|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Europe
: Britain
Education Action Zones:
New moves to privatise education in Britain
By Liz Smith
20 May 1998
The introduction of Education Action Zones (EAZs) into the
British state education system is a qualitative step towards the
privatisation of education. The Labour government is proposing
to set up EAZs in the most socially and economically deprived
areas, ostensibly "to raise standards in schools, especially
those in challenging circumstances." The outcome, however,
will be the increased competition of schools for dwindling state
funds and the ever greater role of big business in deciding educational
policy.
The zones will be run by joint bodies of business representatives
and Local Education Authorities. Existing teachers pay and conditions--holidays,
the length of the working day, and Monday to Friday working--will
no longer apply in the zone. The national curriculum, the uniform
syllabus imposed under the previous Tory government, will be suspended
in order to concentrate on English and math. The government will
also provide minimal grants to schools joining the EAZs, an incentive
which financially starved schools cannot afford to turn down.
In the initial stages 25 zones are to be set up. Twelve will
be operational from September 1998 and another thirteen in January
1999. The initial pilot schemes will last for three to five years.
David Blunkett, Minister of State for Education, has said he hopes
to set up 100 within the next four years. Each zone will include
about 20 schools--two or three secondary (11-16 years olds) and
a cluster of feeder primaries (5-11 years old).
Earlier this year, Professor Michael Barber who heads the Standards
and Effectiveness unit at the Department of Education and Employment
(DfEE) argued that they were essential in order to increase the
competitiveness of Britain. He argued that business deals were
being lost as a result of a skill shortage. Britain has a more
acute problem with low skills--among both young people and adults--than
any other industrial country except the United States.
The ability to attract investment is a key factor in the drive
to set up EAZs. By dropping the National Curriculum, which had
already been widely criticised for its narrow range of subject
matter and emphasis on drilling, the government intends to restrict
teaching even further, reducing it to the most rudimentary literacy
and numerical skills required by employers.
So far 60 bids have been submitted to run the EAZs. The government
is giving £750,000 per year to each zone and a further £250,000
will come from business. British Telecom is involved in many of
the bids in the north of England. This is significant, as the
fastest growth industry in the former mining and steel regions
are call centres (telephone marketing). Call centres now employ
over 200,000 people, more than the combined work force in heavy
industry. These centres, which have a high employee turnover rate,
require labour that is young, literate, numerate, cheap and flexible.
The emphasis placed on rote-learning and strong curriculum
guidelines is reminiscent of the drilling methods used in Victorian
schools. This will contribute to moulding the type of disciplined
workhorse that these new industries require.
The New York-based Edison Project, a for-profit education company,
has an interest in four of the bids. As their record in the US
has shown, Edison's strategy for increasing profits is to employ
younger, less experienced teachers who command lower salaries;
to educate special-needs students without using specialists and
to gain control of the "non-academic" aspects of schooling,
i.e., administration, land and buildings, and make cuts in these
areas. Of particular importance is the way the company's emphasis
on achievement militates against genuine efforts to deal with
children with special needs. The long hours and detailed curriculum
have led many teachers, who have not been paid for working extra
hours, to resign.
This introduction of market methods into education has been
prepared through a protracted ideological offensive against state
education that began under the Tory government of Margaret Thatcher.
State education was starved of funds. The introduction of the
Local Management of Schools (LMS) in 1988 reduced the amounts
Local Authorities gave to schools, forcing those in socially deprived
areas to decide between spending resources on staff, buildings
or pupils. Grant Maintained Schools, that were provided a higher
level of funding by central government, were introduced as an
option for those in wealthier areas.
The introduction of Standard Assessment Tests at ages 5, 7,
9 and 11 and the publication of league tables for exam results
has been accompanied by a campaign to identify as "failed
schools" those whose test results are low. These are usually
in the most deprived urban areas. This has led to increased competition
between schools, with the best creaming off the bulk of children
with the best academic record. Those that fall behind are simply
threatened with closure.
In the post-war period resources for education and welfare
were state-funded, except for a small number of fee-paying schools
for the rich. The 1988 Education Reform Act placed a much greater
emphasis on schools raising their own funds. Because government
funding is inadequate, schools have had to turn to businesses
for financial grants or awards. The introduction of EAZ will now
give corporate donors a direct say in how schools are run.
Without additional resources many more schools will be forced
to close. The Labour government has only allocated £240
million of the education budget to cutting class sizes for 5-7
year olds to 30 and to repair dilapidated school buildings. As
long ago as 1992, the Labour Party in opposition cited a figure
of £3.5 billion needed for school repairs.
Far from helping poor areas under the guise of raising standards,
EAZs offer the most impoverished and educationally disadvantaged
children a lower standard of education than ever before. An all-rounded
education involves the pursuit and assimilation of knowledge from
a range of subjects over a long period. It requires an ongoing
commitment to the allocation of resources for the training of
the next generation. Big business is not interested in such long-term
aims. It will fund only those aspects that yield the most immediate
financial results.
The Labour government fully embraces this perspective. By placing
education at the mercy of the market, it is breaking from the
principle of free education for all that has underpinned the British
social welfare system since the introduction of the 1944 Education
Act.
See Also:
Britain: Labour government to use
police against school children
[15 May 1998]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |