Education for Tomorrow 125 by Communist Party

EDUCATION for TOMORROW FOR THE DEFENCE OF STATE EDUCATION

The Prevent strategy Labour’s emerging education policies The Trade Union Bill TTIP Anti-academies news Book review

‘If a young Jeremy was at my school or college now I, by law, would have to report his extremist views to the police. Mind you, I’d have to report myself as well. And if you don’t, what have they got lined up for you?’– The Prevent strategy (p 4) WINTER 2015/16

ISSUE 125 1

£1.00

EDUCATION for TOMORROW

SUBSCRIPTION RATES UK and international electronic £4. To order, send your details to the Editor by email. Payment may be made by PayPal on the website, or you can pay by cheque, posted to the Editor.

Editor Martin Brown 226 Woodland Gardens Isleworth TW7 6LT Tel: 020 3255 3113

UK print £7 per annum (4 issues) For costing for multiple copies contact the Editor (if you are already receiving these you will be informed when your subscription is due for renewal)

anmar.brown@btopenworld.com

Please post me the next four issues of EDUCATION for TOMORROW I enclose cheque/P.O. for £7.00 Name.................................................. Address............................................... ............................................................ ............................................................ Post to: The Editor (EfT) 226 Woodland Gardens, Isleworth, TW7 6LT

Editorial Board Anne Brown, Martin Brown, Tony Farsky, Gawain Little, Diane Randall, Hank Roberts, Simon Watson, EDUCATION for TOMORROW is produced by people involved with education of like mind most of the time and certainly on all vital matters of education and politics. It does not claim to represent the views of any one political party of the working class. Nonetheless its aim is at all times to speak in the interests of all working people. Fully involved in the struggle for peace and socialism it aims to publicise workers’ achievements and to counter misinformation about past and existing struggles to build socialism. It is to promote the aims of the organised labour movement in Britain; with common schooling for ALL our children (i.e. a good local state school for every child - truly comprehensive and democratically accountable) together with everything necessary to make this possible, in terms of provision of buildings and equipment, and staff properly trained and properly paid. We therefore support the campaign for one union for all education workers as a step towards achieving this goal. Our columns are open to all who share these aims - even though they may at times disagree with particular articles and want to say so, and why!

Posted individual copies cost £2

Contents Editorial – 3 Thr Prevent strategy – 4 Labour’s new education policy– 6 The Trade Union Bill – 7

ISSN 2066-9145

Website: www.educationfortomorrow.org.uk

TTIP – 8

Published and printed by the EDUCATION for TOMORROW Collective

Anti Academies Alliance news – 11

Cover photo: ‘Britain needs a pay rise’ march, London, 18th October 2014

Education, Privatisation and Social Justice review – 13 International – 15

Editorial

A breath of fresh air Jeremy Corbyn's stunning and unexpected victory in the Labour leadership election is a cause for jubilation. Standing on a clear left-wing programme, identifying with the current struggles of organised labour and of workers everywhere, his campaign has brought clarity about the severity of the ruling class onslaught on generations of working class gains, and a vision of how British society could be organised in the interests of the majority. The Labour Party now has tens of thousands of enthusiastic, new and returned members and supporters, eager to join a debate that has transformed the political landscape and to campaign to take the Labour Party back to its roots. Corbyn received three standing ovations at the Trades Union Congress conference where delegates also had a clear understanding that to defeat the new anti-trade union legislation, laws will have to be broken. Delegates welcomed him as 'a breath of fresh air' whilst even the malignant, demonising Tory press found difficulty criticising his triumphant first speech as leader at the Labour Party conference. There can be no doubt that the establishment, including the Labour Party ‘grandees’ see him as a dangerous threat to their dreams of creating a docile, obedient and grateful workforce . Yet, on a whole range of issues, confusion reigns within Labour. The decision of conference not to debate the scrapping of the Trident submarine based nuclear weapons system is an indication of the enormity of the task that the left faces. Unions like Unite and the GMB, whose leaders are usually considered as part of the left, but who represent workers in the arms industry, opposed any debate on the issue. Billions are to be spent on weapons that endanger the future of humankind while schools, hospitals and other socially necessary initiatives are starved of funds. The case for arms conversion has yet to be won. Labour MPs were given a free vote on the bombing of Syria – there is no consensus amongst them on successive British governments' share of the responsibility for the bloody chaos in the Middle-East or on the role of imperialism in fomenting such conflicts. And on NATO and the European Union compromises with the Labour right-wing have already had to be made. Labour's

new stand on education is to be welcomed but there’s still a lot of clarification needed. While Labour gets its act together the Tory onslaught continues. A case in point is The Schools and Adoption Bill, aimed at speeding up the rate of academy conversion by removing the rights of ‘stakeholders’ (parents, governors, staff) to be consulted, and the rights of schools to appeal against Ofsted judgements. Until now, the practice has been that schools which fail inspections have been pressurised and bullied by the Department for Education to join an academy chain chosen by the government. Often schools resisted the process, with staff, governors and parents rallying to oppose becoming an academy. The Bill is calculated to silence any resistance. It will also further undermine the powers of locally elected local authorities to intervene when a school is judged to be failing or in difficulties. The new bill will extend central government’s wide-ranging powers over maintained schools too, by-passing or overruling local authorities. The Bill proposes that academy chains (directed by the recently created regional schools commissioners) will take over the role, once carried out by specialist local authority advisory staff, to support and advise schools failing or in difficulty. Knowledgable staff, familiar with local schools are to be replaced by remote and unproven academy chains. And all this with no evidence, so far, that academies are proving to be any better than the schools they replaced. And now Ofsted has announced that new schools (the vast majority of which are free schools and academies) will not be inspected at all in their first three years. As National Union of Teachers Deputy General secretary, Kevin Courtney commented: ‘One can only assume that this is an attempt to shield the academies and free schools programmes from the sort of scrutiny that has resulted in the high-profile controversies we have seen over the past five years.’ The Tories are turning back the clock – we can't wait five years for Labour to ride to the rescue. As Corbyn reminded the TUC: 'Basically the Tories are declaring war on organised labour in this country . . . albeit with the support of 24 per cent of the electorate'. The time for resistance is NOW.

The serious dangers of the Prevent strategy Speech given in support of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) and the National Union of Teachers (NUT) motion to this year’s Trades Union Congress (TUC) ATL shares the deep concerns at the dangers of this Government’s approach. It does not address the base causes of the rise of terrorist violence, putting it all down to a proximate cause – the brain-washing of impressionable youth. First, - we have to be very careful indeed about this deeply illiberal, anti-democratic and anti-union Government’s definition of extremists. Jeremy Corbyn is defined by this Government as an extremist, indeed ‘a threat to national security’. If a young Jeremy was at my school or college now I, by law, would have to report his extremist views to the police. Mind you, I’d have to report myself as well. And if you don’t, what have they got lined up for you? If an establishment is failing to comply with its duty, a mandatory order can be applied for on behalf of the Secretary of State. A failure to comply with a mandatory order places the individual in contempt of court, which is punishable by imprisonment, a fine or both! Prevent can be viewed as a form of racial1 (ethnic/religious) profiling and internal policing, which is exacerbating Islamophobia and vilifying communities. We don’t believe that this is the way to successfully deal with terrorism, however defined. In fact it is likely to be counterproductive. We take the view that safeguarding is the appropriate route. ATL believes it is not the role of teachers, or support staff, to police those they teach. The Prevent strategy could stifle the opportunity for safe and educational debate. Children must feel able to ask controversial questions without fear. Malicious reporting is a clear possibility. Additionally, this is a huge change in our terms and conditions – being simply IMPOSED by

the Government. This Government wants to create a culture of fear. I taught for many years in Harlesden, then with a strong Irish community. It was a time of IRA bombs and deaths. A bomb factory was discovered in the next road to ours. The Emergency Powers Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act and more followed. Nearly 2000 civilians died, and over 1000 troops. Remember Birmingham, Guildford and indeed Brighton2. Even then we were never asked to spy on and report pupils. Inducing a climate of fear is used to justify ever greater repressive legislation. Action needs to be taken to support and safeguard the innocent, but proportionate and not at the price of the loss of our civil liberties. Who could not accept that the UK’s disastrous foreign policy has only exacerbated the radicalisation of many? Disastrous foreign policy which has taught us nothing, which will not protect the innocent, nor solve the refugee crisis. Our role is, and the Government’s role should be, as with Ireland to work for and support the peace process, not to escalate a war and escalate the removal of our civil liberties, and cause divisions in our school and college communities. I support.

Hank Roberts Association of Teachers and Lecturers Congress Delegate

The full text of the motion Education and extremism Congress asserts that educational equity and inclusion are critical to securing sustainable

Scientifically the division of humans into different races has no validity. We are a single species, homo sapiens. There are no sub species or races. However, it does have meaning in the common understanding or rather misunderstanding. 2

This year’s TUC Congress was held in Brighton. 4

economic and social development and in the fight against bigotry, hatred and extremism around the world. Congress pays tribute to all teachers and educators who courageously endeavour to educate the world’s children in many of the most hostile and dangerous places in the world. Congress deplores the violent attacks, witnessed in a number of countries, by those who have deliberately targeted, killed, injured and kidnapped students and teachers, particularly women and girls, in pursuit of extremist ideologies. Congress further deplores the antiimmigrant rhetoric, and the xenophobic and Islamophobic language that characterises much political and media discourse about Britain’s ethnic and religious minorities. Congress deeply regrets that some British young people are being targeted by extremists, including far-right extremists and jihadists. Congress recognises the danger that implementation of Prevent could destroy relationships between teachers and learners, close down space for open discussion in a safe and secure environment and smother the legitimate expression of political opinion. Congress further regrets actions by the government that put at risk international commitments to educational inclusion and ending poverty, creating the conditions where social and economic exclusion, bigotry, intolerance and hatred flourish. Congress calls on the TUC to: i support the work of affiliates in tackling prejudice-related bullying and extremism ii demonstrate active solidarity with trade unions and civil society organisations at home and abroad in the fight against extremism iii highlight the impact of the UK government’s Prevent Agenda and action to counter extremism iv support affiliates in promoting open discussion and exploration of views within an antiracist, anti-islamophobic approach v monitor the impact of far-right extremism in schools, colleges and in the wider society vi plan and co-ordinate a campaign of activity with affiliates to challenge all forms of extremism in education.

The results of the Prevent strategy are already being felt, as this report from a local paper demonstrates ‘Islington Council to challenge Prevent scheme in wake of ‘eco-terror’ incident Islington Council will lobby the government to change its ‘crude’ counter-extremism scheme in schools. It comes after a Muslim pupil at Central Foundation Boys’ School was taken out of class and questioned about the so-called Islamic State - for saying the term ‘eco-terrorism’ in French. The boy was questioned as part of the government’s Prevent scheme, which aims to protect children from radicalisation. It was denounced by Islington NUT, whose joint secretary, Ken Muller, said it was ‘racist’ and ‘aimed at Muslims’. At a meeting of the full council in the town hall, Cllr Caroline Russell proposed a motion to work with trade unions, universities and faith groups to request the government changes elements of the programme ‘that damage community cohesion’. Green Cllr Russell, the only non-Labour member of the council, also suggested working with schools, governors and faith groups to ensure effective implementation of Prevent. The motion was approved. Cllr Russell, for Highbury East, said: ‘Our schools, colleges and universities are grappling with the requirements of this with the threat of Ofsted hanging over them. In an age of cuts and teachers being over-worked, this is potentially counter productive. ‘We have just seen a worrying instance at Central Foundation with a pupil expressing concern about the environment in class. This should not have resulted in being questioned about ISIS. He should have been congratulated on the correct use of a French term.’ As reported in the Gazette, he claims to have been asked if he was ‘affiliated’ with Islamic State, and his parents were said to be taking legal action. And Cllr Russell said of Prevent: ‘This is of grave concern for free speech, human rights and community cohesion. Islington has an opportunity to show what a consistent approach to tackling extremism would look like, rather than crude box

Mover: NASUWT Seconder: NUT

ticking. We only have to look to Finsbury Park Mosque for inspiration in how to tackle extremism.”’

So the return of a labour government would not mean the end of academies, with local authorities regaining control of what were once their schools -- not so surprising since they were a Labour invention in the first place, and at the NASUWT fringe meeting she estimated that by 2020 the vast majority of secondary schools and significant numbers of primary schools would be academies. So, despite the growing body of evidence that academy status in itself does not raise standards and that academies and free schools operate covert selection and find ways of removing under performing students before they affect league table scores, a future Labour government, will leave the corrupt hedge fund managers, second-hand car salesmen etc in charge. How will that make them accountable to local communities? In the light of the news that in a couple of counties, where selection survives, there are battles to open new grammar schools under the pretence that they would be 'annexes', Corbyn argued that there should be no return to selection. Lucy Powell pointed out that 'Grammar schools do nothing for social mobility' and that 'just three per cent of kids on free meals attend grammar schools'. With 20 per cent of England still subject to selection, isn't it time for Labour to promise to end selection once and for all? If Labour is really going to tackle the evergrowing inequality in education these are just two vital issues that Party members will have to address.

James Morris, Islington Gazette, 16/10/2015

Not much change yet – Let’s hope Labour’s education policies are ‘work in progress’ Just exactly what the new Shadow Cabinet is proposing on education is, as yet, unclear. Obviously there are some internal debates going on but there seems to be some good news already. Lucy Powell, shadow education secretary, opposes performance related pay, would abolish the current free schools policy, and would devolve decision making on education, such as place planning, admissions and the building of new schools, to a local level and away from central government. In her speech to Labour Party Conference she saw the big challenges facing education as being: • The chronic shortage of teachers. • The widening attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers. • The ever growing crisis in school places. • The government's failure to deliver its promises on childcare and Sure Start. • The most severe cuts to post-16 education ever. Things get a little hazier when it comes to local accountability. While Corbyn told Conference: 'Every school accountable to local government through local education authorities', Powell told the TES: 'Academies and free schools will remain. They will still exist as schools, but they will come under a different accountability system that will be local. In some places that will be the local authority; in other places that may be the combined authority; and in other places it might be an elected mayor'.

Public servants under fire The Trade Union Bill Condemned by the Scottish and Welsh devolved governments, an increasing number of English local authorities, and even the government appointed Regulatory Policy Committee, the Trade Union Bill is being railroaded through Parliament. At the heart of the government attack on the welfare state is the Trade Union Bill. It has been presented, standing truth on its head, as 'protecting public services and standing up for working people'. Given that in recent years strike action has been at a record low level, some have claimed that the government is targeting yesterday's problem. Since 2010, an average of only 647,000 working days have been taken by industrial action compared to 7,213,000 per year in the 1980s, and Britain already has some of the most repressive anti-trade union laws in Europe. The truth of the matter is that the government expects resistance to its austerity programme and the Bill is an attempt to undermine unions and silence resistance to public sector cuts. The Labour Party has pledged to oppose it at every stage with shadow business secretary Angela Eagle describing the Bill as 'the most significant, sustained and partisan attack on six million trade union members and their workplace organisations that we have seen in this country in the past 30 years'. The clear message from the TUC is to oppose it 'with every ounce of our strength'.

be resolved with the benefit of the additional bargaining power given by a mandate for industrial action.

Agency workers The government plans to undermine strike action by allowing employers the use of agency workers, repealing a section of the Conduct of Employment Business Regulations 2003. This is in contravention of ILO convention 87.

More costly The Bill makes it harder and more costly for unions to organise lawful industrial action by introducing extra administrative and reporting requirements. For instance, ballot papers will need more detailed information than was previously required, including a description of issues in the trade dispute, with new reporting obligations to the Certification Officer.

Picketing Picketing reforms include an obligation to appoint a picketing supervisor whose name and contact details must be given to the police. When picketing, the supervisor must wear a badge, armband or other identifying item.

Opt-in The Bill will end automatic contributions to Labour Party funds on joining an affiliated trade union. Members will now have to give written confirmation that they wish to contribute to a political party - a regulation designed to impoverish the Labour Party and neutralise unions.

Ballot thresholds A threshold of a 50 per cent turnout for all industrial action ballots is proposed, with a majority vote in favour of industrial action to be achieved. In the case of 'important public services', support of at least 40 per cent of all members entitled to vote in the ballot is required. Anyone who abstains will be deemed a 'no' voter. It will be far harder to organise industrial action in the public sector and by giving a wide definition to 'important public services', the government seeks to restrict to the right to strike for as many public sector workers as possible. Education, health, transport, will be covered and the definition has been broadened to cover ancillary workers like cleaners and technicians. And any mandate for action will expire after four months, leaving less time for a dispute to

Check-off In an attack on union funding, check-off (or deduction at source) will be ended in public sector organisations, and in a further infringement on legitimate union activities, public sector employers will be required to reveal details of union facility time, as the government also seeks to introduce regulations placing new limits on it. As Frances O'Grady told this year's Congress: 'If an employer believed we couldn't strike, they wouldn't bother to bargain'. As public servants, teachers are in the firing line.

MB 7

From the website of the Association of Teachers and lecturers (ATL)

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a trade agreement currently being negotiated between the EU and the USA. The stated main aim of TTIP is to promote 'free' trade between Europe and the USA by reducing 'barriers' to trade in goods or services. ATL members' fears about what TTIP may mean for education are exacerbated by the fact that the negotiation is being undertaken behind closed doors, with details of discussions kept secret. TTIP was debated in an emergency motion at Conference 2015, after a fringe session on TTIP. One of the speakers Mark Dearn, trade campaigner at War on Want said: ‘If education is included in TTIP, multinational companies would have the right to bid for educational contracts in EU member states, and it could lead to the expansion of for-profit education companies in UK schools. It's incumbent on all of us to keep informed about these negotiations and to express our opposition at every opportunity.’

What new rights companies enjoy?

will

transnational

One of the most insidious aspects to the proposals is the plan to set-up a supranational court system, known as an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism. This court will allow transnational companies to sue sovereign governments outside of the jurisdiction of the country concerned for public policy decisions which might be deemed to cause a company loss of profit, including future profits. Due to ISDS already being embedded in a number of investment treaties, firms have sued governments over changes to the law and regulations which could harm their profits. For example, waste and energy company Veolia sued Egypt for increasing a minimum wage, while the German government is currently being sued for €5 billion by the Swedish company Vattenfall for Germany's decision to phase out nuclear energy. Canada is being sued for $250 million by a US energy company for passing a moratorium on fracking in Quebec. TTIP's proponents say that the UK already has ISDS agreements with other countries, which is true. However, we have no such agreement with the USA (the majority are with poorer countries), while research from the London School of Economics (commissioned by the government) said the UK's experience of ISDS in TTIP would be similar to Canada's under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – Canada has experienced, and continues to experience, a raft of ISDS cases from US corporations. While the number of cases since ISDS was first introduced into treaties in the 1960s is relatively small, this number has been increasing rapidly in recent years: The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad) records indicate that, in the 50 years to the end of 2014, there have been a total of 608 known ISDS cases, with 58 new cases in 2012, and 42 in 2014, while a new investment agreement is concluded every other week.

TTIP FAQS What are these so called 'barriers to free trade'? Usually, such barriers are tariffs or taxes applied to imported goods. However, the tariffs imposed between the US and EU do not exist on most trade (c.70%), or are already comparatively low (c.2-3%). In order to reduce costs to business further, TTIP is targeting what are called 'non-tariff barriers', such as regulations and legal requirements which protect people and the environment. TTIP will attempt to standardise regulations to suit transnational companies. This is likely to mean reducing standards, in a race to the bottom. Reducing such standards could have a significant detrimental impact. Regulation ensures standards for teachers; means our food is safe; protects our rights at work; maintains social and health standards; and protects our environment.

destroyed. We know from CETA – which is seen as a 'template' for TTIP - that while some public services are believed to be excluded from the 'market liberalisation' chapter, they are included in the investment chapter which relates to ISDS. Companies which win contracts in the UK would be able to sue the UK's governments if they think changes to legislation will lose them money – whether now or in the future.

What's education got to do with free trade? ATL believes education shouldn't have anything to do with trade. In more recent years, 'services' (which includes areas like healthcare and education, alongside banking and transport) have come to be included in trade negotiations, whether at the World Trade Organisation or in bilateral or multilateral agreements. In the context of education being a tradable service between the EU and US, restrictions placed by one country/bloc which are not in place in the other (e.g., more stringent requirements for teachers) can be seen as 'non-tariff barriers' which must be removed, potentially under the threat of ISDS litigation. Unlike previous free trade agreements, which exempted key public services, TTIP (and CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement currently under negotiation between the EU and Canada) includes education and health provision, which represent two of the biggest global services markets and thus lucrative profits for investors. Indeed, the USA has stated that it wants to see the break-up of public services monopolies through TTIP.

Why is it bad for taxpayers? It is bad for taxpayers because under the InvestorState Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism taxpayers will pay out compensation costs to transnational companies who take cases against EU countries if they feel their future profits will be affected by new or existing legislation. It is bad for taxpayers as government may be obliged to pick up the bill for environmental and food safety regulation and policy disregarded under TTIP. It is bad for taxpayers as democratic scrutiny and accountability will be lessened.

Why is it bad for education? It is bad for education because TTIP prioritises private profit at the expense of the common good. This is in direct contradiction to the ethos of education provision in the UK and may help to undermine that ethos in the long run. Amongst other things, ATL members are concerned that the proposed removal of non-tariff barriers could impinge on the way in which education is provided, for example by removing regulations for teachers here which do not exist elsewhere (and are thus 'barriers').

Why is it bad for democracy? It is bad for democracy because TTIP seeks to put the interests of transnational companies above citizens and democratic structures, such as local authorities and the national regulations, laws and courts. The proposed 'Regulatory Cooperation Council' is an example of this. It is designed to give business an 'early warning' of new regulations in the EU before they become law – so that business can challenge them. This has been referred to by campaigners as an institutionalisation of corporate lobbying in the EU. National government will likely have reduced ability to determine to what extent education can be a public service, and to set and regulate standards. Regulatory standards are essential for governance, accountability and probity, but local government procurement policies in support of social or environmental goals might be deemed a barrier to free trade. For instance, our ability to set social priorities, such as ensuring equal opportunity for all using the 2010 Equalities Act, could be restricted. ISDS is another key way in which TTIP is bad for democracy. Simply by allowing a separate court system where business alone can sue states, the fundamental principle of equality before the law (i.e., that we are all equal before the law) is

Why is it bad for students? It is bad for students because, if the scope to run educational services for profit is extended, less money will be spent directly on education. Reducing standards could adversely affect access to high quality for all. Greater emphasis on education as a business may distort the priorities of education, such as an exacerbation of the unhealthy obsession with testing to the exclusion of all else. ATL believes that education is not just about exam results. It is about socialisation, experiencing different cultures, religions and races. It is about learning about the importance of community. It is about experimenting, learning new skills and gaining confidence. Our view of education is endangered by the marketisation of schooling as a commodity.

Why is it bad for people who work in education?

Why are companies interested in making profit from education?

TTIP may lead to a reduction of individual and collective employment rights, which may be deemed to be barriers to free trade. Should the scope to run educational services for profit be extended, it is likely that there will be a worsening of employment terms and conditions. If you are running a school or educational service for the benefit of shareholder profit, you will look to reduce cost to make that profit. As approximately 70% of the school budget is staffing cost, it is likely that staff terms and conditions would be reduced. Running schools as profit-driven businesses could potentially undermine collaboration between schools. This would weaken the spirit of cooperation and the sharing of best practice, thereby diminishing the professional experience. A greater focus on competitive testing and exam results may result in a narrowing of the curriculum and inhibit a teacher's professional autonomy, ability to innovate and be creative.

Education is the second largest global service after healthcare. In England, some educational services are already run for profit. For example, Pearson runs a for-profit exam board and administers and marks SATs tests taken by all children at the end of primary school. US private equity funds are already buying British private companies with a view to profiting from schools reform. For example, Cognita Schools, the for-profit company operating independent schools in the UK, and worldwide, was bought in 2013 by the US private equity giant KKR.

How does TTIP sit with ATL's view of education? ATL believes that there should be a universal, broad and balanced curriculum. ATL believes that a top class education should be available to all. ATL believes that education is a public good, not an opportunity for private profit.

Why is it a threat to public education? It is bad for the future of a public education system because, if any educational service is privatised, any moves to bring provision back into the public sector would be inhibited for fear of litigation by the private companies for loss of profit. This could both inhibit social policy and entrench existing privatised provision.

Is TTIP a done deal? Negotiations are ongoing and momentum against TTIP is growing on both sides of the Atlantic. In the EU, more than 2.3 million people have signed a European Citizens' Initiative, with more than 350,000 signatures in the UK. In May 2015, an attempt to fast-track the trade pact in the USA suffered a major setback, when senators and the US congress rejected a bill that would allow the president to speed trade deals through Congress with a 'yes' or 'no' vote. However this bill has now passed after it was tied to one for firefighters' pensions. In June 2015, a vote in the European Parliament on TTIP was postponed in controversial circumstances. The vote was rescheduled to July, when a TTIP resolution passed. However, many UK MEPs (including Labour and Greens) voted against the amendment, which included a watereddown version of ISDS which many are trying to pass off as not being ISDS. TTIP is likely to require ratification by both the European Parliament, the US Congress and every national parliament of the EU. While negotiators would like this to happen by the end of next year, it is highly unlikely to happen. Some predict 2017, others believe ratification may be as far away as 2019.

What elements of school provision might be vulnerable to privatisation? Traditionally, certain elements of maintained school provision have been outsourced. Services such as Human Resources, legal, and sometimes catering and cleaning have been provided cost-effectively by a local authority. However, the fear is that TTIP may be used to help facilitate the outsourcing of core school functions. This could include leadership and management, including school improvement, and the provision of curriculum and pedagogical models. As aptly put in the TUC research publication, Education Not for Sale, ‘There is a clear distinction between selling rulers and roofs and the core professional duties of teaching and learning.’ ATL believes that it would be a considerable detriment if teaching is converted into a commodity and one that may even be trademarked.

What is ATL doing about TTIP? Following a packed fringe meeting on TTIP at the ATL Annual Conference 2015, an emergency motion was unanimously passed committing ATL to raise awareness of the dangers it presents and join the wider NoTTIP campaign. Amongst other activities, members have attended various events, such as the Global Justice Rally in May. The June edition of Report magazine carried a feature on ATL member action on TTIP. We have worked with War on Want and a coalition of all trade unions with members working in education, as well as the National Union of Students and 'Students Against TTIP' to, produce a leaflet on TTIP we all endorse.

Everton Free School funded at seven times the national average Back in 2011 Michael Gove’s attempt to privatise the education system by opening ‘Free Schools’ was running into the sand; sponsors were backing away, fearful of ‘brand contamination’. In a bid to sprinkle some glamour and glitz, all clubs in the Premier League were invited to support a Free School. In the event, the only club that did so was Everton. At the same time the Government commissioned Charles Taylor (an old Etonian chum of David Cameron) to investigate Pupil Referral Units and to ‘fix a broken system’ that was in need of an ‘overhaul to improve standards’. The conclusion of the report was that outside providers should be invited in to compete for ‘Alternative Provision’ aimed at the most marginalised and excluded pupils. The 2012 Prospectus for the Everton Free School’s ‘Alternative Provision’ certainly talked the talk, promising to ‘deliver the highest quality alternative educational environment for vulnerable young people aged 14-19’ and targeted at ‘helping young people who have struggled with mainstream education and are at risk of exclusion’. Everton’s Chief Executive Robert Elstone promised a school that would be a ‘landmark’. In September 2012 the Everton Free School opened with a blaze of publicity, approving articles in the Liverpool Echo, critics dismissed for opposing ‘new investment’, an endorsement from Liverpool’s Mayor Joe Anderson and praise from David Cameron. So two years on what has the school that talked about students enjoying ‘inspirational and transformational learning opportunities’ achieved? Everton Free School promised to educate 200 pupils. It currently has 55 pupils in its ‘alternative provision’ for 14-16 year olds and 65 pupils in an ‘open’ sixth form that seems to be entirely separate. In the school year that ended August 2014 the average spend per pupil was £35,000 – SEVEN times more than a mainstream secondary school.

What can you do? • Use this leaflet to promote the TTIP campaign. • Read the report article on TTIP. • Sign the 38degrees campaign against TTIP here. • Find out more about TTIP. • Sign the European Citizens Initiative (ECI) petition calling for an end to negotiations on the EU-US TTIP talks. • Lobby your MP and MEP to raise your concerns about TTIP. • Speak to your colleagues in school or college about the threat of TTIP. • Invite a speaker on TTIP to your local district meeting. • Write to your local newspaper. w w w. a t l . o r g . u k / p o l i c y - a n d - c a m p a i g n s / campaigns/ttip.asp

Courtesy ATL

Alternative Provision schools intake is heavily weighted towards students with special education needs (SEN) and usually two-thirds of them are ‘statemented’ (something that only applies to 2% of all pupils). Yet in the Everton Free School a recent reply to a Freedom of Information request showed that just ONE pupil had an SEN statement. As for the 65 students in the ‘open’ sixth form not one of the students is recorded as having special educational needs, only 8% claim Free School Meals (the national average is just over 15%), and an extremely limited range of qualifications are offered: GCSEs in Maths and English plus a BTec in Sport. You might also question why in a school with 120 pupils there are 7 managers (the Principal Adrian Packer only lasted one year), 13 teachers, only 5 support staff and 2 office staff. In a time of supposed austerity we might ask if this is the best use of public money? It certainly feels like we’re paying out a lot, and local kids are getting very little in return. antiacademies.org.uk

Small Heath union members on strike November 2015

‘Free’ schools demand money from parents ‘Free’ Schools are pressuring parents for money to pay for school trips or even to employ teachers! Parents are being told by Whitehall Park ‘Free’ school in Islington to pay into a special fund to pay for trips. It is asking parents to prove that they have paid in. Unfortunately parents with family budgets under stress from the Chancellor’s austerity programme are not paying up. Parents at Grindon Hall School in Sunderland have been asked to fund a whole new teacher! The school estimates that it needs £40,000 to be raised. We have to wonder if that will be a one off or will parents have to raise this every year to pay this teacher’s salary? The Christian School is in special measures. A Department for Education spokesperson said: ‘Grindon Hall Christian School was placed in special measures in January following an Ofsted report that found issues with leadership, the quality of learning and safeguarding. It is also subject to two financial notices to improve. The Regional Schools Commissioner is seriously concerned about the school and has been exploring options for future sponsorship, to provide the strong skills in financial management and governance required to bring about swift improvements.’

Small Heath School staff take fourth day of strike action against plans to turn the school into an academy. NUT, NASUWT and ATL members at Small Heath School, Birmingham took their fourth day of strike action on November 18th (with another planned on 10th December) against plans to turn the school into an academy. The Interim Executive Board show no sign of being prepared to negotiate. They have refused talks with local and regional union officials and ACAS. There is no evidence that academy conversion improves schools. Indeed, sponsored academies have the worst record on school improvement of any type of school. The strike comes at a time when the government is seeking to outlaw opposition to academy conversion via draconian restrictions in the Education and Adoption Bill. A group of the strikers from the school will also be lobbying MPs at Westminster on the day at the NUT Lobby.

Book review

Education, Privatisation and Social Justice case studies from Africa, South Asia and South East Asia Edited by Ian MacPherson, Susan Robertson & Geoffrey Walford, £28.00, Symposium Books In recent years, there has been a huge growth of interest in the role of private education businesses in the provision of education globally. A number of reports have been released by NGOs which are more or less critical of this ‘opening up’ of markets by primarily British and US corporations. A global campaign has been launched by Education International, and DfID has recently hit the headlines for its massive funding of these same corporations through the UK aid budget. This book, then, is timely, offering a research perspective on the impact privatisation and private education is having on the ground, through a series of 12 case studies from Africa, South Asia and South East Asia. I was keen, therefore, to get my hands on a copy as soon as it came out, particularly being familiar with the excellent work Susan Robertson, one of the editors, has done in challenging the Global Education Reform Movement that drives privatisation, marketization and standardisation in education. In that context, I will confess to being somewhat disappointed with the selection of case studies, which is mixed to say the least. Indeed, rather than take an approach to social justice rooted in theories of oppression and exploitation, the book itself reflects many of the tensions and confusions which surround the growing capture of education by the private sector. There is a wealth of information and firsthand evidence within the 310 pages, which alone probably makes it a worthwhile read, but the approach and analysis of the case study authors varies greatly. One case study shows its pro-private bias in the first few paragraphs when it describes

the policy context in Nepal in the following way: ‘At present, one can observe at least three responses to education privatisation in Nepal: a (vociferous) radical leftist view that calls for a blatant nationalisation of all private schools; a (not so prominent) rightist view that calls for an unhindered and unregulated proliferation of private schools based on a democratic “right to choose”; and a more centrist view that advocates for a respectable yet better regulated place for private schools, which is also the approach adopted by successive governments.’ So, are you with the ‘respectable’ centrists, ‘democratic’ rightists, or the ‘vociferous’ ‘radical’ leftists calling for ‘blatant’ nationalisation? Such emotive language sits uneasily within an academic study, but more so when it is directed against public education in a book about social justice. As the editors themselves argue in relation to their own approach, ‘any research with claims to it being “critical enquiry” does not begin with its conclusion already in place.’ It seems that, whilst being rigorous in preventing their own social justice concerns to lead them towards an antiprivatisation approach, they were less careful about the pro-private bias of some of the contributors. Another study, by three economists, one of whom worked previously for the World Bank, draws the following conclusions: ‘Our findings … show that a significant number of children from the bottom quintiles of the population are also benefitting from private schools. Given that the private schools are catering to the rural poor, they can serve as an important tool for

reducing inequality in the future. Thus, if the government wants to improve schooling quality and improve participation rates, it should make use of existing private schools. This will require a shift in the government’s focus from “providing” education to “facilitating” education.’ This, particularly the final sentence, is surprising given the figures the authors themselves use show a high correlation between wealth and private school use. This conclusion, based on evidence which is, to say the least, open to interpretation, presents a real problem. Because the argument that, by using cheaper, less well qualified, more vulnerable staff, for-profit schools can produce low-cost education, more accessible for the world’s poor, must seem very seductive to policy-makers, aid workers and others. Especially if they are primarily concerned with crude data on the number of children ‘in school’ regardless of what kind of education is provided and what the wider impact is in terms of social justice. The reality, as a later case study argues, is a model ‘based on efficiency, standardisation, consumerism and the exploitation of teachers’ labour’, which is ‘not “affordable” for the “last 10%”… since these households would have to spend upwards of 40% of their total annual income to send one child to [a low-cost for-profit school].’ This highlights the myriad of problems with looking to the private sector to solve problems rooted in questions of social justice. On the one hand, private schools are creating a public-private divide where private schools, accessible to those who those who can afford the fees, have greater status with parents than state schools and perform an act of social closure, catering primarily to more affluent families. At the same time, through lowcost for-profit schools, they are offering an impoverished curriculum (through the use of cheap, insecure, unqualified teachers), which families have to pay for, primarily conducted in English medium, with no local democratic accountability. If social justice is about tackling inequalities of wealth and power then this model of schooling makes little contribution to social justice. While the final quotes above, from a study of Pearson’s involvement in low-cost for-profit schooling, shows that not all of the case studies display the same pro-privatisation bias, the book certainly suffers from a political agnosticism which opens the door to a number of pieces acting a pure political propaganda for the dominant approach of

‘private good, public bad’. And this, essentially, is the weakness of the collection overall. The editors set out to interrogate the role of the private sector in education in a value-free environment, where private education and the profit motive may be a force for good or bad, dependent on the factors of the individual case. Indeed, in the introduction, they argue that: ‘Global education firms that provide education services and bi-lateral and multilateral donors that provide global education aid and work closely with national governments therefore have greater obligations and responsibilities to ensure fairness, accountability and democracy precisely because of their global power, corporate interests and influence in world forums.’ The idea that we should rely on the ‘global power’ and ‘corporate interests’ of ‘global education firms’ to bring us ‘fairness, accountability and democracy’ just shows the dangers of attempting to adopt an ‘objective’ approach that doesn’t recognise the wider implications of power, oppression and exploitation. It brings to mind images of wolves guarding the sheep. Global edu-business has launched a war on public education in which the casualties will be the world’s poorest and most marginalised communities. Attempting to stand outside of this, whilst providing a platform for extolling the virtues of private education and its contribution to social justice helps nobody, certainly not those on the sharp end of education privatisation – the students.

Gawain Little

Private Eye

International news students who will do well anyway and then claim that your school has made the difference. Just 15 years ago there was a sustained campaign for the abolition of user fees in primary education. Research at that time showed that under the influence of the World Bank over 92 countries were charging children to go to primary school — often just a few dollars a month, but enough to make schools inaccessible to the poorest children. Successful national campaigns led to the abolition of fees in countries like Kenya, Burundi, Malawi and Ghana. In Kenya alone over two million children enrolled in school the following year — children who could not afford to go to school before. In the light of this it is patent nonsense that privatisation can help make progress towards the goal of universalising access to basic education. Nor do these schools help to improve quality. It is widely recognised that the biggest determinant of quality learning is the quality of teachers. But these schools make their profit by employing untrained people as teachers, paying them less than a third of a professional teacher’s salary. Creating a cheap labour force is not going to improve learning outcomes. Now is the time to act because there are aggressive forces pushing the privatisation of education. New commercial chains of for-profit schools like Bridge International are being funded to expand in Africa by hedge fund speculators and US billionaires — with just this one company planning to open a new school every three days (the larger the scale of operations, the lower the unit costs). This is driven by greed and ideology, not by evidence, and it needs to be stopped. Strict government regulation of private-sector providers is part of the solution and some progress is being made on this with the support of the UN special rapporteur on the right to education. But we also need to challenge those who are using public money to support such privatisation. Three recent reports show that the Department for International Development is increasingly channelling its public funding to support the privatisation of education around the world. This is contributing to mounting violations of the right to education, increasing discrimination and undermining the huge potential of education to be an equalising or transformative force. We know how to improve public education

Privatisation Of World’s schools must be halted Forty years ago the provision of water was a public service that was taken for granted in many parts of the world. Few people thought water could ever be privatised and sold for private profit. Twenty years ago health was widely perceived as a public service — but since then health systems have suffered from creeping marketisation and privatisation in most countries. In recent years the World Economic Forum (the exclusive club that meets in Davos) has been buzzing with the idea that the next big frontier for privatisation is education. There are trillions of dollars of public funding spent on public education systems and this is money that privatisers are keen to get a share of. After all, claiming public money is a great route to guaranteeing higher private profits. In most countries we still take for granted that there is a public education system which provides for the majority of children. There has always been a small elite who perpetuate their privilege by sending their children to exclusive private schools for high fees. But in recent years we have seen the emergence of private schools that target the middle class. Pearson, the largest education company in the world, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase chains of such schools in India, Brazil and South Africa. And most recently there is the new phenomenon of what should rightly be called ‘for-profit low-quality private schools,’ touted by the Economist as the solution to expanding education provision in developing countries. Except that is a lie. Low-fee private schools do not extend access to any of the 58 million children out of school around the world. Rather they attract children (especially boys) who are already in government schools, whose parents can afford to pay for what they see to be an advantage. The effect is to actively undermine government schools, as their funding is often based on the number of children enrolled. And the children who go to these low-cost private schools do not actually get a better education. The same children would have done just as well staying in the public education system. Basically it is a clever con that exploits people’s aspirations. You attract the

— there are no great mysteries about it. We need well-financed public education systems that employ well-trained teachers working with manageable class sizes in accountable schools. Decades of International Monetary Fundenforced austerity have undermined people’s confidence that public education can be wellfinanced. But recent work on tax justice shows that by removing harmful tax incentives and challenging aggressive tax avoidance, over $200 billion could be generated every year. That is five times more than is needed in extra resources to guarantee high-quality public education for every child in every country. Quality public education, free at the point of use, is affordable — but unless we act now to defend it we will find that this simple foundation of a just society has been stripped away.

The Left Book Club A new Left Book Club launches this autumn with a list of high-quality political books aimed at a wide readership. Members will receive hotoff-the-press titles on the housing crisis, climate change, the European Union, new forms of protest, radical history and many other topical issues. Today’s Left Book Club is being launched by a collective of activists, writers and trade unionists who have been building the LBC in partnership with the radical publisher Pluto Press. Politically nonaligned and not-for-profit, we believe, as did the organisers of the first Left Book Club in the 1930s, that books, and the discussion of ideas, are vital for the development of progressive politics in Britain. Our aim is that members, who will pay £40 as an annual subscription, will discuss the books in reading groups, as did members of the first LBC, or through online forums.

David Archer, Morning Star, 13/10/2015 This article first appeared at www.globaljustice.org.uk

Canada

Quebec's teachers are planning another three days of strike action against cuts, if there is no progress in the ongoing talks. This is just the latest round in their campaigning, which has been part of wider strikes in the public sector including health and social services. As well as striking and demonstrating, teachers have also been drawing attention to the real causes of austerity policies. As one activist told Labour Notes in an interview: 'It’s really frustrating, because the people managing the provincial government and supervising the negotiations all used to work for banks before they became ministers. They don’t have a lot of credibility to tighten our belts when they come from mega-corporations that make billions of dollars of profit every year.' The Common Front which is organising the protests, blocked and occupied global consultancy firm KPMG in October. They explained: 'There’s lots of money going to fiscal havens with the help of that firm, so saying that we don’t have money for public services is just not true. If we have the political will to go and get that money, then we would have money for public services—and for other things as well.' One teachers' local staged a teach-in about the political power of banks at their local branch. In other words teachers, students and others are disrupting the narrative that there is no alternative to austerity and exposing where the problem really lies.

www.teachersolidarity.com/blog/quebecteachers-plan-new-strike-againstcuts#sthash.yxKF5q1Z.dpuf