Education under the ConDems more

IN DEFENCE OF YOUTH WORK CAMPAIGN Youth work under the ConDems Tuesday 14 September 2010 at Manchester Metropolitan University, Didsbury Campus Education under the ConDems John Schostak j.schostak@mmu.ac.uk Revised immediately following the conference Introduction I recall when starting my career as a lecturer and researcher a sense of things still being possible. Research just might be able to feed practice to contribute to making a difference in people’s lives. That was the early 1980s. The Thatcher government had recently been elected, public services and trades unions were under attack. It was the neoliberal onslaught at full speed. I was then in the process of undertaking my Ph d research that involved a study of a school in an economically depressed area in the north west of the UK. At one point during a discussion of whether it was possible for a school to engage in such a way as to make known the real issues the children and their families faced, a teacher said ‘our role is to keep the lid on the dustbin’. The fear was that if things were stirred up, there would be violent revolution in the streets. Of course, a few months later there were the riots that took place in various cites around the country. I wrote a book based on my research called Maladjusted Schooling (Schostak 1983), meaning schools were maladjusted to the real needs and interests of people. It seemed to me that real democratic practice had to be embedded in schools if real change was to be promoted. When I became a lecturer at the University of East Anglia, one of my research projects involved a First School where I could begin to explore what it would mean to develop genuine democratic practice throughout the school. In brief, the children became decision makers in all aspects of their school lives, ‘sorting out’ their problems with each others in terms of behaviour as well as making decisions about curriculum matters. Children, teachers and other staff all contributed to the culture of democratic decision making. This seemed like a real practical model for education and not just schooling. However, it was also the time of the 1988 Education Act that brought its version of the new managerialism into schools through the imposition of the National Curriculum and inspection systems. Increasingly, it seemed that the time when teachers could be curriculum innovators had passed. With it the confidence, the practical knowledge and experience required to make change also seemed to vanish. The Education Education, Education of the Blair years was more of the same – a different colour but the same new managerialism with its ‘instruction to deliver’ (Barber 2007). With the election of the Cameron-Clegg coalition in 2010, aptly termed the ConDems, what is at stake today that has not always been at stake? I shall answer this in three parts. First part: Education and the hatred of democracy Education has long been reduced to being an instrument of political control, if we mean by education the whole apparatus of schools through to universities on the one hand and the multiplicity of media, the organisation of labour to meet the demands of contemporary markets, and the everyday forms of socialisation through which minds and bodies are moulded. After the Reform act of 1868 that extended political rights to certain of the working classes Robert Lowe is claimed to have said ‘now we must educate our masters’. And Bernays, the father of contemporary spin doctors and one of the pioneers of the modern public relations industry wrote: The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. (Bernays 1928: 27) Indeed: Ours must be a leadership democracy administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses. (Bernays 1928: 127 Bernays’ contemporary influence on the politics of the Western world, and in particular that of the UK and the USA was highlighted by a BBC documentary (2002). Consent is to be manufactured or engineered to support the policies of governments who in turn are either largely financed by the wealthy or manipulated by the demands of corporate elites (see: Klein 2007, Herman and Chomsky 1988). Over the last 3 decades what is being manufactured is consent to neoliberalism, a political economic doctrine that privileges the pursuit of profit, inequality, private property, individualism, the accumulation of wealth and equates free (that is, unregulated) market economics with freedom and democracy (see Harvey 2005). Neoliberalism abhors the State, collective action, the public sector and welfare. In promoting the reforms to embed neoliberal privatisation of publicly owned industries and services Thatcher famously said there is no alternative, and in the face of rising unemployment and poverty she said there is no such thing as society. Instead of democracy as founded upon the voices of all people, there is only the election of elite national management teams who decide and act on behalf of millions. There is, as Rancière (2006) wrote, a Hatred of democracy. This hatred is seen in transformation of all public space into Private space, private property and the accumulation of wealth. Private organisations owned by wealthy elites have no need of democratic decision making. As the banking crisis has convincingly shown, global financial institutions have the power to blackmail governments. And at ground level, people have no democratic institutions to resist and fight back through collective decision making. There is a paucity of countervailing forces. Part two: Education and the hope of Democracy We could also regard education as a necessary condition for emancipation. Education can be seen as the radical moment when belief in the certainties, values, and forms of organisation through which everyday life is managed is ‘suspended’. In this moment through the faculty of imagination, education ‘draws out’ the possibilities for alternative forms of social organisation as a condition for thinking and acting differently in everyday life. LaBoetie back in 1552 expressed his amazement that so many millions would submit to the will of one person, a tyrant. Imagine if everyone took his advice: ‘Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.’ It is in imagining that this is possible that hope is born. And in hope democracy is born, hope that is, for a world where people can be free from want and free to develop a better life for themselves in security and in community with others. Freedom as the French political theorist Balibar (1994) notes is coextensive with equality. If access to certain social goods is limited to the wealthy, then the freedom of the poor is limited. Without equality, there can be no universal freedom. For democracy to come into being, there must be the freedom and equality of all to be engaged in the decision making processes of all the community organisations and institutions that impact upon the lives of people. Democracy thus depends upon the creation of public spheres where people have free and equal access to engage in the debates and decisions that inform and legitimise action. Education is critical to the accomplishment of democratic forms of social organisation. Rather than the national curricula, training programmes and forms of examination that today pass as education, a curriculum can be reconceptualised as an course of reflection, expression, decision making and action developed in free and equal community with others. Education, in this sense, is thus on the one hand the practice of continually emancipating people from whatever prevents them from engaging freely and equally in public space. On the other hand it is also the creative process of engaging with others to express their free individuality as co-equals in community with others. Part three: The ConDems and the Big Lie Now we can think of education under the ConDems. Plato wrote of the necessity of the ‘noble lie’ to maintain social order - people were classified hierarchicallyaccording to their function in society. It was declared to be natural. There is something of this in the notion of the ‘Big Society’ that conceals the ConDems version of the neoliberal desire for small government as a mechanism to enforce legislation through violence if necessary for the protection of property rights and the accumulation of wealth. The ‘Big society’ idea makes one of its appearances in what Gove calls ‘free schools’. In what way are they ‘free’? They can be seen as breaking up state provision. Or, they can be seen as genuinely placing power back into the hands of people. However, the idea was greeted by early cynicism. Baker in a Guardian article described how the education secretary Michael Gove is picking his advisers and abolishing the QCDA in order to get direct control over the curriculum matters: So, we have the prospect of the planned new national curriculum being shaped by advice from the education secretary's hand-picked committee of experts and then implemented by his own department. Not much room for dissent or argument there. One very experienced former curriculum adviser believes the department's civil servants simply won't know how to challenge the advice that comes from Gove's curriculum appointees. (Mike Baker, Guardian Tuesday 15, June, 2010) And, in the view of Peter Wilby (The Guardian Tuesday 25, May 2010) it will be private companies rather than parents who will run the free schools. Indeed, as reported by Patrick Barkham and Polly Curtis in the Guardian (Monday 31, May, 2010): The government has "no ideological objection" to businesses seeking profits from the new generation of academy schools and free schools, Michael Gove has said. But the education secretary said his preference was for teachers and other experts to decide how to run and improve schools and said he expected most academies to be run as philanthropic projects. Place this in the context of other moves, particularly in health care where GP practices are already run as businesses and the new plans for the NHS are to create even more opportunities for private profit making. Place it too in the context of massive cuts in benefits and services where the private sector are expect to ‘take up the slack’. What is taking place is a massive attack on the public sector in all its forms. Is there no alternative? There is. But first we must make a clear separation between society and State, between ordinary people and Nation, between democracy and the election of elites to manage the State. It is the powers of ordinary people that are either managed in the interests of elites or freed to engage in democratic, mutual associations for a common benefit in the production of the ‘good society’. Society begins, it seems to me, in the recognition that we are all equally co-dependent on each other. This being so, we each need a free and equal voice in the creation of our social goods and their allocation. This contrasts with the ‘there is no society’ notion of the private sector where there is the survival of the fittest in the competition for the private accumulation of individual wealth. Possibilities for a different social and political form of organisation and thus a glimmer of optimism seems to me to exist within our current conditions. Alongside the neoliberal move to the privatisation of everything publicly owned for the benefit of elite controlled market interests, there is also the co-operative movement. It is well known for its retail, manufacturing, financial, health and other services. It is less known that it has already something like 100 Co-operative Trust schools in existence with more on the way. The Trust partnerships are composed of community focused organisations. Rather than values of competition, profit seeking and individual greed, there are values of co-operation, collective action and mutual development. The co-operative movement has a long history and has developed what may be called an alternative sector to that of the private and that of state public control. Its resilience in the face of the financial crisis has been proven. Co-operative pedagogies are, or at least potentially are, quite different to those required for competitive markets focusing on individual competition and inequality of reward. It provides a different notion of the ‘Big Society’. It provides a way of thinking about how to use the word ‘free’ differently from that of ‘free market economics’ and how to use the word society differently from that implied in the ConDems use of ‘Big Society’. The word ‘free’ is tricky. Its meanings cannot arbitrarily be limited. If people get the taste of freedom, they tend to demand it. And the demand is for equal freedoms with others. There is no freedom without equality nor is there freedom without the public space within which to demand freedom with equality. Rather than ‘Big Society’ we might talk of ‘Big Democracy’ as a condition for the good society. Political theorist Chantal Mouffe (1993) described democracy as the unfinished and unfinishable revolution. The task is to build democratic practice in all the institutions of everyday life. The co-operative movement may provide one means of thinking about how to do this. But we need a radical rethink on how to accomplish this (see Schostak and Schostak 2008, 2010). The task is massive. For example, where do we actually see and experience real democracy in our lives? And how are we as children prepared for a life of democratic practice? If schools were to be assessed on their democratic practices in all matters of school life, how many today would achieve above zero? What sort of education – not just in schools, but across all the organisations, institutions and forms of everyday life - would we need to produce this, this new vision of a Big Democracy, a democracy big enough to challenge the biggest of lies? Finally What is at stake, and has always been at stake, is control. That is: who is to control the production and allocation of wealth and social goods? Is it to be elites? Or is it to be the masses? References Balibar, E. (1994 ) “Rights of Man” and “Rights of the Citizen”: The Modern Dialectic of Equality and Freedom, in Etienne Balibar, Masses, Classes, Ideas: Studies on Politics and Philosophy Before and After Marx, New York: Routledge. The original is: “La proposition de l'égaliberté”, in Les Conférences du Perroquet, n° 22, Paris novembre 1989 Barber, M (2007) Instruction to Deliver, London: Politico’s BBC (2002) The Century of the Self, BBC documentary, broadcast: Monday 29 April - Thursday 2 May 2002, 7pm-8pm http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml Bernays, E. L. (1928) Propaganda, New York: Horace liveright La Boetie, E. (1550s) ‘The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude’, http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html Harvey, D,. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press Herman, E. S., and Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, New York: Pantheon Books Klein, N. (2007) The Shock Doctrine. The rise of disaster capitalism, Allen Lane Mouffe, C. (1993) The Return of the Political, London and New York, Verso Murray, C. (2005) ‘The Advantages of Social Apartheid. U.S. Experience Shows Britain What to Do with Its Underclass--Get It off the Streets, Sunday Times April 3rd; American Enterprise for Public Policy Research, posted April 4th at: http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.22252/pub_detail.asp Norton, A. (2004) Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, New Haven and London: Yale University Press Rancière, J. (2006) Hatred of Democracy, by Jacques tr. Steve Corcoran London: Verso. Schostak, J. F. (1983) Maladjusted Schooling: Deviance, Social Control and Individuality in Secondary Schooling, London, Philadelphia. Falmer. Schostak, J. F, and Schostak J. R. (2008) Radical Research. Designing, developing and writing research to make a difference,, Routledge: London, UK Schostak, J. F., and Schostak, J. R. (Eds) (2010) Researching Violence, Democracy and the Rights of People, Routledge: London, UK