Stephen Ball lecture
MY hero.
Except actually when I was a PGCE student he wasn't - I didn't understand sociology or the benefits of ethnographic work..
HOWEVER now I REALLY like him. He is into arguing about perfomativity culture and the like.
The lecture last night was on comodification. I would like to say it was masterly...except it appealed so much to my heart that I payed no attention to whether it really WAS a good argument in academic terms.
The argument goes:
-there has been a recent emphasis on using 'private' to deliver 'public' services. That is, both buying in companies to run the pubilc services or creating quasi markets so there appears to be private sector choice.
-in this move, the emphasis in dicussions has been to focus on 'private' rather than 'profit'; similarly there has been an emphasis on public sector failure, but no mention of private sector failure (either as a natural hazzard of private companies, or of what happens if there is falure of private sector companies running public services..like Enron and schools in California; like Atkins associate who ran Southwick schools until they pulled out because there was no profit,leaving the schools in the lurch, having already been traumatised by the practice of the company)
-there are ethical implications - do we want companies that are/can be (or possibly must in order to survive) run using ethically dubious practices (again I cite Enron/Arthur Anderson)?
-the basis of the problem is that there has been comodification - A Marxian term meaning that the emphasis on the economic conceals (the importance of) underlying social relations. Thus social relations are viewed as objects, independent of people. Comodity is fetishised, everything is quantified (or ignored) and this way of thinking governs what is considered important in lives..
-currently parents have become the risk managers for their children, investing in their childs future - buying in private services (tutors, books, extra curricular activities- in order to give them aheadstart in life over others.. They are consumers. THe children suffer from guilt and expectation. So do parents- they can no longer rely on the State and intuition to make decisions about their child; they buy in advice etc.
-meanwhile..the institutions that are running courses are working in non ethical ways - for example a futher ed college will take on students who they know can not complete courses because otherwise someone else will, and anyway they get extra money when the kid resits the course the following year - the important thing is to make sure the pastoral work is good so that they want to remain there.(Yup ..this is a paraphrase from a real princpal of a college, who would be considered failing the college if he did not take this attitude).
-Some pupils are more attractive than others for schools - boys, SPecial Ed.needs, lower social background all add 'negative value'. They are not wanted.
-overall decision making that was once driven by values such as what was true/just, have been transformed to whether or not the 'product' is useful/saleable/efficient.
So now you know!
Except actually when I was a PGCE student he wasn't - I didn't understand sociology or the benefits of ethnographic work..
HOWEVER now I REALLY like him. He is into arguing about perfomativity culture and the like.
The lecture last night was on comodification. I would like to say it was masterly...except it appealed so much to my heart that I payed no attention to whether it really WAS a good argument in academic terms.
The argument goes:
-there has been a recent emphasis on using 'private' to deliver 'public' services. That is, both buying in companies to run the pubilc services or creating quasi markets so there appears to be private sector choice.
-in this move, the emphasis in dicussions has been to focus on 'private' rather than 'profit'; similarly there has been an emphasis on public sector failure, but no mention of private sector failure (either as a natural hazzard of private companies, or of what happens if there is falure of private sector companies running public services..like Enron and schools in California; like Atkins associate who ran Southwick schools until they pulled out because there was no profit,leaving the schools in the lurch, having already been traumatised by the practice of the company)
-there are ethical implications - do we want companies that are/can be (or possibly must in order to survive) run using ethically dubious practices (again I cite Enron/Arthur Anderson)?
-the basis of the problem is that there has been comodification - A Marxian term meaning that the emphasis on the economic conceals (the importance of) underlying social relations. Thus social relations are viewed as objects, independent of people. Comodity is fetishised, everything is quantified (or ignored) and this way of thinking governs what is considered important in lives..
-currently parents have become the risk managers for their children, investing in their childs future - buying in private services (tutors, books, extra curricular activities- in order to give them aheadstart in life over others.. They are consumers. THe children suffer from guilt and expectation. So do parents- they can no longer rely on the State and intuition to make decisions about their child; they buy in advice etc.
-meanwhile..the institutions that are running courses are working in non ethical ways - for example a futher ed college will take on students who they know can not complete courses because otherwise someone else will, and anyway they get extra money when the kid resits the course the following year - the important thing is to make sure the pastoral work is good so that they want to remain there.(Yup ..this is a paraphrase from a real princpal of a college, who would be considered failing the college if he did not take this attitude).
-Some pupils are more attractive than others for schools - boys, SPecial Ed.needs, lower social background all add 'negative value'. They are not wanted.
-overall decision making that was once driven by values such as what was true/just, have been transformed to whether or not the 'product' is useful/saleable/efficient.
So now you know!