatred" bill with the Prime Minister’s absence was meant to reinforce this scenario?

The reality is that the aim of the "compromises" is to ensure the end of the "rebellion", ensure that the Education Bill goes through with its main proposals unscathed, while the "extreme" proposals are withdrawn, more likely than not to be reinstated at some later date. Meanwhile, the people’s anger and opposition to these scandalous proposals to place education in the hands of private vested interests under the guise of "standards" is subverted and defused, or so the government hopes.

The "reforms" in education and health provision are of a piece, to introduce the market, with public bodies reduced to "commissioning" bodies, and to integrate social programmes lock, stock and barrel into the strategy of the monopolies for "making Britain great again" and becoming competitive in the global market. As far as education goes, this strategy is to "educate" the population generally to adopt the values of which Tony Blair is such a champion, the values of paying the rich and lining up behind their dictate and being happy to bow down to monopoly right. Specifically, it is geared to the vision of a Britain whose role in the world is one the one hand as the ideologue and justifier of "universal values", to be imposed without question on those less enlightened, and on the other to find its place as a purveyor of a "hi-tech, high-skill" economy, and a centre of finance capital.

The aim of education is being made to integrate the whole of the citizenship of Britain into this retrogressive vision. This offensive is being carried out in concert with the ideological offensive on "Britishness", which is at the same time an apology for the crimes of colonialism and imperialism as well as an attack on the people’s traditions and national identities, a most disgusting chauvinism under an attempted rehash of 19th century liberal values, totally hypocritical and anachronistic in the 21st century. In other words, the all round anti-social offensive, of which the proposed Education Bill is part, is being backed up with an ideological offensive to justify the "one-nation" policies of Tony Blair and New Labour, which is part of the whole "Third Way" programme with which the bourgeoisie brought its champion to power.

But this "one-nation" programme is far from being the traditional conception of the public good with which the old Tories sought to ameliorate and bury the class struggle, which was superseded in time by social democracy with its social contracts, social compacts and so forth. In New Labour garb, the conception is that no competing interests in society are even to be recognised, that no one has the right to even think that they exist in definite relations within social production, but that all should serve the monopolies and that this is the shining new future for society. That the monopolies do not even have any interest in the nation or the public good, but only amassing capital in their hands, putting the state at their disposal in this quest and wrecking society in the process is the reality that the people are up in arms about, but which Tony Blair and his cohorts give every indication of being blind to (at the very least). It is this that the charade of compromises with rebel MPs obscures. Illusions are held out that compromises will still preserve the essence of a pro-social programme, while the actual situation is that the anti-social programme of New Labour has the creating of these illusions as a component part.

Many have dubbed the education White Paper, Higher Standards, Better Schools for All, as controversial; in reality, it is a formula to turn back the clock away from enlightenment and back to medieval obscurity. Even though most would agree that education is due for the necessary qualitative leap to adapt to the needs of the modern times, the actual situation is yet another reform to the system, which will have a contrary effect and take education further from the road of enlightenment to that of retrogression.

The proposals will take control of education’s destiny further out of the hands of those it should serve, the people, and into the hands of the minority, the monopolies, whose interest first and foremost is profit, the amassing of the social product in private hands. The government is acting in the service of the monopolies, abandoning the social responsibility to its citizens and passing education over to the private parasitical interests of big business whereas education must be the right of all. Funding will be the lever to achieve the interests and motives of the monopolies.

How is New Labour going to carry out its intent to serve the interests of the monopolies? It is going all out to undermine the people’s fierce opposition and anger and convince them that it is in their interesta and persuade them to take part in it. The government are pragmatic in their approach. They are selling the item and arguing about what works, the ends justifying the means. In talking about releasing funding and gaining it from elsewhere, the argument is: who cares as long as education is funded from somewhere? We will get a better standard of education in the end, so the means to the end are justified.

The price is that the essence of education – enlightenment – is being completely buried and its purpose subverted to serve the interests of the monopolies. The clock will be therefore turned back to the medieval notion of people being educated as to their social status, if at all, with the vast majority being made an appendage of business or commercial interests and only if it serves the profits of the few. New Self-governing Trust Schools, with similarities to Academies, are to be set up and local authorities will be replaced as providers to enablers of the new system. The new providers are undeniably shady.

The White paper published on October 25, 2005, by the Department for Education and Skills proclaims that it is for "Higher Standards and Better schools for all and with more choice for pupils and parents". This is a swindle. The criteria for setting standards is as ever somewhat erroneous as are the choices limited to the parameters set by those who are increasingly going to control the destiny of education – the monopolies. It is a truism to say that all parents desire the best for their children in terms of education, but when the Department for Education and Skills is deciding what the needs of parents are, we are forced to accept with dubiety its words when in the introduction, it proclaims:

"This White Paper sets out our plans to radically improve the system, putting parents and the needs of their children at the heart of our schools, freeing up schools to innovate and succeed, and bringing in new dynamism and new providers. We will ensure that every school delivers an excellent education, that every child achieves to their potential, and that the system is increasingly driven by parents and choice. To make that happen we need an education system that is designed around the needs of the individual – with education tailored to the needs of each child and parents having a say in how schools are run…."

Of course the enticement is to "offer" provision and it is to be achieved by encouraging the people themselves to push for the implementation of the proposals. The idea of parents having a real say or choice over the kind of education their children really need is lost in the quagmire; real choice doesn’t exist and it can only be seen as spurious. If the monopolies’ interests are to be met, the choices remain in choosing only the school that can achieve those monopoly interests one way or another. The monopoly aim is to make Britain competitive in the global market; the standards at one end of the scale remain on how many "A" levels and GCSEs can be gained and for the rest what vocational skills can be obtained to serve business interests at this time. Humanity is lost because the decisions about real needs and the objective of a rounded education that serves people’s interests are abandoned. The teachers are not treated like conscious beings who traditionally respond to their calling, the calling of the profession in teaching the country’s children. The programme, in fact, will be placed on the shoulders of the teachers to deliver; it will be binding on them with added intolerable pressure.

The stated 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 similar to those that support Academies or become a Self-governing Foundation School. The idea of a Trust is one that can be set up with outside assistance like a charity enabling private interest to move in if it is "desired". Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) can be contacted and used to force implementation and it will be obligatory on local authorities to enable the new providers.

Eventually, the local authorities will change from providers to "commissioners" for the new private sector in the making. The same will be for those that want to short cut, move straight towards "outside providers", and bring in the business interest immediately. The "flexibility" has been likened to the Grant Maintained System introduced under the Tories, which moved away from the state sector.

The method of switching over is also dubious. The government states that a quarter of all schools are no good and so the system must change. Failing schools are to be closed. "Failed Schools" are like "Failed States": used as a pretext to move in, take over and impose a set of standards and values, values that serve the monopolies and global competitiveness.

It is clear that the values and ethos of schools will be those of the monopolies. The government is proud to show that huge multinational corporations are intended to play a great role. The white paper itself enthusiastically highlights companies like the Mercer’s Company and Tarmac PLC as major sponsors, who have in turn sponsored two Academies in the West Midlands. It openly declares:

"A group of sixteen schools and colleges (independent, maintained, Academies and sixth form colleges) are closely associated with the Mercers’ Company. At some of the schools the company appoints the whole governing body, and at others it has a right to representation, or is invited to appoint governors. Governors are able to draw on a wide range of expertise and experience of those in different education sectors; they shape the ethos and promote the success of the schools they support and bring ideas, energy and commitment to them."

So we can see who education is intended to finally end up with and where the past, present and future funding will end up: it will of couse be servicing the monopolies. As the White Paper itself emphasises:

"Substantial and sustained investment has underpinned all these reforms. Spending on education in England has risen from £35 billion in 1997/98 to £51 billion in 2004/05, allowing a real-terms increase in funding of 29% per pupil and significant investment in the workforce, in books and technology and in the fabric of the school estate. By 2007/08, at the end of the current spending review period, this figure will have risen to £60 billion in today’s prices."

The lucrative billions have and are building up to line big business pockets with substantial assets in buildings and land whose ownership is passing into the hands of the monopolies.

As the Trusts, Foundation Schools and Academies move or have moved in the direction of monopoly control, the "independence" will allow for "innovation" in curriculum and decide teachers’ pay regardless of disparity. It will take all the decisions it deems necessary to serve its monopoly interests.

In the final analysis, there is no choice at all for the human beings whom education should serve, be they teachers, pupils or parents. Of course, the best goes to those who can afford it, those who can pay or move to the desired catchment area where the best schools exist. The system becomes more élitist with selected qualifications and examination results depending on social class and standing. The choice rests with those whose interests it really serves, the monopolies who want to compete more in the global market and put its stamp on the world in its own image and with its own values, which it calls "universal values".

The programme outlined in the White Paper is detrimental to progress in education. It will be a recipe for demise of education as it attempts to transform it into nothing more than an appendage of the monopolies. The whole programme of the Labour government for education must be condemned and opposed. It is an urgent responsibility of society to call a halt and affirm in no uncertain terms that education must serve the needs of the people and society, not the dictate of the monopolies.

Reform of the education system could see children and parents lose protection under human rights law, a committee of MPs and peers has warned.

Parliament's human rights joint committee has said the move to the proposed trust schools may undermine the effectiveness of human rights protection for children and parents, according to agency reports. There is "considerable doubt" amongst committee members over whether trust schools will be treated by the courts as "public authorities". This would mean that they are not subject to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Committee chairman Andrew Dismore said he was "extremely worried" about the consequences of the education white paper for the rights of parents and children. "We hope the government will consider our concerns and ensure that when the Education Bill is published these problems are clearly addressed on the face of the Bill," he said.

According to the news agencies, the MPs said they were concerned about "specific fundamental rights" that could be denied to children under the proposed new arrangements.

They argue that local educational authorities would no longer have the control over admissions that enables them to ensure a place for every child, thus ensuring the right of access to education.

Independent trust schools might not be obliged to admit a child with special educational needs and excluded children may have no guaranteed access to an independent appeal tribunal.

The committee is also concerned that, under the white paper proposals, children might not have a directly enforceable right to practice their religion and their parents might not have the right to withdraw them from religious assembly and instruction.

There is also a risk that trust schools' freedom over their curricula could conflict with the right not to be indoctrinated, the committee says. And if security cameras or email screening are used in such schools to monitor pupils the child would not be able to rely on their right to privacy against the school.

By Tony Halpin, Education Editor, The Times, December 27, 2005

Hundreds of millions of pounds of education spending will be put at risk by Tony Blair’s controversial plans to reform schools, local government leaders said yesterday. Investment in new buildings and facilities could come to a halt if schools broke away from local councils and established themselves as independent trusts.

Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, chairman of the Local Government Association, said that councils would be unable to justify spending on schools whose assets they no longer owned. Many local authorities were becoming reluctant to fund new facilities that could be transferred to the ownership of trusts run by private companies, entrepreneurs and charitable organisations.

Other services such as libraries, leisure facilities and elderly people’s homes were competing for funding. Councils had made a political decision to give priority to education, but were now asking "serious questions" about whether this should continue.

Under Mr Blair’s troubled education White Paper, ownership of land and buildings at schools that opt for the Government’s new trust status would pass from the local authority to the governing body. Sir Sandy told The Times that it remained unclear whether trusts would assume responsibility for debts incurred by councils to fund improvements at their schools.

Councils are spending £3.4 billion on capital projects in education this year, 21 per cent of local government investment. Most of that is financed by borrowing, which is repaid over a period of 20 years from a mix of council tax and central government grant.

Sir Sandy said that his own local authority, Kent, had a school building programme of £208 million this year. He said: "Some of that will be building for schools that could be taken over by a trust. We would be left with the borrowing charges and capital repayments and the trust would have the asset.

"That is obviously a very considerable concern and one that is widely shared. Local authorities will have to consider whether the council taxpayer wants to continue picking up the interest rate charges and capital repayments on borrowing for schools that are going to become trust schools.

"If it is made absolutely clear that trust schools would pay the local authority back for capital expenditure, that would be a different matter, but at the moment it is not clear. The White Paper only talks about trust schools taking on capital assets. We are keen to keep supporting schools and to put our capital spending in, but we do face this serious issue."

Authorities in many areas wanted to make school facilities available to their wider communities by opening up sports halls and offering adult education classes. This would become more difficult if trusts owned the assets of schools.

Sir Sandy said that the Government still had time to provide assurances about a strong role for local authorities when it published the education Bill early next year. "But if there is any implication of freeing schools from town halls then town halls will say, fine, we will have to spend the money on roads, libraries, sports facilities and social services," he said.

"It is not that councils want to do that, but they simply have to look after the interests of council taxpayers. They want to be involved in schools and to have schools as centres for the whole community."

Mr Blair’s plan would turn every school into a "self-governing independent state school" run by trusts set up by companies, charities and individuals. Local authorities would lose any responsibility for running schools and be turned into "commissioners" of education services on behalf of parents.

MONEY MATTERS

? Councils can borrow for capital spending on roads, schools, and other facilities

? Government grants covered about a quarter of the £14.6 billion in capital spending last year

? Investment in schools rose from 15 per cent of capital spending in 1998/99 to 21 per cent in 2004/05

? Council spending on capital projects per person in England rose from £134 to £246

? Education accounts for more than half of capital credits issued under the Private Finance Initiative