Privatisation: Why Teachers Must Oppose PFI and all
forms of privatisation
Once there was a time when schools were run as
education institutes and the headteacher was a human being chosen from our
ranks, interested in education and whose business acumen was perhaps limited to
getting the Xmas turkey for the staff lunch at the best price possible.
Times have changed. Headteachers seem to have become
chief executives, the children more statistical than ever, the local authority
is now the parent company with the playgrounds being quoted on the real-estate
section of the FTSE 100 index.
Now nobody for one minute would suggest that this has
improved education. So what, you ask, is going on? Now, Lambeth Teacher
is not one to endulge in the conspiracy theory approach. However, to make sense
of the decisions which are being taken on our behalf, it is important that we
put together a few pieces of the jigsaw
- The powerful World Trade Organisation has declared
its intention of moving aside barriers which have prevented private companies
moving into the education market which world wide is worth $US 1000
billion
- In 1997, the Blair government launched EAZs as a
partnership scheme where private business would have political representation
on education projects, such as the one we have in Lambeth. The private
consortia would cough up £250,000 per year. The average private
investment, but still affording the same influence has been around a measly
£11,000. In Lambeth two workers have been sacked for lack of
funding.
- The next initiative to unfold was Private Finance
initiative (PFI). This was instead of the DfEE using £billions
which the Chancellor has at his disposal, private companies may tender, not
only for the right to build the school at a profit, but also the right to run
it for up to 60 years with their own work conditions. The flagship of
this whole scheme was Pimlico where the governing body voted by 10 -8 not to go
for the proposed PFI scheme. This was not because they were unreconstructed
Socialists. It was simply because they realised that the proposals would mean
high costs for poor working conditions and a financial burden on the community
for many years.
- in 1997, the value of Nord Anglia shares, prior to
the arrival of Mr Blunkett was around £1.25. Within weeks it more than
tripled to £4.45. In the year up to August 1998 its turnover increased by
30% to £62.4 million, with pre-tax profits of £2.78 million.
- Then we are told of failing local authorities.
Franchises are to be given to consortia who bid to provide services. So far,
they have taken over the service or part of the service in Islington, Hackney
and Southwark among the London boroughs, but have so far been thwarted in
Haringey and Waltham Forest.However, the threat is real across the country. It
is not as though we are talking about educationalists - Bradford's consortia
included Group 4 of the prison vehicles fame and a local firm best known for
gravel extraction (at least the playgrounds will be of good quality). They are
also concerned that their new chief executive will be a retired Rear Admiral !!
(Which would make sense at London Nautical, but just about nowhere else).
- During this period the Education and Training index
of the FT has outperformed FTSE by 300%. It is likely that with the demise of
stocks elsewhere, portfolios relating to the plundering of education will buck
the present trend.
Lambeth Teacher considers that there is a concerted
campaign to privatise education which has developed by Blair's ministers but is
part of a drive by large capital to get its hands on education across the
globe. It isn't something original to New Labour - it has already failed
elsewhere, notably in the USA.
As issues develop we will give coverage to the
questions and support to those resisting. However, there is no time to
lose. |
