Russell Haggar
Site Owner
| Part One
· Introduction: The Nature of Globalisation: Summary · Globalisation and Education Policies: General · Globalisation Political Parties and Ideologies · Globalisation, Education Policy and Quasi-Marketisation · Quasi-Marketisation, Endogenous Privatisation and Exogenous Privatisation · Vocational Education · Globalisation and International Comparisons of Educational Effectiveness: Tests: PISA, TIMMS and PIRLS Part Four · Globalisation, Immigration and Education · Education and the Prevent Strategy · Coronavirus, The State and Globalisation · Globalisation and Education Policies: Some Summary Criticisms
· Globalisation, Immigration and Education Globalisation has resulted in increased international migration which has had important implications for the UK education system. Economic migrants come to the UK in search of improved living standards; the UK has accepted fairly limited numbers of refugees and asylum seekers; and there has been a large influx of foreign students to study at UK universities. The Schools Increasing numbers of foreign nationals have migrated to the UK and consequently there are many second and third generation children of immigrants who have been born in the UK. Schools must cater both for newly arriving immigrant children who may have limited English Language skills and little understanding of UK culture as well as for the UK- born children of immigrants who are well versed in English language and culture. Schools do cater for newly arriving immigrant children via the provision of ESOL English classes, and it is to be hoped that they help the children to settle comfortably in the UK and to achieve educational success and that they can also help to foster mutual respect and understanding for different cultures among all pupils. It may be fair to say that schools have had some success in this respect but there have also been powerful criticisms that other cultures receive insufficient respect and that multicultural education in British schools may fail to address adequately the existence of ethnic inequalities in British society. There are disputes about the extent of racial prejudice and discrimination in the UK. Reports from IPSOS MORI and British Future suggest that the extent of racial prejudice and discrimination has declined over time, but it nevertheless remains substantial in the UK in general and also in UK schools. It has also been claimed that although recent UK Governments have emphasised their desire to inculcate a sense of greater social solidarity and although the UK Government’s statement on “Fundamental British Values” [see below] emphasises the importance of mutual tolerance and respect, in reality ethnic minority groups members are being pressurised to integrate into a traditional British [and White} way of life with insufficient respect for cultural difference and insufficient recognition of the levels of prejudice and discrimination that ethnic minority groups might face. Also. some aspects of the Prevent Strategy [ see below] have attracted criticism from spokespersons for the Muslim community and others on the grounds that it is targeted excessively on the Muslim Community and as such encourages Islamophobia. Click here and here for data from IPSOS MORI and British Future respectively for data illustrating long term decline in the extent of racial prejudice and discrimination in the UK. However, this Guardian article from July 2020 suggests that there has been little improvement in UK race relations in recent years Also click here for Guardian Podcast on The Shocking Truth of Racism in British Schools Click here for a Guardian article by Afua Hirsch entitled “We have to avoid “integration becoming another form of racism”. Students might also like to refer to the Sewell Report and its supporters and critics but I shall not pursue this debate here. However perhaps a picture paints a thousand words. Critical comments are sometimes heard that the existence of large numbers of pupils who whom English is an additional language is holding back the progress of other students, but official data do not support this belief. Firstly, the statistics do show that pupils with English as an additional language have slightly lower attainment levels than First Language English pupils at age 7 years but that this difference no longer exists at age 16. Secondly there is no evidence of a relationship between the proportion of pupils with EAL in a local area and the overall level of pupil attainment in that area. [ Click the following link for a very detailed statistical analysis of these issues. From International Migration and the Education Sector ONS 2019] Also there have occasionally been difficult cultural conflicts as for example over the so-called Trojan Horse Affair, issue of sex education in Birmingham schools. the use of a caricature of Prophet Muhammad in a school in Batley Yorkshire and curriculum and uniform issues at Pimlico Academy. Students will obviously not be able to refer to the details of these issues under examination conditions but if required further background information can be found via the following links.
Higher Education
In advanced capitalist economies such as the UK there has been a long term shift from manufacturing sector employment to service sector employment and in both sectors there has also been a shift from low skill to high skill employment . These trends have accelerated due to the process of globalisation which has resulted in the relative4 deindustrialisation of the advanced capitalist economies as low=skill manufacturing jobs were exported to developing countries where labour costs are lower. Consequently, governments in advanced capitalist economies have recognised that if employment levels and living standards are to be maintained it would be necessary to improve the effectiveness of the school system, to promote more vocationally relevant and to increase the availability of higher education to prepare workers for employment in more high skilled occupations.
As has already been mentioned UK education policies at all levels have been strongly influenced by the ideology of neoliberalism in which it is concluded that educational effectiveness can best be achieved by a process of quasi-marketisation in which competition for students among schools and colleges for students is assumed to drive up educational standards. In the case of UK Higher Education , this meant that funding would become much more dependent upon revenues from student loans which would be spent on tuition and residence fees , the hope being that students would choose to spend their loans in institutions and on courses which they considered to be most beneficial. Consequently ,it was hoped, the overall effectiveness of the Higher Education sector would increase although of course, this neoliberal approach to education policy is not without its critics. Following the General Election of 2017 as a result of which the Conservatives were returned as a Minority Government supported by the D.U.P. Prime Minister Theresa May announced the setting up of the Post 18 Education and Funding Higher Education under the chairmanship of Philip Augur and in its Report published in May 2019 the Committee recommended the reduction of university tuition fees to £7500 p.a. but also emphasised the need for significant reforms and increased funding of Further Education which, the Report suggested, could contribute significantly to the reduction in the UK’s skills gap. The reduction in university tuition fees was not implemented [although they were frozen at £9250 p.a. in January 2021] but as she left office Theresa May did emphasise the importance of the reform of Further Education as did Boris Johnson on taking up the role of Prime Minister. Damien Hinds was soon replaced as Education Secretary by Gavin Williamson who announced in July 2020 that the 50% target for the entrance of young people to Higher Education [ first announced by Tony Blair in1999] was to be abolished because in Williamson’s view too many graduates had been educated for jobs which were unavailable while non-entrants to university were being denied the opportunity to train for the technology- based occupations where more jobs were becoming available. Britain, he said, should seek to learn from the German education system which was far more effective in training technologically skilled workers. Click here and here for the scrapping of the 50% HE target. This was followed by a Whitepaper published in January 2021 and entitled Skills for Jobs: Lifelong Learning for Opportunity and Growth but in the subsequently unstable political atmosphere the White Paper was scrapped in 2023[ Meanwhile in 2019 the UK Government had set a target of increasing the number of international students entering UK Higher Education to 600,00 by 2030 and actually met this target by 2020/21 and as of 2021/22 approximately 680,000 international students were enrolled in UK HE making up approximately 24% of all UK HE students compared with approximately 10% in 1994/95. However Conservative Governments have alsp consistently emphasised their desire to reduce overall levels of immigration and this has led to debates within government as to whether governments should seek to reduce the number of international students as part of their attempt to reduce overall levels of immigration. However, financial problems have arisen in the UK Higher Education sector because although the costs of provision of Higher Education courses have steadily increased, the UK Government has decided that HE tuition fees which had been increased to £9250 per year in 2017/18 would be frozen at £9250 per year , which other things being equal could be to undermine the financial viability of some HEIs, particularly the less prestigious ones. HEIs have responded by recruiting increased numbers of foreign students who can be charged much higher fees while some have also set up Pre-U courses to attract even more foreign students and, in some cases, established campuses abroad to increase revenues still further. In an attempt to control overall levels of immigration in May 2023, the decision was taken that from January 2024 students from overseas would no longer be allowed to bring family members with them except if they were following research led master’s courses of PhD courses [meaning that foreign students following masters taught courses would not be able to bring in family members.] Critics promptly argued that this policy would especially restrict the opportunities of female students from Nigeria, India, Pakistan , Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and that universities with large numbers of undergraduates from these countries were especially likely to be adversely financially affected. Click here for announcement of the new restrictions and here for further UK Government information and here for a critical assessment of the policy. In March 2024 the Home Secretary James Cleverly wrote to the Migratory Advisory Committee [MAC] which advises the Government on immigration issues requesting it to investigate whether the graduate employment route was being used as a short cut to gaining work permits meaning that it was not necessarily fit for the purpose of encouraging the “best and the brightest” foreign students to study in the UK. News of Mr Cleverly’s request provoked alarm in the HE sector that the Government was now seriously considering further restriction of the immigration of foreign students which would obviously be damaging to the HE sector. In the event the MAC reported back to government that the graduate route was not being abused but recent press coverage of May 2024 has shown that disputes continue at the highest levels of government over this issue. Click here for further developments. However, in the early stages of the 2024 General Election Campaign , the Conservatives announced an intention to close some degree level courses which were not significantly improving students’ employment prospects and to use the money saved to expand the number of apprenticeships as discussed here and here. This policy could apparently apply to course taken by approximately one eighth of all students but critics have noted that there are serious disputes around what is and what is not a useful degree; that universities could then expand other courses so that there might be no financial savings ; and that whatever the merits of apprenticeship schemes in principle , they are not without criticism in practice. Click here for an interesting article from Kenan Malik [Observer].
Those who supported tighter immigration controls and claimed that overall immigration levels should be reduced partly by restricting the entry of foreign students may also argue that the entry of foreign students may reduce the availability of places for domestic students; that universities are prepared to lower the entry requirements of foreign students in order to access the higher tuition fees that foreign students must pay; and that the current system of immigration controls may mean that foreign students are aiming to access Higher Education primarily in order to access the UK labour market. However, these claims are disputed. Supporters of current ;levels of student immigration argue that the high fees paid by international students cross- subsidise courses which would otherwise not be financially viable which would reduce the availability of places for domestic students; that Higher Education Institutions require lower qualifications only for Pre-U courses and not for undergraduate courses; and that there is little evidence that foreign students are aiming solely to access the UK labour market. It is claimed also that the presence of foreign students contributes positively to the cultural diversity of university life; that the expenditures of foreign students provide an important boost to local economies where HEIs are situated and that in the long term the UK will accumulate considerable “soft powers” as UK- educated foreign students take up significant employment roles when they return home. For further coverage from the Guardian. Click here for university finance. Click here for problems with university finances.
Some Further Issues. However, it has also been argued that this large influx of foreign university students can create social tensions. It is claimed that domestic students are not always welcoming and that foreign students themselves may find that the transition to a different culture can be difficult meaning that they choose to socialise mainly with each other rather than with domestic students whose cultural pursuits do not necessarily appeal. It has been claimed too that in some cases when universities are heavily financially dependent upon the tuition fees paid by foreign students there may be dangers that the universities 'academic autonomy and commitment to freedom of speech may be jeopardised. For example, it has recently been argued that for these reasons universities have sometimes been apprehensive of voicing criticisms of the Chinese Government and may have failed to safeguard adequately Hong Kong students who have come into conflict with students for mainland China. Click here for international migration and the education sector Click here for Branwen Jeffries’ Chinese students in the UK and here for information on the Uighurs Click here for Is University racist? Click here for more on Internet course for Chinese students Click here for and here UK university students’ protests against Gaza situation.
Education and the Prevent Strategy It is a prime responsibility of governments to safeguard national security against internal and external threats. However. it is claimed that in some cases the policies which governments have adopted to maintain national security have excessively infringed individual liberty although governments themselves have claimed that such infringements, although unfortunate, are entirely necessary to protect national security. The UK Counter-Terrorism Strategy, entitled Contest, was initially developed in 2003 and revised subsequently in 2009, 2011 and 2018. It contains four elements: Prevent, Pursue. Protect and Prepare. This involved preventing radicalisation, pursuing suspects, protecting the public through security measures and preparing to mitigate the impact of actual attacks. Schools, colleges, and universities are heavily involved in the Prevent aspect of the overall Contest strategy. It is specified under the terms of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act of 2015 that all schools, childcare providers, colleges, and universities have a Prevent Duty to “have due regard to the need to protect the population from being drawn into terrorism.” This is known as the Prevent Duty. It is hoped that education institutions will help to achieve this objective partly by the inculcation of “Fundamental; British Values” and partly by their involvement in the Channel programme. Fundamental British Values were defined by the Coalition Government in 2011 as democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. Schools initially were required to “respect” these values Act but following further controversies arising out of the so-called Trojan Horse Affair the DFE published further guidance in 2014 which now charged schools with a duty to “actively promote” these values. Guidance from the DFE stated that these issues could be discussed via existing subject curricula, in PSHE and Citizenship classes and in assemblies and that the setting up of students’ Schools Councils could foster students’ interest in democratic principles. It was specified also that OFSTED inspections would consider schools’ effectiveness in meeting this criterion. Click here for further information. Also, under the terms of the 2015 Act schools and childcare providers "must be able to identify children at risk of radicalisation and understand "when it is appropriate to write a referral to the Channel Programme" which focuses on providing support at an early stage to people who are identified as being vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. We may conclude that globalisation has served to increase the threat of global terrorism and that this has affected the education system via the development of the Prevent Strategy. The Prevent Strategy and the related notion of “Fundamental British Values” have provoked some controversy but it may well be that you do not have time to discuss these controversies in your examinations. However, some additional information is provided below. Fundamental British Values and the Prevent Duty: Some Further Information Regarding Fundamental British Values, it has been agreed that such values are indeed desirable values to be upheld but argued that these might better be described as Universal values and that the categorisation of these values as British may mean that in practice they are associated most clearly with whiteness and that this could serve to marginalise and alienate non-white students. It has also been argued that in practice teachers may have found it difficult to address some of the controversies surrounding these values and have often engaged with them in a superficial way which has side-lined more searching arguments around the nature of democracy, freedom and tolerance. Click here for Thinking Allowed on Citizenship. The second part of the programme covers Fundamental British Values Click here and Here and here and here for more information on Fundamental British Values It has also been argued that fears of referral to the Channel Programme may have led some mainly Muslim students to be unwilling to speak freely in schools, colleges and universities. Consequently, some critics of Prevent argue that the strategy may actually discourage full discussion of controversial issues in educational settings and make it more rather than less likely that students will be easier targets for extremist propaganda. There have also been concerns that there has been a far greater emphasis on the dangers of Islamic extremism that Far Right extremism, and it has been noted that in recent years Extinction Rebellion was temporarily flagged up within the Prevent Programme as an “extreme ideology”. potential terrorist organisation. However, supporters of the Prevent Strategy have argued that it has reduced threats of deradicalization and that in recent years there has been a greater emphasis on the dangers of Far Right Extremism. This was certainly the case in 2019 Click here for a brief explanation of Prevent [BBC 2017] and Click here for Home Office fact sheet [2019] Click here for a BBC News Night discussion of the Prevent Programme [2019]. *** Most useful This item provides a brief explanation of the nature and scope of the Channel Programme in 2017 coupled with some discussion of arguments critical and in support of the Prevent Programme. At the time the Conservative Government had announced a review of the Prevent Strategy and Lord Carlile had been appointed to chair the review but, in the event, he was obliged to resign from this position. In an article for the Financial Times Helen Warrell points out that critics including some teachers, human rights lawyers and representatives of the Muslim Community argue that well- meaning public officials are encouraged to "look for a threat where none exists"; that such state- wide surveillance is not only discriminatory but counterproductive" ; that "Prevent's deradicalization programmes simply do not work"; that mismanagement of the case of Ahmed Hasan the 18 year old Iraqi who planned the unexploded bomb on the Parson's Green Tube points to the inadequacies of the Prevent Programme and that the Programme has given insufficient emphasis to the growth of Far Right extremism." Further criticism of the management of potential terrorist threats arose as a result of the London Bridge Terror attack in 2019. See also here . There were ongoing arguments in favour and in support of the Prevent Strategy and in 2021 the Government appointed Sir William Shawcross as Chairman of a Review Panel but once again his appointment was heavily criticised by various Civil Rights groups who have criticised the Prevent Strategy and boycotted the Review which has nevertheless been but defended by Government Police spokespersons Click Here and here for boycotts of the reviews of Prevent Click here for view of the UK’s anti-terror chief Click here for the referral to Prevent a of 4 year- old boy Click here for another example of an inappropriate referral Click here Guardian Prevent Strategy page which has reported several significant issues in the last few months
Coronavirus, The State and Globalisation The UK experienced very serious waves of COVID pandemic infection in the Spring of 2020 and the Winter of 2021 and there were 3 National Lockdowns in April -June 2020, November- December 2020 and January- April 2021. Schools were closed for pupils other than the children of key workers and vulnerable children and schooling was also restricted to specific year groups and classes at other times. For example, in June and July 2021 very large numbers of pupils were obliged to self-isolate due to contacts with infected people. Click here for information. GCSE and GCE Advanced Level examinations were cancelled in 2020 and 2021. In 2020 the original awards of grades via a combination on teacher assessments and modifications based on an OFQUAL algorithm were cancelled amid great controversy and replaced by grades based entirely on teacher assessments. 2021 grades were awarded based on complex process of teacher assessment. Click here and Click here and here for information on the process of grade determination 2021. Overall GCSE and GCE Advanced Level grades were higher under the teacher assessment schemes in 2020 and 2021 than they had been in the 2019 examinations but once examinations were reintroduced, results returned close to their 2019 levels by 2023. You may also click here for an excellent article by Professor Lee Elliot Major in which he outlines the ways in which the pandemic has exacerbated the inequalities of educational opportunity which have always existed within the UK education system. This article could provide a very useful basis for class discussion. Professor Major’s concerns are reiterated in a recent Sutton Trust Report as reported in this item from the BBC. Click here for latest Sutton trust report
In June 2020 the Government announced the introduction of a universal catch up premium of £650 million which would be allocated directly to schools and a National Tutoring Programme worth £350 million. These initiatives were to be phased in from the Autumn of 2020 with additional funding to be provided in February 2021, June 2021 and October 2021 by which time the Government would have allocated a total of £4.9 billion to various catch up initiatives. ]Details of these financial initiatives may be found in paragraphs 20-21 of the Education Select Committee Report entitled Is the Catch Up Programme fit for purpose? [March 10th 2022] Also, In February 2021 the UK Government announced the appointment of the educationalist Sir Kevan Collins to oversee an education recovery programme to offset the effects of COVID 18. Discussions would now continue within government as to the scope and nature of the recovery plan required but the EPI calculated in May 2021 that £13.5 bn over 3 years would be necessary to help students to catch up. By this time the government had already provided £1.7 bn for catch up support but in June 2021 the Prime minister announced a Covid Recovery package of £ 1.4 bn over three years which amounted to an additional £50 per pupil per year although “Tutoring ,often in small groups will be targeted at the pupils is considered most in need of support, particularly the disadvantaged and will not be available to all pupils”[BBC] Clearly the scale of the programme was much more limited than had been suggested by the EPI and lower also than had provided in other countries. Thus, although international comparisons must be treated with care it was noted that the catch up funding in England including earlier announcements was worth £310 per pupil over 3 years compared with £1600 in the USA and £2500 in the Netherlands. The UK government’s plans therefore attracted considerable criticism and Sir Kevan Collins, who was reported as having put forward plans costing £15bn over three years, resigned from his post citing the inadequacy of the UK Governments plans. For additional coverage of Sir Kevan Collins’ resignation from the Guardian click here and for subsequent criticisms reported by Schools Week of Sir Kevan Collins’ criticisms of government education policies Click here The Public Accounts Committee reported on the education recovery programme for schools in June 2023. It noted that due to the Covid pandemic the increase in the deprivation index for Key Stage 2 pupils was so large that it had more than offset the reduction in the deprivation index that had occurred in the 10 years prior to 2019. The report’s authors also stated that “We are alarmed that the Department believes that it could take a decade or more to return the disadvantage gap to pre=pandemic levels.” This is perhaps even more alarming when one recalls this finding reported by the BBC prior to the pandemic that even though the deprivation index was falling at the time it would take more than 70 years to close the deprivation gap completely if progress continued at its then current rate Return to Part One Or visit Part Five
|