wilkinson pedagogy of the possessed

7/28/2019 WILKINSON Pedagogy of the Possessed

1/19

Pedagogy of the possessed: theprivatization of civic education and

values under New Labour

Gary Wilkinson*

Scarborough School of Education, The University of Hull, Scarborough, UK

As part of its agenda to promote choice, diversity and parent power in education, New Labour is

aiming to develop a system of independent non-fee paying state schools. It is envisaged that control

of the governing arrangements in such schools will shift from the local authority and be delegated

to a range of external partners and sponsors drawn largely from business and religious

organisations. The involvement of external partners in education in the US suggests that it may

be both ineffective and detrimental to the development of rounded citizens. This article reviews

some of the themes from research there and argues that, in an increasingly fragmented world,

privatised control of civic education in state-funded schools in England threatens the integrity of

public education and the civic objectives of state schooling.

Introduction

Unfortunately, to this point in America, policymakers have devoted much less time to

thinking through the constraints that may be necessary on corporate involvement in the

schools than to considering ways to expand schoolbusiness partnerships. This will have

to change if we wish to retain and strengthen a public education system that serves the

best interests of children and that promotes democratic civic values. (Molnar, 2001,

p.7)

The White Paper, Higher standards, better schools for all: More choice for parents and

pupils (DfES, 2005a), developed what has been a slow-burning and, until recently,

unacknowledged theme of New Labour education policy. Its persuasive language of

choice, diversity and parent power speaks for a strategy broadly sculpted around a

belief in both educational markets and self-managing schools free from the

constraints of local authority control. Alongside this is an assumption that external

partners, with their enterprising spirit of innovation, will be the most effective

change agents to spearhead this agenda. The document is a blueprint for a system of

*Scarborough School of Education, The University of Hull, Scarborough Campus, Filey Road,

S b h O il G ilki @h ll k

Educational Review

Vol. 59, No. 3, August 2007, pp. 267284


2/19

independent non-fee paying state schools (DfES, 2005a, p. 4) in which school

governance is devolved to groups of parents or, and this is more likely, to religious

groups, charities and businessmen.

This delegation of school governance to external sponsors privatizes control of

civic education in publicly funded schools in England. Followed to its logicalconclusion, it heralds the wholesale handing over of the education system to those

representing organizations whose chief interests lie in something other than the

advancement of education for the good of society and an active democratic citizenry.

The increased scope of the power conceded to private interest groups therefore

threatens the integrity of public education and the civic objectives of state schooling.

It is true that there are distinctions to be drawn between for-profit and not-for-profit

private management of educational provision. This article, however, uses privatiza-

tion to refer to the control of schools and their assets irrespective of whether

corporations, or other organizations, are making money from their involvement ineducation since the central and most immediate argument here is one about

privatized power within the public sphere.

Paulo Freire (1982) wrote inspirationally of a pedagogy of the oppressed in

which education provided oppressed citizens with the tools to read society.

Educators, he argued, must be critical cultural workers helping students to

understand the socio-political functions of the dominant cultural values and norms

and bringing them to challenge oppression and to consider how they might improve

democracy. It is possible that corporate and other sponsors share these educational

ideals but not everybody can aspire to the huge influence and power that this recent

version of delegated school governance confers. The city academies programme,

New Labours flagship independent state schools, requires a financial contribution

from sponsors of up to 2 million for each new school. This makes the government

vulnerable to the charge that the rich, powerful and influential are buying control

of state education. The words of the director of Arizona State Universitys

Commercialism in Education Research Unit (CERU), quoted earlier, are now as

relevant to England as his native land (Molnar, 2001). England must now begin to

consider how best to safeguard the integrity of education within state schools. We

must question the educational wisdom and ideals of those who seek to control

schools. Failure to do so risks the creation of pedagogy of the possessed where thenature of citizens educational experience is determined by those who can afford to

purchase power.

New Labours choice agenda has its political antecedents in the new right

policies of the Thatcher and Reagan eras and is incontrovertibly connected to the

ideology of the market. The economist Milton Friedman, as far back as 1962,

proposed a voucher system for parents to purchase education in a market of privately

run schools. Governments role, he suggested, should be restricted to setting

minimum standards and policing schools much as it now inspects restaurants

(Friedman, 1962, p.89). Later, Chubb and Moe (1990) claimed to havedemonstrated that school effectiveness improved according to the degree of

autonomy enjoyed by school leaders Since autonomy is more evident in the private

268 G. Wilkinson


3/19

sector which operates according to a market model and boasts higher student

achievement outcomes, they argued that it the structure of state education which is

responsible for its lower educational standards. In their view, political and

democratic control restricts autonomy in state schools. They assert that

Bureaucracy is unambiguously bad for school organisation (Chubb & Moe,1990, p. 183) and call for freeing up the supply of schooling (p. 208). They too

propose a market model for school organization, including vouchers, to create

competition between schools and promote parental choice in the belief that this

would drive up standards.

Glass and Matthews (2000, p. 5) offer a methodological critique of Chubb and

Moes research claiming that the causal direction between autonomy and high

achievement has not been established and describe their work as a polemic wrapped

in numbers. A more profound concern with their approach, and with many

economistic arguments for school markets and parental choice, is that they defineschool effectiveness purely in terms of academic attainment and ignore the social

functions of schooling for civil society. The creation of educational quasi-markets

(Glennerster, 1991) produces a poor mimic of commercial marketization which

disregards the different and complex values and ideals of the public service tradition.

Crouch (2003) argues that one distortion in public service markets is produced by an

artificial analogue of prices, one which can easily be measured and may not indicate

what the consumer is seeking. Defining school effectiveness according to academic

attainment alone is an example of such distortion since the importance of the wider

civic functions of state schools to nurture moral, social and cultural behaviour and

values may become marginalized. Democratic accountability, which is caricatured as

bureaucratic meddling by the proponents of privatized state schools, has served to

protect the rights of students in this regard and acted as a safeguard against an

education biased in favour of a private providers interests. It also gives the State a

say in the education system which it funds.

The US has been at the forefront of attempts to involve the private sector in

educational provision and it is worthwhile looking at their experience first. Research

there does little to engender optimism about external partners involvement in

schools suggesting that it is both ineffective and detrimental to the integrity of state

education. Because of the variations in educational provision and school controlacross the US, we cannot assume that what pertains in one state applies in another.

Nevertheless, certain trends are identifiable throughout much of America. Some

concerns which have arisen there are sketched first. Policy instruments and

structures which facilitate private involvement in English schools will then be

outlined and some key issues signalled. The focus is on corporations and religious

groups as problematic examples of private interest groups whose objectives outside

of education may be incompatible with the ideals of civic education in a liberal

democracy. It is argued that the New Labour leadership now accepts the logic of the

new rights beliefs in educational markets as it seeks a diversity of state schoolscontrolled by those from outside the tradition of public sector professionalism. The

paper will conclude with some reflections which tentatively map out some themes for

The privatization of civic education and values 269


4/19

a possible response for those concerned about educational values and democratic

accountability in schools.

Private lessons from America

There is now a significant body of literature on what is commonly termed the

commercialization of education in the US. This catch-all term encompasses two

broad strands of discussion. First, it describes the incorporation of managerialist

techniques borrowed from business and imposed upon the public sector. Second,

commercialization is an umbrella term covering aspects of corporate or private

business activity within the US education system. This is concerned with issues such

as the impact of private sector involvement with university research, the use of

educational arenas for brand-building and corporate governance of schools and

colleges.

Sometimes commercialism leads to a distortion of educational mission. The

sponsorship of US college athletics teams by sports companies has led to an

undesirable imbalance of emphasis in university sports departments where team

success overrides the rights of students to a more rounded education (Bok, 2003).

University teaching and research, traditionally considered a public good, has also

been affected. Increasing corporate involvement has heralded an era of academic

capitalism (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004), where universities and their corporate

partners seek to profit from knowledge. Commercialization encourages and catalyses

the privatization of knowledge.

Corporate brand-building in schools privatizes too. Klein (2001, p. 88 ) hasdocumented the commercialization of public space in the US and described how

corporations striving to advance their brands have intensified their focus on

marketing activity in schools to the point where they have all but eliminate[d] the

barrier between ads and education. Advertising contracts or exclusive deals with

vending companies privatize school space and aspects of schools functions. Channel

One is a controversial television station broadcast in US schools which trades

television sets and computers for pupil viewing time. The company profits from

selling advertising time on the station to companies keen to reach a captive market of

schoolchildren. Studies highlight problems with its news coverage (Hoynes, 1997),

its advertising content (Miller, 1997) and its effect on pupils (Greenberg & Brand,

1997). In short, the channel is anti-intellectual, offering children a bland, one-

dimensional consumerist take on life. Schools serving the poor are twice as likely to

air the station (Morgan, 1993). Channel One, which exists to promote its own

private interests and those of its advertisers, has privatized vital parts of the hidden

school curriculum. It has appropriated the way the news is tackled in many schools

and privatized a significant aspect of what was once vital preparation for citizenship.

It reaches 11,000 schools in the US educating 7 million children.

The CERU at Arizona State University reports annually on commercialization in

schools throughout the US using eight discrete categories. The privatizationcategory is concerned chiefly with the operation of for-profit Education

M O i i (EMO ) CERU fil f f fi d i

270 G. Wilkinson


5/19

management companies (Molnar et al., 2005), lists 51 education management

companies operating during the 20032004 school year running 463 public schools

catering for over 200,000 children. There are three examples of EMO activity in the

US: the contracting out of services, including school management, by states or cities;

publicly funded voucher schemes which citizens can use to purchase education at aschool of their choosing; and charter schools which delegate school governance to a

group or collective.

The contracting out of whole groups of schools has produced some unenviable

outcomes. Researchers at Princeton University examined the work of Educational

Alternatives Inc. (EAI) who had been given $135 million to run nine schools by the

city of Baltimore. Researchers found that its schools cost 11% more per pupil to run

yet the overall effectiveness of teaching was the same. They concluded that the

promise that EAI could improve instruction without spending more than Baltimore

City was spending on schools has been discredited (Future of Children, 1997,p. 105). They were similarly unable to find any evidence of improved results at the

Edison Project which developed and managed for-profit schools. More recently,

Saltman (2005) has written in greater detail about the failure and mismanagement of

Edison Schools Inc. and draws broader conclusions calling for a reconceptualization

of public education and a critique of public sector funding mechanisms. The blunt

message is that privatized profit-making schools do not work.

The transatlantic school choice agenda arises from the ambitions of the radical

right who are zealous in the pursuit of a small state and market utopia. For them,

advocating a public school system run by private interests of various guises has the

advantage of harnessing the perceived vitality and creativity which competitive

markets bring while simultaneously reducing the role of the state. In 1990 the State

of Wisconsin implemented The Milwaukee Parental Choice Programme, a publicly

funded voucher system which enabled poor ethnic minority children to attend

private schools. Molnar et al. (1996) outline how the findings of official annual

evaluations failed to identify any lasting improvement in standards for the children

participating in the project over and above children attending Milwaukees public

schools. Yet statistics from this research have been presented in a misleading way to

support an ambitious longer term political policy objective:

The goal of the neoconservative power brokers who are bankrolling the push for school

choice in Milwaukee and across the country is to create a private school system that is

publicly funded, that operates according to the rules of the private market, and that will

break the government monopoly on the provision of education. (Molnar et al., 1996,

p.2)

Californian citizens seem to suspect that vouchers may divert resources away from

the public sector and have twice voted decisively to reject vouchers by margins of

70% to 30% in 1993 and 71% to 29% in 2000 (Dzidzikashvili et al., 2003). Perhaps

their apprehension about private sector involvement in public education stems from

the public scandal of Edutrain, a charter school in California which collapsed with1 million unaccounted for. The school was in breach of various aspects of its

h d h b i hi f i i i i h b



6/19

practised enthusiastically. Molnar (1996a) recounts that school money was used to

help pay for the principals rent, sports car and bodyguard.

Charter schools are an alternative form of privatization to voucher schemes. The

first opened in 1992 in Minnesota. There are now over 3500 educating more than a

million US children in 39 states. According to CERUs seventh annual report(Molnar, 2004) charter schools are now the main focus of EMO activity. They are

publicly funded schools run by groups of parents, teachers, community leaders and

businesses. Charter schools are accountable to the state or local school board for

academic outcomes and financial matters but can act with relative autonomy in

many other areas, including management of curriculum, employment arrangements

and accommodation. Each state has its own charter laws though some do not

facilitate this form of provision.

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS, 2006), a group

fighting for the advancement of charter schools, claims that they give parents greatersay in the education of their children, offer educators freedom from burdensome

rules and regulations, and ensure accountability for student learning. Chartering,

they say, is at the center of a growing movement to challenge traditional notions of

what public education means. It is certainly clear that freedom from bureaucracy

and the implication that state involvement in education represents unnecessary

meddling and interference is never far beneath the surface when protagonists

articulate the benefits of the schools. The effectiveness of charter schools, like

voucher schemes and contracting out, is, however, far from proven and the

inconclusivity of research into this experiment is best demonstrated by comments on

the US Charter Schools (2006) web site. Sponsored in part by NAPCS, it lamely

announces that:

Some schools have already been successful enough to have their charters renewed,

which means their sponsors were satisfied that they met the original goals of their

charter. A few charters have been revoked due to lack of proper financial management

or lack of achievement. Charter schools have shown improvement in both parent and

student satisfaction and in innovation.

Over 10 years into the scheme, even a partisan organization like NAPCS is unable to

produce evidence of improvement in any harder educational outcomes claiming that

more [research] data are needed (NAPCS, 2006). CERUs work shows only that

privately managed schools perform better than public in some cities and worse in

other. For peripheral educational activities, they cite Luftigs (2003) study which

looked at reading summer schools and found no difference between the results of

public and private sector provision.

Whilst the effectiveness of privatized public education is in doubt, there are

growing signs that clashes of interest between educational and commercial priorities

are becoming more publicly apparent. As with Edutrain, the dynamism of the

corporate sector sometimes commands public attention for rather unwelcome

reasons. CERUs report catalogues many instances of behaviour which raisequestions about EMO activity. Edison, now reverted to a private company focussing

i b i h h l h d i d h l

272 G. Wilkinson


7/19

hours in its Florida schools after it encountered problems of staff retention and

declining pupil attendance. In New York, an Edison charter school failed to provide

legally prescribed services and classes for special education pupils. Victory Schools

have eliminated librarians in its schools in New York, Baltimore and Philadelphia.

K12 Inc. is tapping into the lucrative new market of Virtual Charter Schools,which provide computer-mediated education and are aimed at the significant

numbers of home schoolers in the US. EMOs which run these schools invariably

provide or are linked to companies providing branded curriculum materials and

technological infrastructure. K12 Inc.s methods have led to lawsuits in several states

and challenges to the legality of the companys provision including the failure to

deploy state-certified staff in Minnesota. This example illustrates how the different

dimensions of commercialism in educationin this case privatization and brand-

building through educational resources often operate in tandem.

Allied with political and intellectual backers keen to advance certain planks ofpublic policy, privatization in its various forms offers a variety of profit-making

opportunities for business. Auditors claimed that Arizona improperly gave more

than $1.1 million in federal money to charter schools run by for-profit companies.

Florida, has offered corporations tax incentives for donating money to fund

scholarships to send children to private schools. But the evidence is inconclusive as

to whether privatization provides value for money for the state and improved

education for US children. The US privatization project appears to rest on an article

of political faith, summed up neatly by Molnar:

Instead, each reform supports the fiction popular with business leaders that, if thesystem was made more efficient, there is no reason America couldnt maintain a

universal system of public schools and provide every child with a high-quality education

without spending more money. In other words, unleash the market and stand back as

thousands of entrepreneurs create better schools. (Molnar, 1996b, p. 9)

Commercialization and privatization based upon just such a misplaced faith has

arrived in the UK. We need now to examine the mechanisms which promote it.

Privatizing English education

From standards to structures

At Ruskin College in 1996, Tony Blair, then Leader of the Opposition declared that

the truth is that we know the qualities that make a successful school and they

exist whether or not we have a market in education (Blair, 1996). New Labours

first education white paper, Excellence in schools (DfEE, 1997), committed the

government to focussing on standards not structures. Since then, the confident

dismissal of simplistic market solutions voiced at Ruskin College has given way to

robust endorsement. The New Labour leadership has performed a volte-face which

now presents the party as the champions of choice and diversity. Blair forcefullyunderlined this new willingness to publicly proclaim his conversion to a market

model in his 2005 Labour Party conference speech:



8/19

Theres a great myth here: which is that we dont have a market in services now. We do.

Its called private schools and private healthcare. But its only open to the well-off

Choice is what wealthy people have exercised for centuries. The Tories have always

been comfortable with that. But for Labour choice is too important to be the monopoly

of the wealthy. (Blair, 2005a)

The prime ministers rhetoric does not paint the full picture. The new right ideology

of the Thatcher years birthed policies remarkably similar to those New Labour now

advocates. Their project was never completed but the Conservatives did manage to

introduce city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools similar in many

respects to new Labours city academies and proposed independent schools. A

further interesting point of continuity with Conservative thinking, shared with many

in the US, is the presupposition that flexibility, inventiveness and dynamism are the

preserve of business, faith groups and charities whilst public sector professionals are

regarded as impediments to reform.

The publication of the White Paper, Higher standards, better schools for all: More

choice for parents and pupils (DfES, 2005a) in October, 2005 and the Education Bill

presented before the British parliament in early 2006, brought this agenda into

sharper focus by laying the foundations upon which all schools would be released

from local authority control and achieve self-government. In truth, though, the

measures only sought to extend what already pertained in a significant number of

schools to all schools.

Schools were to be freed to create their own ethos and granted relative autonomy

in the management of curricula, accommodation and workforce. At the same time,

there would be changes to schools relationships with local government and to schoolgovernance. At one level, schools would enjoy respite from local government

bureaucracy and the inconvenience of accountability to structures of local

democracy; at a different but complementary level, representatives of private

interest groups would be embedded in the structures of school control. This

simultaneous shunting out of the public and empowerment of the private is at the

core of the strategy to privatize the governance of public education.

The prime minister is fond of proclaiming the improved results of specialist

schools and academies. Both of these schools involve sponsors and, for the prime

minister, demonstrate the connection between standards and private interest groups:It is no coincidence that results at every level have been better in specialist schools and

academies where they have had more freedom to innovate and a greater involvement of

external partners. (Blair, 2005b)

These models are to be extended, alongside a new category of Trust Schools which

will harness the external support and a success culture, bringing innovative and

stronger leadership to the school, improving standards and extending choice (DfES,

2005a, para. 2.5) without unnecessary bureaucratic interference (p. 4). Alongside

foundation schools, already enjoying a degree of autonomy, these are the

mechanisms for creating a fully independent state school system offering parentsdiversity of provision where each school has its own distinctive character and areas of

ll L l d i h i i i d h i i i

274 G. Wilkinson


9/19

Much of the Parliamentary Labour Party is suspicious of this, concerned that the

poor and disadvantaged will lose out. There are good reasons to support this

backbench apprehension. On the politics of choice, a longitudinal study in New

Zealand indicated a decline in overall educational achievement and showed that

markets are neither efficient nor equitable (Lauder & Hughes, 1999, p. 2). Thereare also difficulties regarding the concept of meaningful parental choice in public

sector services coupled with a danger that the outcomes of such a system may, in

fact, favour the professional and middle classes as their children cluster in certain

favoured schools exploiting their greater economic and cultural capital to avoid

schools with a disadvantaged intake (Tomlinson, 2001).

It is right to seek to address the inequalities which school markets create and

understandable that this has been the chief point of criticism for those opposed to

New Labours strategy. That should not, however, lead us to overlook other areas of

concern. There is little enthusiastic endorsement of New Labours belief in thepowers of external sponsorship. The cross-party Select Committee of the House of

Commons report that No causal link has been demonstrated between external

partners and the success of a school, or between the independence of a school from

local authority control and its success (Education and Skills Committee, 2006,

para. 50). Yet the government have persisted with policy instruments designed to

provide the opportunity for private interest groups to control and heavily influence

the nature of local state schools. There arise some important questions of public

interest. Who are these school sponsors and what motivates them? What safeguards

protect children from an impoverished educational experience funnelled through a

corporate lens or filtered thought the perspective of fundamentalist religiosity. Who

determines whether the educational ideology of a school promotes the public interest

or the interest of the sponsors?

Corporate involvement

It is not practical or desirable for company boards to. represent different stakeholder

interests. Boards should be accountable to shareholders. (Peter Mandelson, quoted in

Monbiot, 2001, p. 14)

As Peter Mandelson reminds us, the logic of shareholder capitalism means that the

corporate animal is driven by the promotion of its own interests. Yet, educational

administrators in England, like their US colleagues, have been compelled to seek

partnerships with business if they wish to avail themselves of government funding for

major policy initiatives. The granting of state funds for educational projects under

New Labour has been increasingly dependent on schools or local education

authorities having first secured the support of a private sector sponsor.

Cohen (2000) notes that Education Acton Zones (EAZs) have invited Shell, British

Aerospace, Tesco, ICI, Cadbury Schweppes, McDonalds and Kelloggs amongst

others to have a say in the running of groups of English schools. EAZs are not a one-off. The Playing for Success programme is an initiative to develop after-school study

i hi di h l i il i d f b h l h



10/19

back up to speed in literacy, numeracy and information and communication

technology (DfES, 2005b). In addition to the support of the host club, individual

centre managers are tasked with enlisting the support of private business usually in

exchange for the donors logo being displayed within the centre and on the centres

literature. Sainsburys plc, Nestle, Barclaycard, ASDA, Nike, Intel, Sony, Powergen,HSBC Bank, Boots, McDonalds, IKEA, Playstation 2 and Coca Cola Enterprises

have all taken advantage of this opportunity to raise brand awareness amongst

underachieving children and associate their companies with the local football or

county cricket club. Like the virtual charter schools in the US, the line between the

distinct priorities of the business and educational worlds becomes very fuzzy.

The European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT, 1998, p. 18) have argued that

We cannot leave all action in the hands of the public sector. The provision of

education is a market opportunity and should be treated as such. There have been

vigorous government efforts to help these industrialists into this market by contractingout educational services provided by Local Education Authorities (LEAs). As with US

cases of Educational Alternatives Inc. and Edison, the experience has singularly failed

to produce a compelling case for the efficacy of the business ethic. Following an

analysis of the Office for Standards in Educations (Ofsteds) reports, the Times

Educational Supplement reported that those LEAs forced to surrender services to the

private sector have improved less than those who failed an inspection but were allowed

to retain control (Slater, 2003, p. 7). Five of the nine privatized LEAs were poor and

one firm, Cambridge Education Associates, was fined after failing to meet targets. In

2003, a collapsed contract with Atkins Education cost Southwark council 1.5

million, much of it in lawyers fees, after the company withdrew prematurely from its

contract to raise standards in the borough. The council leader, was clear that the

termination of a contract with Atkins is in the long-term best interests of Southwark

schools, parents and pupils (Smithers, 2003, p. 10).

Specialist schools, which receive extra money per pupil unit, are part of the

governments oxymoronic aim of creating a wholly specialist comprehensive system

(DfES, 2005c). As of October 2005, there were 2381 specialist schools educating

2.5 million children and representing over 75% of all secondary schools. Whilst such

schools have a special focus on those subjects relating to their chosen specialism

they must also meet the National Curriculum requirements and deliver a broad andbalanced education to all pupils (DfES, 2005c). Schools bidding for specialist status

are obliged to find 50,000s worth of support from a private sponsor whose

contribution presumably symbolizes local capitalists enthusiasm. Sponsors are

entitled to representation on the governing body but their contribution does not

secure control. Nevertheless, there are marketing advantages to such an exercise as

the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (2005) testify:

Supporting a specialist school provides innumerable and ongoing opportunities to raise

the profile of a particular sponsor through the association with a flagship national

government initiative. In addition sponsors can expect a substantial level of local

recognition as a considerable proportion of the increased investment going into a school

is used to help and improve local communities. (Specialist Schools and Academies

)

276 G. Wilkinson


11/19

Unsurprisingly, over 400 companies have taken this opportunity including

GlaxoSmithKline, Marconi, Microsoft, Tesco plc, Associated Newspapers,

Deutsche Bank, Hitachi, Kodak, Motorola, Nestle Rowntree, Nissan, Philips,

Saatchi & Saatchi, Sanyo and Vodafone Group plc.

Schools and authorities who can find a commercial backer with rather larger pocketscan apply to become a City Academy which are publicly funded independent schools

(DfES, 2005d). In addition to the sponsors charitable donation of 10% of the

building costs of the new school (up to 2 million), these schools have received public

funding in excess of neighbouring local authority schools since they receive direct from

the state money held back from neighbouring schools by the LEA for its central

services. They operate outside of LEA control which removes any element of local

democracy. Academies independent status allows them the flexibility to be innovative

and creative in their curriculum, staffing and governance (DfES, 2005d).

These schools have similarities with US charter schools. Although corporatesponsors in England are not permitted to make direct profits, corporate advantage

cannot be reduced to the crudities of immediate financial payback. That is why the

other brand-building activities in schools, which do not usually generate immediate

financial returns, is booming. DfES is certainly alive to the marketing opportunities

presented to sponsors whilst it ignores the anti-educational effects of advertising on

children. Hence, its Education Business Links website (DfES, 2006) tries to lure

companies with a direct appeal to self-interest:

Companies today are discovering that partnership with schools can help bring real

business benefits. They can acquire better market knowledge, tap into local creativity to

develop new products, and gain new and more loyal customers. (DfES, 2006)

In city academies, sponsors make decisions about the Academys vision and ethos

and structures for governing and managing the new school (DfES, 2005e). In reply

to a direct enquiry asking about restrictions on academy sponsors marketing in

schools, DfES (2005d) disclosed that it does not publish guidance on advertising at,

or through, schools and leaves decisions regarding this and all forms of corporate

brand-building to governing bodies. Sponsors of the twenty seven academies opened

so far include Amey plc, Reed Executive plc, SGI Ltd, a venture capital company,

Seabourne Group plc, stockbrokers Insinger Townsley and the drug company

Pfizer. The Dixons City Academy in Bradford surrenders the very identity of the

school to its sponsors.

Although there is no taboo surrounding the corporate benefits of sponsorship, any

hint that self-interest might motivate individuals to sponsor academies is considered

vulgar. Des Smith resigned as a council member of the Specialist Schools and

Academies Trust in January 2006, after admitting to a Sunday Times reporter that

the government rewarded sponsors with knighthoods and peerages. Downing Street

denied this. Smith later told The Guardian that he was sorry and had been nave

(Smithers & Pallister, 2006), though tellingly, he did not retract what he had

unwisely introduced into the public arena. He has since been arrested as policeinvestigate claim alleged breaches in the honours system though no charges have

b b h h i f i i Si d h b h d



12/19

under New Labour since 2001 though there is no suggestion that any impropriety

has occurred in respect of these individuals.

Non-corporate involvementNew Labour minister Margaret Hodge has been praised by the British Humanist

Association (2005) for her bravery in questioning the religious orthodoxy of the

government. She is not the only sceptic. A recent poll showed that 64% of the

general public agreed that the government should not be funding faith schools of

any kind (Taylor, 2005, p. 1). Their view is increasingly shared by influential voices

from a surprisingly wide range of backgrounds. The Chair of the Commission for

Racial Equality warned that a society where children are marching into educational

ghettoes is sleepwalking to segregation (Phillips, 2005). Barry Sheerman, the

usually measured Chair of the Education Select Committee, worries that schoolsplay a crucial role in integrating different communities and the growth of faith

schools poses a real threat to this (Sheerman quoted in Taylor, 2005, p. 2). Chief

Inspector of Schools, David Bell (2005) has publicly expressed concern about the

threat to national coherence caused by religious segregation and called for the state

to monitor the growth of faith schools to ensure that pupils are educated about the

wider tenets and values of English society. Leading liberal rabbi Jonathan Romain

argued in The Times that faith schools are a recipe for social disaster which can

destabilise the social health of the country at large (Romain, 2005, p. 72). The

former Church of England Bishop of Repton wrote to the newspaper in support of

Romain and expressed sadness that the churches and the state (in my native

Northern Ireland) continue to acquiesce in the sectarian divide (Richmond, 2005,

p. 18). The ugly face of sectarian divide, when primary aged children were terrorized

by running a gauntlet of screaming Protestants to get the Holy Cross Catholic

School in Belfast had, understandably, left a mark on the bishop as it has on

everybody else who witnessed the nightly coverage of this grim spectacle.

Despite growing public reticence, the government has persisted in promoting

more faith schools as part of its diversification strategy. Over 50 Jewish schools,

around 100 Muslim schools and over 100 Evangelical Christian schools have opened

as independent faith schools (Bell, 2005). City academies now offer a morecircuitous route through which those with a religious agenda can buy a platform in

non-faith state schools. The cases later demonstrate that this should concern those

who do not wish to choose faith schooling for their children.

Emmanuel College in Gateshead and Kings Academy in Middlesbrough are

sponsored by the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (ESF), a charitable arm of Peter

Vardy, a fundamentalist Christian who made his fortune from second-hand car

dealing. Although they replaced non-religious state secondary schools, Vardys

schools place the Person of Christ and His example at the centre of their inspiration

as they mould a curriculum appropriate for students of the 21st century (ESF,2006). The curriculum they have moulded so far has included teaching creationism

alongside the theory of evolution which has been described as educational

278 G. Wilkinson


13/19

debauchery by Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science at

Oxford University (BBC News, 2003). Kings College were reported to have banned

Harry Potter novels from the school library over fears of satanic undertones (Desira,

2004). Sex and health education are

presented in a Christian moral framework, whereby self respect and respect for others

are seen in chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within it. Presenting this ideal, it is

recognised many do follow other lifestyles and so sensitivity and understanding in

tutorial and pastoral situations by staff are of prime importance. (ESF, 2006)

The sensitivity displayed by Nigel McQuoid, principal at the Kings Academy, is not

reassuring. He has been quoted stating that the Bible says clearly that homosexual

activity is against Gods design. I would indicate that to young folk (Harris, 2005,

p. 8). McQuoid was directly appointed by the foundation who also appoint vice-

principals and five of the nine members of the governing body.

Peter Vardy claims a purely philanthropic interest in education but his evangelicallieutenant John Burn, Chief Education Officer of the Vardy Foundation and

Chairman of the Christian Institute, appears to have a more partial agenda. He sees

opportunities for Biblical Christians to influence all of the compulsory requirements

in schools and asks rhetorically whether Christians have the wisdom and courage to

contend for this (Burn, 2001, p. 14). Burn perceives objectivity in religious

education as dangerous because it too often fails to present the unique truth claims

of Christ (Burn, 1999, p. 1).

The United Learning Trust (ULT), is a subsidiary charity of the United Church

Schools Trust (UCST)and was specifically created to manage academies inEngland. It now has 11 schools. Predictably its education is based on Christian

principles of service and tolerance. Less predictable is the extent of their ambitions

to extend their influence by associating local primary schools helping them to act

as a through school, ensuring continuity of ethos, learning and records (ULT,

2006). ULTs parent charity is chaired by Lord Carey of Clifton, a former

archbishop of Canterbury. Under his watch, a Church Schools Review Group

(CSRG) reporting to the Archbishops Council candidly revealed that the churchs

involvement with schools was doctrinally motivated. It hoped that engagement with

children and young people in schools will enable the Church to: Nourish those of

the faith; Encourage those of other faiths; Challenge those who have no faith

(CSRG, 2001, para. 1.13).

The religious enthusiasms of the prime minister are sincere and well documented

(Seldon, 2004). His then Secretary of State for Education, Ruth Kelly, who

introduced the white paper to Parliament, is a member of a Christian sect Opus Dei

which asks that its members spread the message of the universal call to holiness in

ordinary work and social life and view their work and social relationships as ways to

grow closer to God and to help others do likewise (Opus Dei, 2006). This may have

obscured the administrations appreciation of some cogent criticisms regarding faith

and schooling and help explain why the administration brushes off reasonablecriticism without substantive reply. Asked during Prime Ministers Questions about

h di h hi f i i i V d h l Bl i



14/19

remarked that it would be very unfortunate if concerns about that issue

[creationism] were seen to remove the very strong incentive to ensure that we get

as diverse a school system as we properly can (Blair, 2002).

Objections from local parents to academics backed by the religious are also

sidestepped when are perceived to obstruct diversity policy. Harris (2005) recountsin detail how evangelical sponsors and their facilitators from the local authority and

the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) tried to frustrate an ultimately

successful campaign to prevent a Vardy-backed take-over of a comprehensive school

in Doncaster. The National Secular Society (2005) track cases where communities

feel that academies sponsored by faith groups are being imposed upon them. They

have reported incidents of organized and vocal parental opposition in Barnsley,

Kent, Leicester and Lincolnshire.

Controlling interests

The US is further down the road in terms of both commercialization and

privatization of schools and the systematic study of such phenomena. Their

experience demonstrates that our civic education system and its values may well be

under threat from two commercializing formsbrand building in schools, in both

corporate and religious forms, and privatization. The US experiment with

privatization ought to urge caution for the practical reason that there is no evidence

that it works. There are also deeper moral and cultural objections to the privatization

of school governance if the primary purpose of the interest groups to whom power is

ceded resides in something other than, or additional to, the educational welfare of

children. It presents the opportunity to impart a partial world view by fashioning a

curriculum, pedagogy and ethos which inculcates children into the sponsors way of

looking at the world.

The lack of effective controls means that school doors open to brand-building

activity while freedoms from local democratic control may mean that sponsors can

use their position to generate other income streams for the company or its corporate

friends and relations as we have seen with the virtual charter schools in the US.

Advertising or branded educational materials may be introduced and a school

culture may evolve which has critical blind spots concerning the benevolence of bigbusiness or the limits of the private sector. As we have seen, not only is there little to

stop this. The government are actively highlighting these marketing windows as bait

to lure potential corporate sponsors.

Religious and other groups are not ideologically neutral educational adminis-

trators. Where they bring their faith perspective to school governance, this, in many

respects, signifies a more blatant ideological privatization of state schools.

Independent state schools controlled by religious groups may spread intolerance

of the wide diversity of life choices upon which the success of secular liberal

democracies depends. They may begin to exercise religious bias in personneldecisions. Moreover, the religious control of non-faith schools is profoundly

undemocratic Attendance at churches on Sundays is now a marginal activity in

280 G. Wilkinson


15/19

England and DfES have published statistics showing that 65% of 1219 year olds

identify themselves as having no religious affiliation (DfES, 2004). The govern-

ments choice agenda is amply catered for with existing faith schools and the

ambition to give parents the right to ask for a new primary or secondary school to

meet a lack of faith provision (DfES, 2005a, p. 29). To allow previously non-religious schools in disadvantaged areas to be turned into academies with an ethos

based on fundamentalist forms of Christianity is an inappropriately paternalistic

imposition in twenty-first century secular society. If this is not to be stopped, then

there should be, at the very least, a counterbalancing right for parents and children

to establish schools where children can access their entitlement to the full state

curriculum free from the influence of religion. Too many aspects of New Labour

education policy seem to airbrush the irreligious, and their rights, out of existence.

If we are serious about reclaiming education as a civic good for a vibrant and

critical democracy, we must respond to privatization on at least three levels,practical, empirical and political. At a practical level there is now a pressing need to

develop strategies which might act as safeguards and establish channels of redress

and correction. Such actions might include: developing the remit of the inspection

service Ofsted so that commercialism in schools becomes a key area of scrutiny;

establishing a more rigorous and genuinely democratic consultation process when

co-opting external partners; establishing an effective external complaints commis-

sion since if citizens have complaints against provision which is publicly funded, they

ought to be able to take their grievances beyond a governing body with a private

controlling interest; developing a national code of practice to cover all aspects of

commercialism and corporate activity in schools; providing training to raise teachers

awareness of commercialization since front line workers are often the unwitting

conduits for the messages of McWorld (Barber, 2003).

A research agenda must build on the work begun in the US. It needs to be

properly funded and examine meticulously the comparative impact of private

education management organizations and so called independent state schools. It

must reach beyond the usual performance indicators (examination results, university

entry, and such like) to examine pupils inclination and capacity for participatory

democratic citizenship. If there are genuine educational advantages, the reasons for

this need to be systematically investigated and explained with rather moresophistication that the platitudes about the pioneering spirit of entrepreneurs with

which the government has justified its privatizing agenda so far.

At a political level, a reappraisal of the purpose of civic education that has the

imagination to see beyond its function of credentializing citizens for economic life is

vital. Academic standards, fair access and equity of educational entitlement are

important matters but political discourse must broaden out to talk about the content

and ownership of childrens educational experience. New Labour hope that

enthusiastic parents will organize and petition local authorities clamouring to run

new trust schools but Ruth Kellys recent courting of Microsoft and others (Halpin,2006) and the angry protests against religious sponsors of proposed academies

suggest that the push for independent state schools is not parent led The likelihood



16/19

is that most new schools will be built in reaction to perceived school failure and run

by groups with religious or corporate interests.

The motivation of individual representatives of these organizations may be wholly

philanthropic but politicians and policy formers cannot take the good faith of

organized sponsors, corporate or otherwise, on trust. Ruskin and Schor (2005, p. 4)observe that As governments adopt commercial values, and are integrated into

corporate marketing, they develop conflicts of interest that make them less likely to

take stands against commercialism. New Labour has cosied up to these interests as

it has tried to push forward its diversity strategy and is selling a controlling interest in

the education of English schoolchildren to those who can afford the subscription.

References

Barber, B. R. (2003) Jihad vs. McWorld (London, Corgi).

BBC News (2003) Creationist schools attacked, 28 April. Available online at: http://news.

bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/education/2982933.stm (accessed 10 October 2006).

Bell, D. (2005) Speech on citizenship given at the Hansard Society, 17 January.

Blair, T. (1996) Speech given at Ruskin College, Oxford, 16 December.

Blair, T. (2002) Parliamentary Answer in Hansard, 13 March, Column 886.

Blair, T. (2005a) We are the change-makers. Speech at the Labour Party Conference, Brighton,

27 September.

Blair, T. (2005b) Minutes of Prime Ministers monthly Downing Street press conference, 11

October.

Bok, D. (2003) Universities in the marketplace: The commercialisation of higher education (Princeton,

NJ, Princeton University Press).

British Humanist Association (BHA) (2005) BHA praise for Margaret Hodge. BHA press release

of 17 October.

Burn, J. (1999) Still a vision for Christian education, Faith in Education (Newsletter of the

Christian Institute), 1, November, 12.

Burn, J. (2001) Christian influence in education, Faith in Education (Newsletter of the Christian

Institute), 3, July, 1416.

Chubb, J. E. & Moe, T. (1990) Politics, markets and Americas schools (Washington, DC, The

Brookings Institution).

Church Schools Review Group (CSRG) (2001) The way ahead: Church of England schools in the new

millennium (London, Church House Publishing).

Cohen, N. (2000) Cruel Britannia: Reports on the sinister and the preposterous (London, Verso).

Crouch, C. (2003) Commercialization or citizenship: Education policy and the future of public services

(London, Fabian Society).

Desira, J. (2004) No spells in our school, Teesside Evening Gazette, 13 February.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1997) Excellence in schools (London,

Stationery Office).

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2004) Young people in Britain: The attitudes and

experiences of 12 to 19 year olds. Report of the National Centre for Social Research

(Nottingham, DfES Publications).

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2005a) Higher standards, better schools for all: More

choice for parents and pupils (Norwich, The Stationery Office).

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2005b) What is playing for success? Available online

at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/playingforsuccess/ (accessed 10 October 2005).

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2005c) What are specialist schools? Available online

h // d d df k/ i li h l / ( d O b )

282 G. Wilkinson


17/19

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2005d) What are academies? Available online at:

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/academies/ (accessed 21 October 2005).

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2005e) RE: corporate marketing/branding in

educational centres. Reply from DfES to private email correspondence on 1 November.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2006) Welcome to the business area. Available online

at: the Education Business Links website http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ebnet/business/ (accessed

14 February 2006).

Dzidzikashvili, D., Fields, R., Kotutwa-Johnson, M., Poulin, L., Schroeder, S., Snyder, M. &

Stephens, L. (2003) Rescuing Californias troubled schools: Can contracting address the problems

facing Californias failing schools?, Capstone Seminar Report (Malibu, CA, Pepperdine

School of Public Policy).

Education and Skills Committee (2006) The schools White Paper: Higher standards, better schools for

all. First report of session 200506 (London, House of Commons).

Emmanuel Schools Foundation (ESF) (2006) Available online at: the Emmanuel Schools

Foundation website http://www.emmanuel-schools.org.uk/ (accessed 14 February 2006).

European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) (1998) Job creation and competitiveness through

innovation (Brussels, ERT).

Future of Children (1997) Considering non-traditional alternatives: Charters, private contracts,

and vouchers, Financing Schools, 7(3), 96111.

Freire, P. (1982) Pedagogy of the oppressed (Harmondsworth, Penguin).

Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and freedom (Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press).

Glass, G. V. & Matthews, D. A. (2000) Are data enough? Review of Chubb and Moes politics, markets

and Americas schools. Available online at: the Arizona State University website http://

glass.ed.asu/gene/papers/chubbrev.html (accessed 11 September 2006).

Glennerster, H. (1991) Quasi-markets for education?, The Economic Journal, 101, September,

12681276.

Greenberg, B. S. & Brand, J. E. (1997) Channel One: But what about the advertising?, Educational

Leadership, 51, 558.

Halpin, T. (2006) Kelly defies critics in sponsors drive, The Times, 30 January.

Harris, J. (2005) What a creation , The Guardian, 15 January, p. 8.

Hoynes, W. (1997) News for a captive audience. An analysis of Channel One, Fairness and

Accuracy in Reporting Extra!, May/June.

Klein, N. (2001) No logo (London, Flamingo).

Lauder, H. & Hughes, D. (1999) Trading in futures: Why markets in education dont work

(Buckingham, Open University Press).

Luftig, R. (2003) When a little bit means a lot: The effects of a short-term reading program on

economically disadvantaged elementary schoolers, Reading Research and Instruction, 42(4),

113.

Miller, M. C. (1997) How to be stupidthe lessons of Channel One, Fairness and Accuracy in

Reporting Extra!, May/June.

Molnar, A. (1996a) Charter schools: The smiling face of disinvestment, Educational Leadership,

54(2), 915.

Molnar, A. (1996b) Giving kids the business: Commercialization of Americas schools (Boulder, Co,

Westview Press Inc.).

Molnar, A. (2001) Corporate involvement in schools: Time for a more critical look (Tempe, AZ,

Arizona State University, Commercialism in Education Research Unit).

Molnar, A. (2004) Virtually everywhere: Marketing to children in Americas schoolsthe seventh

annual report on schoolhouse commercialism trends, 20032004, reference EPSL-0409-

103-CERU (Tempe, AZ, Arizona State University, Commercialism in Education Research

Unit).

Molnar, A., Farrell, W. C., Johnson, J. H. & Sapp, M. (1996) Research, politics, and the school

h i d hi l ( )



18/19

Molnar, A., Garcia, D., Sullivan, C., McEvoy, B. & Joanou, J. (2005) Profiles of for-profit

education management organizations 20042005the seventh annual report, reference

EPSL-0504-101-CERU (Tempe, AZ, Arizona State University: Commercialism in

Education Research Unit).

Monbiot, G. (2001) Captive state: The corporate takeover of Britain (London, Pan).

Morgan, M. (1993) Channel One in the public schools (Oakland, CA, Unplug).

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) (2006) About us. Available online at:

the NAPCS website http://www.publiccharters.org/aboutus.asp (accessed 14 February

2006).

National Secular Society (2005) Christian academies being forced onto unwilling communities,

Newsline 27 May, p. 4.

Opus Dei (2006) Joining Opus Dei. Available online at: the Opus Dei website http://www.

opusdei.org/art.php?w532&p548 (accessed 8 February 2006).

Phillips, T. (2005) After 7/7: Sleepwalking to segregation. Speech at Manchester Council for

Community Relations at Manchester Town Hall, 22 September.

Romain, J. (2005) Faith schools are a recipe for social disaster, The Times, 1 October, p. 72.

Richmond, H. (2005) Faith schools put to the test, The Times, 5 October, p. 18.Ruskin, G. & Schor, J. (2005) Every nook and cranny: The dangerous spread of commercialized

culture, Multinational Monitor, 26(12), 15.

Saltman, K. J. (2005) Edison schools: Corporate schooling and the assault on public education (New

York, Routledge Falmer).

Seldon, A. (2004) Blair (London, Free Press).

Slater, J. (2003) Private sector fails to deliver, Times Educational Supplement, 4 April, p. 7.

Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and

higher education (Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press).

Smithers, R. (2003) Fresh blow to schools privatisation scheme, The Guardian, 11 July, p. 10.

Smithers, R. & Pallister, D. (2006) City academies adviser resigns after cash-for-honours

accusation, The Guardian, 16 January.Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (2005) Our supporters. Available online at: http://

www.specialistschools.org.uk/sponsorship/corporatepartners/default.aspa (accessed 25

November 2005).

Taylor, M. (2005a) Two thirds oppose state aided faith schools, The Guardian, 23 August, p. 1.

Tomlinson, S. (2001) Education in a post-welfare society (Buckingham, Open University Press).

United Learning Trust (ULT) (2006) What are academies? Available online at: the ULT website

http://www.ult.org.uk/ (accessed 8 February 2006).

US Charter Schools (2006) Answers to frequently asked questions. Available online at: US

Charter Schools website http://www.uscharterschools.org/ (accessed 8 February 2006).

284 G. Wilkinson


19/19

wilkinson pedagogy of the possessed

Documents