Saturday, June 08, 2024

 UK


Demands for Education Under Labour – Socialist Education Association


Leave a Commenton Demands for Education Under Labour – Socialist Education Association
“The Tories have caused a major crisis in state education through underfunding, marketisation and central ideological control.”

Ian Duckett, Socialist Education Association (SEA), writes on the SEA’s demands for education under Labour.

The Socialist Education Association (SEA) believes that education is a universal right not a privilege and that all educational institutions should share knowledge and skills. They should also assist in enlightening and interacting with their local communities. These communities are best served by inclusive democratic structures which enhance accountability to students, parents and carers, staff and trade unions.

These socialist principles should apply to all sectors of the service from early years through to primary and secondary schools, FE colleges, universities and youth services.

The SEA’s Manifesto for Education covers a series of actions on curriculum, assessment, structures, funding mechanisms, teacher education and accountability.

This week in its Education Politics blog, SEA general secretary, James Whiting launched what might be viewed as demands on Starmer for education under a Labour government in the form of the SEA’s election statement. For details see Education Politics: Time For Change in Education. Vote Labour.

SEA Election Statement

The Tories have caused a major crisis in state education through underfunding, marketisation and central ideological control. Child poverty is reaching record levels. Absence rates among pupils are increasing, the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and others is widening, and teachers are leaving in droves. Provision for children with special needs and disabilities (SEND) is being cut back, leaving the most vulnerable bereft. School buildings are crumbling. Early years provision is in crisis too through underfunding and privatisation. Apprenticeship schemes are inadequate and post-16 vocational students are forced to follow untried T-level courses, whilst successful qualifications are being defunded. There is a blatant attempt by the Tories to make courses in the arts and humanities unviable in universities which cater for a more working-class intake. Universities are under threat from the current funding regime based on tuition fees and restrictions on recruiting international students.

The Tories have created their own ‘blob’ made up of academy chiefs, OFSTED and a few chosen academics to run the system. They ignore and actively deride the voices and experiences of the profession through their professional and subject associations and their education unions. Most academics, parents, governors and, of course students, are similarly marginalised. Instead they have built a rigged market around unaccountable and wasteful academies.

In order to stop this mismanaged Tory project in its tracks and start to build a fairer and democratically accountable education service, we urge everyone in education to vote Labour.

We welcome Labour’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity and commitments to:

  • tax private school fees to free up resources for the state sector
  • recruit more teachers- we hope the 6500 figure is in addition to the massive shortfall in recruitment caused by the Tories
  • improve mental health services in schools, make quality careers advice available to all pupils and provide breakfast clubs for all.
  • review curriculum and assessment giving a higher priority to oracy and creative subjects.
  • reform the apprenticeships programme

Labour should recognise the depth of the crisis in the service and go further.

We urge Labour to:

  • provide healthy free meals for all starting with primary pupils as Labour Wales and London plus Scotland have done, as part of a child poverty strategy
  • tackle the funding crisis by committing to spend, over time, the same proportion of GDP (5.4%) on education as the last Labour government
  • bring back an integrated, local authority run, early intervention programme similar to Sure Start
  • end academisation and bring academies back under local authority oversight
  • develop an in-depth response to the teacher recruitment and retention crisis, by restoring pay levels, removing unnecessary testing of pupils which check on schools and teachers, replacing OFSTED with a peer review process, instigating national pay and conditions for education workers and giving the teaching profession back its autonomy
  • give parents, students and local communities a voice in the running of schools
  • conduct a root and branch review of SEND and alternative provision with inclusion as its aim.
  • commit to a new qualification framework along the lines of Tomlinson which treats academic and vocational elements equally
  • tackle the higher education funding crisis by moving away from tuition fees and towards a grant-based system

For details see the full SEA Manifesto for Education.

SEA and NEU

The SEA also supports the principles outlined by Daniel Kebede, General Secretary of the National Education Union, when commenting on the Prime Minister’s confirmation of a general election on 4 July, said: 

“Education must be a priority for any political party wanting to form the next Government. 

“Fourteen years of neglect and underfunding have left education – from early years through to post-16 – in tatters. It is imperative that all political parties address this in their manifestos. Not in vague terms, with piecemeal solutions. But with meaningful proposals about how this situation will be reversed if they form the next Government.  

“Our schools are chronically underfunded. Primary class sizes are the highest in Europe, and secondary class sizes are the highest since records began more than forty years ago. Teachers are underpaid and overworked, resulting in the worst recruitment and retention crisis in a generation. That will not be reversed unless there is significant change to pay and terms and conditions of the education workforce. 

“SEND provision and mental health support for our young people is practically non-existent. We have a curriculum and assessment system that does not engage many pupils, or give each of them the chance to thrive. Many of our school buildings are in a chronic state of disrepair, literally crumbling away”

You can read the full speech here.

  • Ian Duckett is a member of the National Executive for the Socialist Education Association (SEA).
  • You can follow the SEA on Facebook and Twitter/X.
Posted by at No comments:

Are teachers the (new) proletarians?

MONDAY 3 JUNE 2024, BY HAFIZA B. KREJE, RAPHAËL GREGGAN
In his latest book, ‘Enseignants, les nouveaux prolétaires’ (‘Teachers, the new proletarians’), Frédéric Grimaud gives a convincing demonstration of how the Macron reforms have profoundly transformed the teaching profession in France. [1] The subtitle of the book is apt: ‘Taylorism in schools’. But is that enough to link teachers to the proletariat? The question merits debate.

Grimaud recalls Taylor’s intentions in 1927: ‘[to] convince us that there is a science for each of the elementary acts that constitute trades’. This brings to mind France’s minister of education, Jean-Michel Blanquer, and his desire to ‘build a method for objectifying [the teaching profession]’ and the way in which he insisted that ‘cognitive sciences must feed into practice’. The aim of Blanquer’s reforms is above all to turn the profession into a repetitive, standardised job, where the teacher can be replaced by anyone (or even by videos or artificial intelligence). This echoes the current reforms to teacher training. The government wants to rename the training institutes to become Ecole Normale Supérieure du Professeurs (ENSP). [2]

This is not just a change of name. The ENSPs will not have the support of higher education and academic freedom, but will simply provide training under the control of the French education system. In this respect, it is significant that Macron has proposed (unconsciously, we hope) that ‘the teacher training colleges of the 21st century’ should have the same acronym as the police academy. [3]

TEACHERS AS ARTISAN-EDUCATORS

But are the reforms introduced since 2017 enough to say that teachers are new proletarians? As Grimaud himself acknowledges, ‘the formula is risky’. On the one hand, Marx established that a proletarian has a precise place in the process of creating or realising value. The creation of value is understood in two senses: a concrete sense which refers to the actual transformation of material by a technique - the worker produces something - and an abstract sense which refers to the fetishisation of the product as a commodity. On the other hand, within the framework of commodity fetishism that Marx specifies ‘what the worker sells is not his labour directly, but his labour-power, the momentary disposal of which he cedes to the capitalist’. [4] Labour power is a commodity like any other, whose price is determined by the employer. It is customary to identify the role of education with increasing the value of labour power: it is in this sense that public education can be seen as the means of ensuring the existence of a skilled workforce. It is in this sense that teachers can be seen as workers: they ‘add’ value to a material in the form of the pupil, a workforce in the making.

PRODUCTIVE LABOUR

However, it’s not so obvious to say that the teacher is a ‘producer’, and therefore a ‘worker’ in Marx’s sense. From the point of view of abstract labour, it is in part (and in part only) that the price of labour is determined by the skills and knowledge of the employee. This is where the problem lies for the teacher: while we can see that the presence of teachers has an impact on the value of the labour power of future workers, it seems impossible to measure it. To put it another way: the same teaching does not lead to the same increase in the value of the workforce for those who follow it. To use the formula of the educational think tank, the Groupe français d’éducation nouvelle (GFEN): in the final analysis, it’s the young person who learns, in other words, etymologically: they take what they can when they can. And even worse: there is no way of establishing whether the knowledge transmitted will be retained over the long term.

It cannot be said that teachers have actually produced anything: they profess, declare and state the knowledge that they are supposed to have mastered and ‘teach’ it, i.e. they ensure that this discourse is not simply declamation, but that it is prehensible and that the interlocutors can acquire it. Their actual acquisition depends on their reception, which can never be merely passive. If there is indeed an ‘addition of concrete value’, this is entirely dependent on the active consent of the student, even though the latter is not the initiator of this contribution.

OBJECTIVISING TASKS?

This fraternal criticism of the title of Grimaud’s book does not detract from the accuracy of his intuition. The structural reforms undertaken by Macron and his epigones seek to ‘convince people that there is a science of each of the elementary acts that make up a profession’ and that the teaching profession can hence be divided into elementary tasks, themselves scientifically optimised. [5] But this is a pipe dream. Not because teachers are impervious to liberal theses, but because the work of the teacher is not identified with production. Production is not simply the result of the perfect execution of a task or the appropriate use of a technique. Imagination is required in production and in the contribution of value: it is not distinct from labour, it is the foundation of human labour. Marx opposes the idealism that makes imagination a real force, but he also asserts that labour cannot be reduced to visible operations. Materialism is not crude objectivism. To define labour, Marx points out that ‘what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality [what] distinguishes the worst architect from the most expert bee from the outset is that he has built the cell in his head before he builds it in the street. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. [6]

It is to this ‘humanising’ component of work that the teacher addresses themsself: they strive to extend what makes work possible, and their work is entirely encompassed in this task prior to the pupil’s production and ability to produce. [7] They don’t produce, they make it possible.

PEDAGOGY AND THE INTERPERSONAL LINK

In a way, the teacher bears a resemblance to the artisan. The increase in the student’s knowledge, skills and know-how is specific to the teacher and is linked to the student’s current attitude in their interaction (or lack of it) with the teacher. You can only learn what you don’t know. The act of learning begins with the recognition that we don’t know and implies a desire to fill the void that has just been created. The teaching profession is a precarious and special combination of managing to interest pupils in unknown content that they have not chosen a priori, and giving them the means to fill this intimate absence that has just been created. This is what is at stake in pedagogy, which corresponds to the teacher’s non-reproducible know-how: it cannot simply be a matter of technique, because the subject, the student, is not a material whose properties are always identical. A hard head is not a wooden head. Although certain tasks in the teaching profession are reproducible and, after more than a century of educational research, methods have emerged that are more effective than others, they all depend on the interpersonal relationship that teachers establish with their learners. To put it more clearly, whatever happens, the scientific division of the teaching profession into elementary tasks is doomed to failure, precisely because it is based on the relationship between two free and conscious living beings, capable of working, and not between a worker and inert matter.

ARE TEACHERS IN THE CAMP OF THE PROLETARIAT?

Classifying teachers in the ranks of the proletariat is a socio-historical construct that cannot be detached from the massification of this body, following the Ferry law of 1882 on compulsory education. This was based on the ideological desire of ‘class defectors’ at the turn of the century to be attached to their class of origin, as underlined by the manifesto of the syndicalist teachers in 1905. But there was nothing obvious about this primitive attachment, and other teachers preferred a peer organisation, autonomous from the proletariat, which was reflected in the bipolarity between trade union organisations and professional associations. As Samuel Joshua reminds us, in the 1970s, Marxists classified teachers as ‘the new petty-bourgeoisie’. [8]

Even if this economist characterisation is debatable, it is certain that teachers do not belong to the class per se, but the question of the class per se is debatable. Schools have a collective dimension, like primitive factories. Operating collectively within the same structure induces habitus and group reflexes. The numerical importance of teacher unionism in France places a significant proportion of teachers in the ranks of the proletariat.

FUNCTIONARIES IN THE SERVICE OF THE STATE

However, this categorisation overlooks the fact that teachers are mainly functionaries. At the very least, they represent, as Bourdieu puts it, ‘the left hand of the state’. This dimension is absent from Grimaud’s book. And yet it is a fundamental contradiction. Ultimately, they assume the contradiction between liberating knowledge and confining scholasticism (minds and bodies). In this sense, teachers are the daily representatives of the training (and formatting) of the proletariat to the needs dictated by the state. This is precisely one of the issues that has been at stake since compulsory schooling began at the end of the 19th century, through the mass schooling of the post World War 2 era to the Blanquer reforms: the school is a tool of the state to serve the interests of employers. It is this ideological contradiction that explains, for example, the debates between teachers on the 2004 law on religious symbols, which is seen as alienating teachers from the Islamophobic decisions of governments, under the guise of a so-called ‘republican’ discourse. Macron’s school reforms, designed to meet the current needs of French capital, are leading to a profound change in the teaching profession, and this is what Grimaud points out. He rightly speaks of the proletarianisation of the profession.

COGNITIVE CAPITALISM

The convergence of teaching work with the situation of the proletariat can be thought of in a more structural way, under the hypothesis of a partial evolution of capitalism into ‘cognitive’ capitalism and no longer just industrial capitalism. Yann Moulier Boutang writes: ‘By cognitive capitalism, we mean a form of accumulation in which the object of accumulation is principally knowledge, which becomes the principal resource of value as well as the principal locus of the process of valorisation’: the subordination of the humanisation of teaching work to liberal imperatives aims to assimilate the creative process to capitalism, in the same way that ‘emancipatory’ demands were integrated into the logic of liberal management after 1968. [[Y. Moulier Boutang, ‘Le capitalisme cognitif: la

From this perspective, if teachers can be said to be proletarianised, it is because they are aware of the degradation involved in translating imagination into an abstract resource for capital. In this sense, the integration of teachers into the proletariat’s ‘class for itself’ is essential.

The state’s efforts, which make use of the teaching profession’s ideological affinity with republican discourse, are aimed at forcing this institution into generalised proletarianisation. By making teachers the defenders of the Republic, the state is creating an abstract divide between teachers and students by opposing them on the basis of ‘ideological values’, whereas teachers are opposed by their professional practice to the commodification of humanising faculties. That’s why the fight against the alienation of teachers is the fight of our social camp.

May 2024

Translated by International Viewpoint from Revue l’Anticapitaliste.

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

FOOTNOTES

[1] F. Grimaud, Enseignants les nouveaux prolétaires, 2024, Esf Science humaine. The quotes from Taylor and Blanquer are taken from this book.

[2] The University Institutes for Teacher Training (IUFM) were created in 1990 as a successor to the teacher training colleges (écoles normales) created in 1808. They were replaced by the écoles supérieures du professorat et de l’éducation (ESPE) in 2013, then by the instituts nationaux supérieurs du professorat et de l’éducation (INSPE) in 2019.

[3] ENSP refers to either the École Nationale Supérieure de la Police or the École Normale Supérieure du Professeurs.

[4] Karl Marx, “Wages, Prices and Profits”, 1865.

[5] F. W. Taylor, ‘Principles of Scientific Organisation’, 1927, quoted by F. Grimaud, op. cit.

[6] Karl Marx, ‘Capital’, Book I, Chapter VII, 1867.

[7] For Marx, work is humanity’s ‘generic’ activity. It keeps us alive and is essential to us. It has the singularity of being conscious (through the imagination) in humans - whereas in the animal, the maintenance of life would be the result of instinct. This is what capitalist alienation dispossesses humans of, by prescribing the way to work.

[8] S. Joshua, “Enseignants, les nouveaux prolétaires?” Contretemps, 20 April 2024.

  • Raphaël Greggan

    Raphaël Greggan is a teacher and Fourth Internationalist in France

  • Hafiza b. Kreje

    Hafiza b. Kreje is a member of the NPA l’Anticapitaliste.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)