Education Governance in the United

Education Governance in the United Kingdom: the modernisation project
JENNY OZGA University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT This article considers the modernisation of education governance as implemented by the New Labour governments of the United Kingdom since 1997. The discussion focuses on the apparent contradiction between those elements of modernisation that require the measurement and management of performance; and those that promote greater fairness and responsiveness. It is argued that tensions between these elements of policy are resolved by New Labour policy makers through the use of ideas derived from social capital theory. Modernisation uses these ideas in pursuit of a transformation of politics that enhances governability by making beliefs and feelings quantifiable, and by equating social relations with capital accumulation. The article concludes with a consideration of the problems encountered in the operationalisation of the modernisation project in the United Kingdom’s Education Action Zones, where business was encouraged to play a major role in building new networks and social relations.
Introduction: the modernisation project
This article explores and illustrates the ways in which the Labour government of the United Kingdom (UK) has pursued a programme of modernisation of the public sector, including, indeed perhaps especially, publicly-funded educational provision. I review some of the processes of modernisation undertaken to date by the new Labour governments since 1997, and consider what assumptions about governance and the redesign of national systems are implicit in these processes. The article attempts to discuss possibilities for a resolution of apparent contradictions in the modernisation project as applied to public sector services, through the adoption of a critical perspective on social capital theory. Put briefly, tensions have been identified by some commentators between the UK government’s preoccupation with the
Jenny Ozga
332
measurement and management of performance and with its stated objective of improving responsiveness and fairness in access and outcomes. At the same time, analysts of social capital theory and its application in education have pointed out the difficulty of building social capital in spheres traditionally regarded as outside or beyond the state, in civil society. However I suggest that such apparent contradictions and difficulties are dissolved if we approach social capital theory and its translation into policy not so much in terms of its capacity to build positive individual or collective outcomes, but as an organised knowledge, and ask how and in what ways it contributes to the constitution of society as a governable domain. Modernisation is, therefore, a shorthand term for an ambitious and transformative project, begun in 1997 with the election victory, but building on previous phases of modernisation, which are discussed below. It differs from previous Conservative-government led public sector reform because (discursively) it privileges long-term effectiveness over narrow conceptions of efficiency, it values collaboration over competition, and it expresses commitment to public consultation and partnership (Newman, 2000, p. 47; see also Fergusson, 2000; Finlayson, 1998). It also expresses concern about the deepening of social exclusion associated with marketisation and addresses this issue through responsibilisation based on ‘recognition of the rights and duties of citizenship’ (Blair, 1998, p. 12). The public is discursively repositioned by modernisation as active users who influence service design and planning (Newman, 2000, p. 59). Modernisation and the redesign of the public also imply a very important role for business, an issue which is discussed below in relation to the role of business in building networks in Education Action Zones (EAZs). Modernisation requires the simultaneous development of responsive, integrated management of policy (through strong interdepartmental, horizontal, task-focussed work or through new communications technologies) and of active, engaged, informed and responsible citizens. The development of active citizens is dependent on raising their levels of capacity to be receptive to information, to engage with evidence and to participate in networks, particularly among groups excluded by the inequitable operation of the market. State redesign and modernisation at community level are effected through multi-agency approaches, collaboration and co-operation. These programmes are exemplified in various initiatives designed to create new relationships in health and education provision; for example the Health Zones and EAZs in England. These are intended as sites for the development of individual capacity that also draw individuals and families into wider social networks. Through such processes it is claimed that the market may be disciplined and tamed, and the deepening of social inclusion halted and reversed.

MODERNISING EDUCATION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
333
Modernisation and Social Capital Theory
The account above of the key features of modernisation does not fully convey the ambition and the scope of the project. Modernisation implies a re- imagining of politics: it is not confined to system redesign. The nature of its transformative ambitions can be understood through scrutiny of its guiding ideas, which are derived from social capital theory. The Labour government has been attracted to the ‘strong social-ethical inflection’ (Jones, 2000, p. 493) of social capital theory as a way of creating ‘the bonds of civil society and community in a way compatible with the individualistic nature of modern economic, social and cultural life’ (Blair, 1997, p. 2). In combating poverty and exclusion, the UK government sees networks of connected communities and individuals as the answer to problems of disconnection and lack of social integration following from globalisation. New Labour thinking has been informed in particular by the ideas of Robert Putnam et al (1993) who used the term social capital to refer to ‘features of social organisation, such as trust, norms and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating co-ordinated actions’ (Putnam et al, 1993). The UK-based Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) endorses the ideas of ‘Community ... practising collective self-restraint and governed by norms and values’ as the answer to the competitive individualism created by globalisation (Taylor, 2000, p. 2). It is also seen as providing an alternative space between states and markets for individual and collective empowerment and fulfilment. Furthermore, the presence of social capital is a necessary requirement for the bonding of communities and their ‘bridging’ towards the external environment. Social capital is formed by ‘networks of civil engagement’ and associated norms which affect the productivity of a community (McLenaghan, 2000, p. 569). That last point signals the way in which social capital theory acts as a powerful connecting device that links new forms of governance preoccupied with the measurement and improvement of performance to the constitution of society as a governable domain. Social capital theory reflects a political rationality and shapes a social sphere that is calculable and amenable to the practices of government (Rose & Miller, 1992). This calculation takes as its subject sentiments and beliefs (trust, community, civility) and ‘capitalises’ them:
Stocks of social capital, such as trust, norms and networks, tend to be self- reinforcing and cumulative. Successful collaboration in one endeavour builds connections and trust-social assets that facilitate future collaboration in other, unrelated tasks. As with conventional capital, those who have social capital tend to accumulate more-them as has, gets. (Putnam et al, 1993, p. 3)
By equating social relations with capital accumulation, traditional ideas of the social are challenged, with consequences for the imagining of the public, and for the scope of public policy. By making sentiments and beliefs quantifiable, governability is enhanced, and at the same time as an ethical discourse is
Jenny Ozga
334
invoked, a diminished idea of the public and of the role and scope of public policy is promoted. Modernised governance thus seeks to create a new hybrid of public and private, a space to be occupied by a redesigned socially and individually responsible citizen, embedded in networks, allowed the freedom to achieve economic and social targets at work and home, and encouraged to accept responsibility for success or the consequences of failure. In the next section, I look at earlier modernisation projects, in order to provide some context for the discussion of the Labour government’s project. It is also important to draw attention to context more generally, as a reminder that this attempted redesign of politics plays out in against existing conditions and relationships. These may prove uncomfortable or resistant to modernisation, and may offer the potential for diversity in the devolved political systems of the UK (Paterson, 2002).





จบ
Modernisation of Education
The modernisation project of the New Labour Government, although distinctive, is not entirely new, and builds on previous projects of modernisation. First wave modernisation in the UK took place in the period of post-war reconstruction in the 1940s and 1950s, where the prevailing political rationality was that of a post-war welfare state solving social problems. The government of education was managed through a professional bureaucracy that promoted public service and operated discursively in traditional democratic mode. Consensus was pursued and there was some degree of shared power between a partnership of policy-makers at central and local level, and teachers. On the surface, education policy was broadly progressive, education was