Volumizer

Subject: The Recruitment Process and Labour Power
Time: 22:16:38 o'clock BST
Author:  rikowskigr

The Recruitment Process and Labour Power

 

This is the title of a paper I wrote in 1990. It was the first substantial piece of writing I did after I received my PhD from the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick in the summer of 1989.

 

It was originally written on an Amstrad 9512 word processor with a daisywheel printer, using 3.25 inch disks. The 17,000 words took hours to print out! In 1992, I converted the 3.25 disk version to the more conventional 3.5 inch disks. During the conversion process some text (in section 11) was lost in the original version, and the 3.5 inch version in Word failed to materialise! I had no original hard copy! All I have is a hard copy from the old Amstrad 9512 with bits of text missing from section 11. Thus, I have typed it out again, using the old (yellowing) version.

 

I have been working on it on-and-off for months. On 17th July I fractured my left elbow. This has slowed me down, in general and in relation to typing out The Recruitment Process and Labour Power. The latter sections were typed out with my right hand only; making for slowness and frustration.  

 

The Recruitment Process and Labour Power represents by first piece of ‘public’ writing. Although it was never published I did distribute it to several education researchers and writers via photocopying and posting – the old pre-Internet (and expensive) method. Thus, it did not become that ‘public’.

 

My writing style has change somewhat since 1990; that much is clear. The Recruitment Process and Labour Power is more dense, intense and certainly more ‘academic’ in style than my writing today. My reading of Nietzsche from 1992-1996 had the effect of loosening up my style, I think.

 

Of course, I do not agree with everything in this paper today. My views have developed. I did not have a proper grasp then of the difference between value and exchange-value, tending to conflate the two. But others did this, even some Marxists writing in Capital & Class. After reading more Marx from 1995-96, and also reading work by Peter Hudis from 2000 onwards, this distinction became clearer for me. Thus, by the time I wrote Fuel for the Living Fire: Labour Power! (Rikowski, 2002) I was much clearer on this point.

 

Some points were oversimplified – especially the discussion about the similarities between labour power and sugar (see section 9.1). I was also a little harsh on some folks, especially Rob Moore and his 1988 article. The subjective/exchange value aspects of labour power are confused in section 10.3, in my view. However, this paper does have the merit of allowing people to follow the development of my work on labour power and education, which is summarised to some extent in Rikowski (2005).    

 

Anyway, you can view The Recruitment Process and Labour Power at:

 

Rikowski, G. (1990) The Recruitment Process and Labour Power, unpublished manuscript, Division of Humanities & Modern Languages, Epping Forest College, Loughton, Essex, July. Online at: http://www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=Recruitment%20and%20Labour%20Power

 

 

Glenn Rikowski, London, 17th August 2008

 

 

References

 

Moore, R. (1988) The Correspondence Principle and the Marxist Sociology of Education, in M. Cole (ed.) Bowles and Gintis Revisited: Correspondence and Contradiction in Educational Theory, Lewes: The Falmer Press.

 

Rikowski, G. (2005) Distillation: Education in Karl Marx's Social Universe, Lunchtime Seminar, School of Education, University of East London, Barking Campus, 14th February: http://www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=Distillation

 

Rikowski, G. (2002) Fuel for the Living Fire: Labour Power! In: A Dinerstein & M. Neary (Eds.) The Labour Debate: An Investigation into the Theory and Reality of Capitalist Work, Aldershot: Ashgate.

 

 

The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

Written by rikowskigr Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Subject: Uninspiring Towers: Higher Education Futures in the UK
Time: 09:07:27 o'clock BST
Author:  rikowskigr

Uninspiring Towers: Higher Education Futures in the UK

 

Glenn Rikowski, London, 1st August 2008

 

Introduction

 

The UK Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) is currently undertaking a ‘review of higher education in 2008 in advance of the review of the operation of variable tuition fees’ that will take place in 2009 (UUK, 2008, p.2). This article explores a report (Brown et al, 2008) written for the Universities UK’s (UUK) submission to the DIUS review. The report is part of the UUK’s ‘Size and Shape of Higher Education’ project. According to Turner (2008), the report ‘underlines the extent to which higher education could be transformed by the web’. Furthermore, noted Turner, due to the rise of mass higher education systems in China and India, higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK could lose out in the lucrative international students market. Slowness or failure to adapt by UK universities could result in merger or closure. In addition, says Turner, the report by Brown et al (2008) indicated that some failing institutions might be taken over by the private sector.   

 

Dire Assumptions

 

The ‘Size and Shape’ report (Brown et al, 2008) aimed to ‘look into the implications of the projected demographic changes and the policies it might call for to assist institutions as they manage their student markets in the face of those demographic changes’ (p.15). It aimed ‘to assist universities’ so they could respond to changes in higher education markets. Methodologically, the research underpinning the report is interesting. It was based on demographic analysis, using official statistics, first and foremost, but was supplemented by ‘a series of three seminars based on a detailed analysis of three key drivers of the higher education system’ (Ibid.): funding, competition and employer engagement. The final element was ‘an externally facilitated scenario planning event’ – with discussions from the seminars feeding into the formation of three scenarios. These scenarios were: ‘slow adaptation to change’, a ‘market driven and competitive’ scenario and a scenario geared to ‘employer-driven flexible learning’ (pp.11-12). The three scenarios were designed to capture the size and shape of higher education in the UK over a 20-year period to 2027. The pertinent demographic projections are summarised in Table 1 (Brown et al, 2008, p.6).

 

The assumptions underpinning the three scenarios are restrictive. Three assumptions are especially significant: first, that there will not be ‘an increase in the level of public funding for teaching and learning because of other pressures on the public purse’ (p.11); secondly, that ‘the delivery of higher education will have been changed significantly by developments in communication and digital technologies, but to a different degree in each scenario’ (Ibid.); and thirdly that ‘there will some increase in the engagement of employers with higher education teaching and learning’ though this varies across scenarios. The first assumption implies that UK HEIs will have to fund any expansion either from asking students to pay higher fees, getting employers to financially support students to a higher level, or by recruiting more international students. This last strategy is put in doubt by the report, as it envisages that countries such as India and China are busy building up their own HEIs, thus reducing the attractiveness of their students studying in the UK. China may become a net importer of students during the scenario-building period. Furthermore, the report rules out any significant financial contribution by employers regarding student fees, noting caustically that:

 

“The Leitch scenario of a substantial increase in demand for highly skilled people driven by employers seeking to be world class was seen as at best a partial guide to the future and at worst positively misleading. All the evidence was that most UK employers were poor at investing in people and that demand for high level skills was driven mainly by innovation on which UK employers had a similarly poor record” (p.29 – original emphasis; on the Leitch Report see Rikowski, 2007).

 

Given UK employers’ historical shortcomings regarding training workers the ‘employment engagement’ seminar folk and Brown et al (2008) were justified in thinking little further student fee support would come from that quarter.

 

It seems that any future expansion of UK higher education student numbers is likely to come from either students paying a greater proportion of the costs of their learning through fees, or through increased productivity. It is in relation to the latter that the second assumption – more ITand communications technology – comes in. Brown et al (2008) seek to justify the increased use of ICT as an assumption guiding their scenario-building on the basis that students are keen on e-learning. They point to a need for staff to be re-skilled so that they can meet new learning approaches of IT-savvy students. But are students demanding more e-learning? Brown et al (2008) provide no evidence. Furthermore, research I have undertaken with Neil Southwell at the University of Northampton, on Education Studies students in the School of Education, suggests that they are reasonably happy with current levels of IT learning support; but what they really want is more small group and one-to-one tuition time. The drive for more ICT-based learning in Brown et al’s scenarios seems more to do with increasing productivity than with demand for more e-learning by students.   

 

Bad Scenarios

 

On the basis of these dire or shaky assumptions, what do the scenarios throw up? Here I can only give brief outlines. ‘Scenario 1: Slow Adaptation to Change’ (pp.33), yields ‘increased cost pressures, continued government regulation of fees [as opposed to a fees free-for-al] and sharp demographic decline’ (Ibid.) There is a tight market with varied efforts to recruit international students. Some institutions might reduce fees and quality in order to compete (with some reducing entry requirements). In addition, ‘some institutions become unviable’ (p.11). Unpopular subjects are scrapped, and the reputation of UK HEIs plummets. This scenario suggests something more radical is required.

 

In ‘Scenario 2: Market-Driven and Competitive’ (p.34), neoliberal and marketising trends prevail. This heralds public/private partnerships in mega e-learning projects, niche marketing and private providers being let loose with degree awarding powers. Finally:

 

“The publicly funded sector proves less attractive to students and employers than the private sector leading to unfilled funded places; and a small number of elite institutions seek to secede from the publicly funded sector” (p.11).

 

This scenario fits with the Julius Report published a few weeks ago (see Rikowski, 2008) which explores possibilities for increased private sector delivery of public services – including educational services.

 

‘Scenario 3: Employer-Driven Flexible Learning’ (p.36) is aimed at giving employers what they say they want; it constitutes the ‘triumph of employer-led demand for part-qualifications’ (p.12). Students get degrees through a national IT-intensive credit and accumulation system that adds modules (on an individual and self-financed basis) to those demanded and paid for by employers. Some of the consequences of this scenario include:

 

“Private providers cherry-picking lucrative vocational provision; the take over of failing institutions by the private sector; and extreme stratification of the higher education system (p.12) … [including]… a small group of elite institutions with high fees, strong research and significantnumbers ofinternational students” (p.37).        

  

Thus: for scenarios 2 and 3, an increased role for the private sector is envisaged.

   

Uninspiring Towers

 

All three scenarios in Brown et al (2008) paint uninspiring and depressing futures for UK higher education. The report avoids radical, progressive and interesting alternatives. Its assumptions are mixtures of conservatism, neoliberalism, marketisation and commodification-enhancement, with business and IT providing ‘dynamic’ elements. The question of what students and lecturers want from HEIs is relegated in favour of universities merely reacting to demographic trends, market developments, employers’ labour power needs and technological change. UK higher education futures are cast in the shadow of these insipid determinisms.     

 

References

Brown, N., Bekhradnia, B., Boorman, S., Brickwood, A., Clark, T. & Ramsden, B. (2008) The Future Size and Shape of the Higher Education Sector in the UK: Threats and Opportunities, Research Report for Universities UK, prepared by Nigel Brown Associates, Launched at the House of Commons, 8th July, London: Universities UK: 

http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/Size_and_shape2.pdf

 

Rikowski, G. (2007) A Capital-friendly Culture for Further Education in the UK, posted to the Volumizer 17th November: http://journals.aol.co.uk/rikowskigr/Volumizer/entries/2007/11/17/a-capital-friendly-culture-for-further-education-in-the-uk/1714

 

Rikowski, G. (2008) Outsourcing public Services - with special reference to education, posted to the Volumizer on 26th July:

http://journals.aol.co.uk/rikowskigr/Volumizer/entries/2008/07/26/outsourcing-public-services---with-special-reference-to-education/1780 

 

Turner, D. (2008) Web could end traditional degree, Financial Times, 10th July, at:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9874489e-4e16-11dd-820e-000077b07658.html

 

UUK (2008) Report assesses impact of demographic changes for universities, Media Release, Universities UK, 10th July, online at: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Newsroom/Media-Releases/Pages/Report-assesses-impact-of-demographic-changes-for-universities.aspx

 

The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

Currently reading : Renewing Dialogues in Marxism and Education: Openings (Marxism and Education) Release date: 2007-12-26

Tags: Glenn Rikowski, Ruth Rikowski, The Ockress, The Flow of Ideas:

Written by rikowskigr Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Subject: Quotations from the Julius Report: Public Services Industry Review
Time: 21:41:35 o'clock BST
Author:  rikowskigr

Quotations from the Julius Report: Public Services Industry Review

 

 

This document supplements the previous article at the Volumizer: Outsourcing Public Services – with special reference to education. It consists simply of a selection of quotes from the Julius Report (Julius, 2008b) and extracts from the two Forewords to the Report (Hutton, 2008; and Julius, 2008a). I think that this Report will prove significant for the incoming Conservative government, or even New Labour, if they manage miraculously to win the next UK General Election in 2009 or 2010. It gives the green light to the business takeover of public services in the UK. Those on the Left (especially the educational Left) in the UK, who, ostrich-like, or through some strange denial, self-delusion or hypocrisy, disallow or procrastinate regarding significant capitalisation of education in the UK (especially in England, and particularly in schools in England), have some explaining to do in the light of this Report.  

 

Glenn Rikowski, London, 26th July 2008

 

 

Extracts:

 

“Dr. Julius’s review has highlighted the fact that the Public Services Industry is not only a dynamic sector which makes a significant contribution to the UK economy, but also a world leader in many areas. It has looked at what has made the industry successful and made recommendations as to what more the government can do, as a policy maker, regulator and procurer to ensure that its full potential can be realised for the benefit of the public” (Hutton, 2008).

 

“Britain’s Public Service Industry is second in size only to that of the US and is a world leader in many respects” (Julius, 2008a).

 

“Historically most public services were provided directly by government employees. More recently, in the UK and elsewhere, the private and third sectors have been increasingly commissioned to help with public service delivery. They are now involved in a wide range of services at both local and central government levels. This has led to the emergence of the Public Services Industry” (Julius, 2008b, p.i).

 

“This Review defines the Public Services Industry (PSI) to include: “All private and third sector enterprises that provide services to the public on behalf of Government or to the Government itself” …” (Ibid.).

 

“Overall the Review has found that the PSI has made a major contribution to the provision of better value for money public services in the UK. It has also grown to become a significant part of the economy, account for nearly 6 per cent of GDP, and directly employing over 1.2 million people. Despite this record of success, the Review has revealed some worrying trends. The growth rate of the PSI has been slowing and the costs of bidding are rising with an increasingly complex commissioning process” (Ibid.).

 

“Projections indicate that there is potential for significant further growth but without positive action by government, PSI growth may decline further” (Julius, 2008b, p.ii).

 

“Government authorities need to reinforce and demonstrate their long-term commitment to open up public service markets and maintain effective competition” (Julius, 2008b, p.iii).

 

“A Director of Service Delivery should be appointed for all departments and local authorities with a substantial service delivery function. This post should be set at a very senior level with accountability for the delivery of public services, whether purchased from the PSI or kept in-house. Their involvement would extend through the full commissioning cycle – not just the initial procurement – and they would be the high level client interface when problems with service delivery arose” (Julius, 2008b, p.iv).

 

“The PSI is becoming a global industry. Many international firms already operate in the PSI in the UK and they report few barriers to entry. Service provision models that are proven to work in one country are transferred to others. Rising per capita incomes in countries in the emerging economies are driving an expansion in their demand for services such as health, education and transport and many of their governments are increasingly able to afford such improvements. The experience of the UK government and UK firms is often sought as countries develop their policies toward public service provision and their domestic capabilities to partner with others in bidding for and supplying them. This has put the UK PSI in a strong position to exploit overseas opportunities. There is significant export potential in this growth industry. Encouraging and assisting UK firms to make the most of these opportunities will generate substantial benefits not only for UK firms but also for the UK economy” (Julius, 2008b, p.v).

 

“Government and industry should work together to raise the profile of the PSI domestically and promotes its export potential through UKTI [UK Trade & Investment]” (Ibid.).

 

“What are Public Services? Public services have previously been considered as services paid for by the taxpayer and delivered by government employees to members of the public. However, as services are increasingly contracted out and provided by private and third sector employees, it is clear that this definition no longer applies. Public services must be defined in terms of their intrinsic nature, rather than how they are delivered” (Julius, 2008b, p.3 – my emphasis: Q: What is the “intrinsic nature” of public services?).

 

“… having a range of providers operating in a ‘mixed economy’ for public service provision is likely to be optimal – a view endorsed across the political spectrum in the UK” (Julius, 2008b, p.5 – my emphasis).

 

“In terms of its diversity of providers and the range of service offerings, the PSI in the UK is the most developed in the world” (Julius, 2008b, p.10).

 

“Given the range of areas where there is private and third sector involvement in the delivery of public services in the UK and the variety and development of commissioning methods used, the UK PSI market is generally considered to be the most developed, as well as one of the largest, in the world” (Julius, 2008b, p.10).   

 

“Another way of opening up new areas to competition is to involve potential bidders at a higher level thereby commissioning an overall service, rather than combinations of individual inputs and services. This allows potential bidders greater flexibility in how to combine. Procure and manage inputs to deliver services” (Julius, 2008b, p.73 – my emphasis: note – economies of scale trumping ‘competition’ here: GR).

 

“More than any other major industry, the future of the PSI is in the hands of government; conversely, the PSI can also do more to directly affect the achievement of core government objectives than any other industry. Despite its size and importance, the PSI has received little focussed attention and its relatively few failures are better reported than its many successes” (Julius, 2008b, p.75).

 

 

References

 

Hutton, J. (2008) Foreword by SoS John Hutton, to the ‘Public Services Industry Review’,  Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, 10th July, BERR: London: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file6965.pdf 

 

Julius, D. (2008a) Foreword by Dr. DeAnne Julius, to the ‘Public Services Industry Review’,  Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, 10th July, BERR: London: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file6965.pdf 

 

Julius, D. (2008b) Public Services Industry Review – Understanding the Public Services Industry: How big, how good, where next? Executive Summary, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, 10th July, PUB 8742/0.2k/08/NP.URN 08/1074, BERR: London. Online at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file6965.pdf 

 

 

The Rikowski web site The Flow of Ideas is at: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

 

Glenn Rikowski's MySpace Profile is at: http://www.myspace.com/glennrikowski  

 

Written by rikowskigr Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Subject: Outsourcing Public Services - with special reference to education
Time: 17:44:35 o'clock BST
Author:  rikowskigr

Outsourcing Public Services – with special reference to education

 

Glenn Rikowski, London, 26th July 2008

 

“But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood” (The Animals, Don’t let me be Misunderstood, 1965; first recorded by Nina Simone in 1954, and written by Bennie Benjamin, Gloria Caldwell and Sol Marcus).

 

Introduction

 

Perhaps John Hutton, UK Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR), had the above refrain in mind when he launched a review into the ‘public service industry’ last December. When Hutton appointed ex-CIA employee and former member of the UK Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, Dr DeAnne Julius, to head his review into the public services industry he may have hoped that the British public might not conclude that he was in favour of the delivery of more public services by private sector operators and ‘third force’ charitable organisations. On the basis of the Julius Report (Julius, 2008), it is clear that Hutton’s is not a ‘soul whose intentions are good’ when it comes to protecting public services from the depredations of capital.

 

The Public Services Industry

 

What is this new ‘Public Services Industry’ (PSI)? According to the Julius Report, it is that part of public services which are delivered by the private and charitable sectors. In the Report there is a formal definition of the PSI as being:

 

“All private and third sector enterprises that provide services to the public on behalf of government or to the government itself” (Julius, 2008, p.5).

 

The PSI, therefore, is constituted by all those public services – such as health, education and welfare – that are delivered by private and/or charitable operators. The Report recognised that the distinction between a “good” and a “service” is blurred in practical terms and that this was reflected in the official statistics on the PSI (p.19); one of the things the BERR and the government needed to address, accordingto Julius. However, it is clear that John Hutton, and by default the New Labour government, support the extension and enhancement of the PSI, for:

 

“Given the emergence of a significant Public Service Industry, it is important that we examine how we can support the success and development of this industry both here in the UK and in overseas markets” (Hutton, 2008).  

 

What this statement implies is that Hutton and New Labour are keen to promote a greater role for private sector delivery of public services in the UK and also to develop the capacity of UK companies to do the same in other countries under the banner of UK exports. Indeed, when the Julius Report came out on 10th July, Hutton was all set to go the United States the following week ‘to lead a first public service industry trade mission to Washington … to promote its export potential’ (Timmins, 2008a). As Timmins noted: 

 

“[The Report] shows the UK is at the forefront of the outsourcing trend. Although the US spends more cash on outsourced services, the UK spends a larger share of its gross domestic product than the US or any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country except Sweden and Australia.” (2008b).

 

Thus, it appears the UK can teach the US lessons about opening up public services to capital. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) exuded predictable enthusiasm for the Julius Report, gushing that:  

 

“The growth of the UK public services industry here and abroad is a good news story and deserves recognition … [Though] … here in the UK more must be done to ensure free and fair competition that will help drive up quality and efficiency of our public services. No one should ask for special treatment, but the best provider – regardless of sector – should be delivering services” (CBI, 2008).

 

The Trades Union Council (TUC), in its submission to the Review, was concerned about its whole approach (TUC, 2008, p.4) as:

 

“This effectively presents the public services as if they were a commercially driven sector, in the same way, for example, as tourism, financial services or manufacturing … Public services are much more than commodities to be traded in the market. They are vital assets which protect people, bind the nation together and boost our prosperity” (Ibid.). 

 

But the Julius Report is precisely about extending the commodification of public services: the TUC response provides no revelation on this score. However, the TUC confuses the issue when it brings in tourism etc. These do not turn state revenue into private profit – as private sector operators running schools seek to do. Furthermore, the TUC’s argument for public services being delivered by state organisations rests partly on the kind of economic instrumentalism advanced by the CBI in its statement above. The CBI even builds in the notion of equity – between sectors – though the TUC has a wider conception of equity and social justice. Public-sector union UNISON noted that ‘the advisory panel appointed by the government for the review was packed with privateers holding lucrative public service contracts’ (in Coysh, 2008). But surely UNISON should have known by now that New Labour plc, as a veritable ‘party of business’ (see Osler, 2002), does not play a straight game. Julius herself sat on the board of Serco – a major player in the UK PSI – until last year (Walker, 2008, p.1).       

 

Some of the data in the Julius Report is noteworthy. The UK PSI comprises 6% of GDP and employs over 1.2 million people (p.i). It is the most developed PSI in the world, with revenues of £79bn in 2007-08, ‘generating £45bn in value added’ (p.ii). The UK PSI has grown ‘by almost 130 per cent’ over the last 12 years, with 6.8% growth per year in real terms over the 1995-6 to 2003-4 period (Ibid.). However, since 2003, the growth rate for the UK PSI ‘levelled off to 2.9 percent per year’ (Ibid). This was cause for concern for the New Labour government, and heralded the Julius Report: how could this slowdown in the rate of the UK PSI be reversed and PSI exports increased? The Report attempts to provide answers to these questions.     

 

 

Implications for Education

 

The Julius Report provides New Labour, or more likely the next Conservative government, with analyses and ideas regarding stimulating the business takeover of public services. What I have called ‘the business takeover of schools’ (as defined in Rikowski, 2006) is an aspect of this enterprise. The Report noted that over the last 12 years education was the fastest growing sector of the UK PSI, at 8.1% per year (p.ii). The education category of the UK PSI was worth £7.3bn in 2007-08 (p.16). It is clear from the Report that New Labour views education as making a valuable contribution to the health and growth of the UK’s PSI. The Julius Report, therefore, indicates a long term goal – more likely to be realised by the Conservative Party – of letting capital loose on an ever greater scale within UK schools, colleges and universities.    

 

References

 

CBI (2008) CBI Reaction to DeAnne Julius Report, News Release, Confederation of British Industry, 10th July:

http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/75d92b24f8c542da80257481005bc149?OpenDocument

 

Coysh, D. (2008) Minister boasts: We’re world champs of privatising, Morning Star, 11th July, p.1 & p.4.

 

Hutton, J. (2008) Foreword by SoS John Hutton, to the ‘Public Services Industry Review’,  Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, 10th July, BERR: London: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file6965.pdf 

 

Julius, D. (2008) Public Services Industry Review – Understanding the Public Services Industry: How big, how good, where next? Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, 10th July, PUB 8742/0.2k/08/NP.URN 08/1074, BERR: London. Online at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file6965.pdf 

 

Osler, D. (2002) Labour Party plc: New Labour as a Party of Business, Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing.

 

Rikowski, G. (2006) On the Capitalisation of Schools in England, a paper prepared for The Flow of Ideas, 1st November: http://www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=On%20the%20Capitalisation%20of%20Schools%20in%20England

Timmins, N. (2008a) Outsourcing to private sector doubles to £80bn, Financial Times, 10th July, p.1.

 

Timmins, N. (2008b) Outsourcing covers third of services, Financial Times, 10th July, p.3.

 

TUC (2008) TUC Response to the Julies Review of the Public Service Industry, May, London: Trades Union Council, at: http://www.tuc.org.uk/publicsector/tuc-14819-f0.pdf

 

Walker, D. (2008) Attention to detail – Interview with DeAnne Julius, The Guardian, 14th May, at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/14/interviews.society  

Written by rikowskigr Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Subject: Online Publications by Glenn Rikowski
Time: 14:02:14 o'clock BST
Author:  rikowskigr

Online Publications by Glenn Rikowski

Despite having broken a bone in my elbow on Friday night (making typing more difficult and slower), I've edited, updated and checked my online publications list at the The Flow of Ideas. I've added a few new items and checked all the links. Only one of the links did not work, so I have deleted that item.

Fortunately, I broke a bone in my left elbow and I am right handed, and typing with my right hand only is not so bad - but very slow.

You can view my updated online publications at:

http://www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=pub&sub=Online%20Publications%20Glenn%20Rikowski

Glenn

Currently reading : Renewing Dialogues in Marxism and Education: Openings (Marxism and Education) Release date: 2007-12-26

Written by rikowskigr Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Subject: Against What We Are Worth
Time: 07:55:47 o'clock BST
Author:  rikowskigr

Against What We Are Worth

This is the title of a paper that I gave last week at the University of the Aegean, in Rhodes, as part of a Postgraduate Programme on 'Gender and New Educational and Employment Environments in the Information Age'.

The paper formed the basis for a presentation to Masters students at the University of the Aegean, Rhodes, in the 'Summer Workshops on Gender', which was part of the programme noted above.

You can see the paper at:

Rikowski, G. (2008) Against What We Are Worth, a paper prepared for the Post-Graduate Programme: Gender and New Educational and Employment Environments in the Information Age, ‘Summer Workshop on Gender’, at the University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece, 4th July, at:
http://www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=Against%20What%20We%20Are%20Worth

Glenn Rikowski

The Rikowski web site, The Flow of Ideas is at: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

Currently listening : Deadwing By Porcupine Tree Release date: 2005-04-26

Tags: Glenn Rikowski, Ruth Rikowski, The Ockress, The Flow of Ideas

Written by rikowskigr Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Subject: Marxism and Education: Works by Glenn Rikowski
Time: 21:02:45 o'clock BST
Author:  rikowskigr

Marxism and Education: Works by Glenn Rikowski

A document providing bibliographic details regarding the main works on Marxism and Education by Glenn Rikowski is now available.

You can view the document at The Flow of Ideas web site, at: http://www.flowideas.co.uk/index.php?page=pub&sub=Marxism%20and%20Education

The Flow of Ideas can be found at: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

Glenn Rikowski - the Volumizer

Currently listening : Lightbulb Sun By Porcupine Tree Release date: 2008-05-27

Tags: Glenn Rikowski, The Ockress, Ruth Rikowski, The Flow of Ideas, Victor Rikowski, Marxism and Education

Written by rikowskigr Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

Subject: Marxism and Education: Online Resources
Time: 22:37:37 o'clock BST
Author:  rikowskigr

Marxism and Education: Online Resources

 

For those interested in Marxism and Education, Marxist educational theory or Marxian approaches to education, I have put together what I consider to be the most useful and inspiring resources available on the Internet today.

 

Glenn Rikowski, London, 23rd May 2008

 

Marxism & Education – from the Marxists Internet Archive

The classic texts: including some of Marx’s statements on education, put together by Andy Blunden for the Marxist Internet Archive. Sections on: Early Ideas on Socialist Education; Socialist Ideas on Education; Lenin on Education; Reports on Soviet Education; Education in Stalinist Russia; Early Childhood and Play; Adolescence and Ethical Development; Society and Individual Development; Cognition and Foundations of Learning; and Paulo Freire.

See: http://www.marxists.org/subject/education/index.htm

 

Informal Education (InFed)

Barry Burke (2008) writes on Karl Marx and Informal Education, at: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-marx.htm

 

Policy Futures in Education – Special Double Issue on Marxist Futures

In 2004, Policy Futures in Education (Vol.2 Nos. 3 & 4) published a double and special issue on Marxism and education. It includes articles by Michael Peters, Simon Marginson, Zeus Leonardo, Mike Cole, Dave Hill and many others. The full contents can be found at: http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pfie/content/pdfs/2/issue2_3.asp The general URL is: http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pfie

 

Cultural Logic: An Electronic Journal of Marxist Theory & Practice

This journal produced a special issue on Marxism and Education (Vol.4 No.1, Fall 2000). It includes contributions from Peter McLaren, Rich Gibson, Bertell Ollman and many others. The contents can be viewed at: http://clogic.eserver.org/4-1/4-1.html

 

Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor

Focusing mainly on higher education, this journal has a number of articles where Marxian analysis is central.

See: http://www.cust.educ.ubc.ca/workplace/

 

Public Resistance

This journal contains a number of articles written by leading Marxist educational theorists and researchers. See: http://web.mac.com/publicresistance/iWeb/publicresistance/Public%20Resistance.html

 

Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS)

The Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies carries a number of articles inspired by Marxist and Marxian approaches to education. It also includes reviews of books within the field of Marxism and education.

See: http://www.jceps.com

 

The Institute for Education Policy Studies (IEPS)       

This web site carries a number of papers inspired by Marxian approaches to education. Writers include Peter McLaren, Paula Allman and Glenn Rikowski. This site is organised by Dave Hill, and you can find many papers by him there.