Education, Lifelong Learning and the Problem of the Firm 

Professor Catherine Casey, University of Leicester

Wednesday 15 February 2012, 3.00-4.30 pm, Committee Room 2

Abstract

Policy-favoured macroeconomic models of knowledge-based, learning economies propose that a general improvement in education and skill levels generates increased productivity and disperses knowledge-intensive production across all industry sectors and labour markets in society. The knowledge-based economy is assumed as generating constant innovation, continually requiring higher levels of education and skills development across the population. Labour markets, it is projected, will comprise predominantly high productivity sectors requiring high levels of skills which successfully displace low productivity sectors and low levels of skills. Any gaps on this path to a generalised knowledge economy are assumed to be due to structural inertia and other behavioural hindrances to optimal labour market equilibrium.

However, close examination of the application of these models at the organizational level of the labour market reveals critical discrepancies and contradictions. The firm, in pursuit of its interest maximization and corresponding forms of organization, plays a powerful role. The firm’s organizational behaviour rationally utilizes employees’ education and skills in pursuit of its corporate interests. Its actions impede or contradict the optimal dispersion and development of higher order knowledge and skills assumed in knowledge-based economy and learning society models.

 The firm’s role in generating discrepant educational outcomes, as well as its interests in influencing educational activity and lifelong learning policy in society, is notably under-addressed in both labour market studies and education, including lifelong learning, studies. This paper principally addresses the role and behaviour of the firm in regard to the demand for and utilisation of higher levels of education and skills. It raises critical dilemmas for lifelong learning, and for institutions of work.

 Catherine Casey is Professor of Organization and Society at the University of Leicester. Her research addresses critical questions in economy and society, with a main focus on work, organizations and institutions, labour markets and employment relations, and education and lifelong learning. Her current book, Economy, Work and Education: Critical Connections, (Routledge, 2011) is a sociological exploration of critical concerns arising from policies of knowledge-based economies in neo-liberal conditions.

 Formerly working at the School of Business and Economics at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, she has held visiting fellowships at a number of institutes, including Trinity College, Dublin, and the European University Institute, Florence. She has served in advisory capacities to the New Zealand Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Research and Science, the European Commission, and the UK Economic and Social Research Council. She is Senior Editor of Organization Studies.

Attendance at the seminar is free; please register in advance via llakesevents@ioe.ac.uk.

Press note:

Research Seminar, Institute of Education, 25 January 2012, Room 642

New policies needed if government is to meet its objective to improve social mobility

The Government has stated that its primary social policy objective is to increase social mobility. Both academics and policy-makers agree that the single most important policy lever is education, broadly defined. Yet there is little consensus on the impact on social mobility of changes, past and future, to the education system. At a research seminar on 25 January 2012, organised by the Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES), Jonathan Portes, Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), discussed the current state of research on education, inequality and social mobility, and the implications for policy.

Portes said that both the UK and international evidence suggests a clear link between income inequality, social immobility, and the socio-economic gradient of education (the extent to which the children of the better off achieve better educational outcomes). Although the precise patterns of causality – and the time lags – are unclear, it is reasonable to assume that reducing socio-economic gradient would over time improve social mobility. Research suggests that the fall in social mobility seen in recent decades reflects both the sharp rise in income inequality seen in the 1980s and increased educational inequality in 1980s and 1990s, in particular in progression to higher education. However, in the short term there might be some cause for optimism; inequality, especially at the bottom end, stabilised in the 2000s, while the socio-economic gradient of educational attainment had fallen in recent years, at least for some age groups.

Looking to the medium term, though, he was less optimistic. Income inequality is likely to rise, both as a result of austerity measures and wider labour market trends; both current levels of youth unemployment, and wage stagnation for lower-middle income workers, are likely to have a damaging impact. The focus of government policies to increase social mobility, however, is the reduction of educational attainment gaps, and over the long term, at least, this seems appropriate. Portes said, however, that it is far from clear that policies implemented so far will have an overall positive effect:

- To the extent that structural reforms to the school system increase selection (and/or socio-economic segregation), this is likely to reduce social mobility. International evidence strongly suggests that selection increases socio-economic attainment gaps without improving outcomes; and UK evidence suggests that grammar schools were at best neutral for social mobility;

- The Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) clearly reduced socio-economic attainment gaps, so its abolition is likely to reduce social mobility. This will be counteracted by the introduction of the pupil premium; but plausible quantitative estimates, based on the research literature, suggest that, even with optimistic assumptions about impact, this is unlikely to do more than reverse the negative effect of the abolition of EMA.

Portes concluded that, while welcome, it is not plausible to assume that the pupil premium will do more than mitigate the impact of other government policies. The government will need to take more considerably more aggressive policy action, in education and other policy areas, if it really wants to make social mobility its “overriding social policy objective”.

A copy of the presentation is available here: Jonathan Portes – LLAKES January 2012

Notes for editors:

Mr Portes’ talk is based in part on his article “Poverty and Inequality: An Introduction”, National Institute Economic Review, October 2011.

The Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES) is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and is hosted by the Institute of Education, University of London. (Further details of the LLAKES research programme are available at www.llakes.org or via Richard Arnold at 0207 911 5464 or r.arnold@ioe.ac.uk.)

Bringing the State Back In: Privatization or Restatization of Higher Education in China

Ka Ho Mok, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong & Zhejiang University, China 

Tuesday 13 March,  Room 642, 15.00 to 17.00.

 Abstract

 In the last few decades, the Chinese government has concentrated on promoting rapid economic growth to improve the livelihood of its people in order that the political legitimacy could be restored, especially when the post-Mao leadership confronted the three faith crises and unstable political environment after the Cultural Revolution in 1977. Being instrumental about economic growth, the whole country has engaged in rapid economic growth along the line of classical market economic approach, while social development and human well-being issues had received less attention. Before the Hu-Wen leadership was formally installed, the previous administration under Jiang-Zhu’s leadership had tried to adopt ideas and practices along the line of neo-liberalism to reform the social service delivery mode and social policy provision. It is against this policy context that major social policy areas like health, education and housing have been going through the processes of marketization and privatization, thereby people have to bear heavy financial burden for meeting these welfare and social policy needs. After privatizing and marketizing education for a few decades, the Chinese government has repeatedly confronted with criticisms for the government in failing to tackle the problems related to ‘new three mountains phenomenon’ (namely heavy financial burdens for meeting health, education and housing needs) in recent years.

This presentation outlines briefly the wider policy context, and examines the social and political consequences after education is privatized and marketized. The speaker also discusses what major policies and strategies that the Chinese government has recently adopted to bring back the state in education provision and financing in order to address the negative consequences of the privatization of education. Moreover, this presenation also critically examines major policy implications throughout the processes of major reforms taken place in higher education in mainland China.

Ka Ho Mok is Chair Professor of Comparative Policy, and Associate Vice President (External Relations), Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Director, Centre for Greater China Studies of the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd). Before joining the HKIEd, he was Associate Dean and Professor of Social Policy, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Hong Kong (HKU). Being appointed as founding Chair Professor in East Asian Studies, Professor Mok established the Centre for East Asian Studies at the University of Bristol, UK before taking the position at HKU. Professor Mok is no narrow disciplinary specialist but has worked creatively across the academic worlds of sociology, political science and public and social policy while building up his wide knowledge of China and the region. Professor Mok has published extensively in the fields of comparative education policy, comparative development and policy studies, and social development in contemporary China and East Asia. In particular, he has contributed to the field of social change and education a variety of additional ways not the least, of which has been his leadership and entrepreneurial approach to the organization of the field. He has been awarded the First Annual CIES (Comparative and International Education Society) Higher Education SIG Best Article for the academic year 2008-2009. His membership on numerous editorial boards, commissions, in key scholarly societies all contribute to the recognition that he is among the best in his field. He is a founding editor of Journal of Asian Public Policy, Journal of Asian Education and Development Studies and Comparative Development and Policy in Asia Book Series (published by London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group). In the past few years, Professor Mok has also worked closely with the World Bank and UNICEF as International Consultant for comparative development and policy studies projects. Since January 2010, he has been appointed by the Ministry of Education of China as Changjiang Chair Professor and served at Zhejiang University, China to promote internationalization and regional collaborations.

Attendance at this seminar is free, but places should be reserved in advance via llakesevents@ioe.ac.uk

Education and social mobility: where next for research and policy? By Jonathan Portes

Abstract

The Government has stated that its primary social policy objective is to increase social mobility. Both academics and policy-makers agree that the single most important policy lever is education, broadly defined.   Yet there is little consensus on the impact on social mobility of changes, past and future, to the education system.  What does the existing research tell us about education and social mobility? What are the impacts of the Government’s current plans likely to be? And if we as a society were really intent on increasing social mobility, what would we do

Jonathan Portes is Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR). Previously, he was Chief Economist at the Cabinet Office, where he advised the Cabinet Secretary, Gus O’Donnell, and Number 10 Downing Street on economic and financial issues.
Before that he held a number of other senior economic policy posts in the UK government.

This seminar will be held from 3.00 to 4.30 pm, on Wednesday 25 January 2012, in Room 642 at the Institute of Education, University of London. Admission to the seminar is free, but places should be reserved via llakesevents@ioe.ac.uk.

Education as an Instrument of Globalisation in Developing Countries, by Erwin H. Epstein

 Abstract

As nations intensify political and economic investment in access to schools, the content and organizational contours of education become more universalistic, resulting in an expanding compression of consciousness throughout much of the world.  This process of globalization has resulted in the displacement of indigenous cultures, accompanied by social class reproduction, human capital production, and national economic development.  Yet despite the reach and importance of education in transforming lives under conditions of globalization, its impact at the world periphery has not been explicated sufficiently.  Professor Epstein proposes a “filter-effect” theory to explain how schools penetrate the cultures of traditional societies and why this process has been poorly understood.

Erwin H. Epstein is Professor Emeritus of Cultural and Educational Policy Studies at Loyola University Chicago and Adjunct Research Professor of Comparative Education at University at Albany, State University of New York. He is a past president of the Comparative and International Education Society (USA) and is currently that organization’s historian. He is also a past president of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies and a former editor of the Comparative Education Review. His current primary research interests focus on the impact of education on the national and cultural identity of children in marginalized communities and on comparative theory.

The research seminar will be held at 3.00 pm on Thursday 9 February 2012, in Committee Room 3 at the Institute of Education, University of London. Admission is free, but places should be reserved by e-mailing llakesevents@ioe.ac.uk.

LLAKES Public Seminar Series

25 January 2012, 3.00 pm, Room 642: Jonathan Portes, Director, National Institute of Economic and Social Research: ”Education and social mobility: where next for research and policy?”

9 February 2012, 3.00 pm, Committee Room 3: Professor Erwin H. Epstein, Loyal University Chicago: “Education as an instrument of globalisation in developing countries”

15 February 2012, 3.00 pm, Committee Room 2: Professor Catherine Casey, University of Leicester: “Education, Lifelong Learning and the Problem of the Firm”

1 March 2012, 3.00 pm, Committee Room 1: Dr Sadaf Rizvi, Institute of Education: “Muslim schools in Britain: socialisation, identity and integration”

13 March 2012, 3.00 pm, Room 642: Professor Mok Ka-Ho, Hong Kong Institute of Education: “Privatisation or restatisation of higher education in China?”

Seminars are free to attend, but please pre-book a place via llakesevents@ioe.ac.uk

Andy Green gave the opening keynote address to the International Sociological Association Conference on ‘Social Justice and Participation: The Role of Higher Education’ at the University of Cyprus on 25 November 2011. His topic was ‘Higher Education and the Crisis for European Youth.’ 

A copy of his presentation is available here.

Professor Duncan Gallie, Nuffield College, University of Oxford

2.00 to 3.30 pm, Thursday 1 December 2011, Room 790, Institute of Education

This presentation will examine differences between European societies with respect to two key aspects of the quality of work – the degree of influence that employees can exercise over the way they do their jobs and the opportunities they have to develop their skills at work. It takes as its point of departure an influential argument about variation in capitalist societies – ‘production regime theory’ – and considers how well it accounts for the empirical differences in both industrial relations institutions and employees’ experience of work. It compares five major country groupings – the Nordic, the Continental Coordinated, the State Coordinated, the Liberal and the East European ‘Transition’ countries using evidence from the European Social Survey.

Please register for this seminar via lakesevents@ioe.ac.uk

The second LLAKES conference will be held on 18 and 19 October 2012, at Senate House, University of London. The conference title will be: “Lifelong Learning, Crisis, and Social Change”. Futher details will be supplied in due course.

Professor Karen Evans gave a keynote address at the ASME (Association for the Study Medical Education) Annual Conference on Researching Medical Education. The conference was held at RIBA in Central London, on Wednesday 16th November 2011, attended by doctors and healthcare educationalists from all parts of the UK. Professor Karen Evans’ keynote focused on Rethinking Work-Based Learning. ASME is an independent body that can influence policy in medical education and training through established links with decision-making bodies such as the General Medical Council, National Association of Clinical Tutors, COPMeD and the Department of Health.