Move over Sartre, it's time for Danone
Article published: Saturday, October 11th 2008
Michael Pooler takes a closer look at Sarkozy’s moves to a business model of education in France.
The French government is proposing a wave of reforms to higher education, which will drastically alter current institutions and course content. In a social climate charged with conflict, the moves have, unsurprisingly, met opposition.
The reform of universities is part of sweeping changes to public services which French Prime Minister Nicholas Sarkozy and his government promised during the elections last year. Sarkozy claims that they are the most ambitious changes attempted since the 5th Republic.
The changes began with the implementation of the controversial ‘LRU’ (literal translation ‘Law Relative to Universities’) legislation last year which sparked off student protests across France. But despite a national mobilisation which involved widespread strikes and occupations, the movement faltered and failed the law was quietly passed in parliament in summer 2008.
The LRU set the groundwork for financial autonomy of universities and procurement of private finance. It also reduced student representation on university decision-making councils and brought ‘exterior personalities’ – usually local business people – on to the councils to decide the allocation of resources.
Since the revolts of May 1968, students have held a key role in the Councils and this was seen by many as a direct blow against democratic participation. Students fear money will now be directed to courses which are profitable for local business and taken away from those which are not directly linked to the labour market.
Now further reforms are being rolled out. The most important aspect of the new programme is the creation of ‘super-poles’. This would mean ten universities being chosen for additional investment with the goal of becoming centres of global excellence and attracting more foreign students.
The structure and content of most arts and social science diplomas is another target. The change proposes that students spend their first two years of an arts degree completing a generalised course including management, languages and professional skills; only in the final year of their course will they specialise in the subject of their choice. The policy-makers say their aim is to professionalise the ‘diplome’, but critics argue it strips courses of their cultural and intellectual content.
Controversial too, is the introduction of a compulsory work placement where employers would be under no legal obligation to pay those who work for a period of less than three months. Aside from the difficulties that could spring from the creation of an extra million workers in a country with 10 per cent unemployment, detractors deeply mistrust a policy that amounts to the creation of a source of ultra-cheap labour for businesses.
Seen from afar, the reforms may not seem radical at first glance. But in fact they challenge a deeply-held belief in popular education. In France, anyone with a baccalaureate has the right to enter university; moreover there are no selection procedures. State universities are theoretically equal in status, so a diploma obtained at one has the same value as another elsewhere. And the French notion of public service supports the idea that certain services are best provided by the state, in line with the egalitarian ideal of social inclusion.
In France, education is seen as a vehicle for cultural identity and as such the ‘social usefulness of such a public service’ justify its costs. This explains why tuitions fees have remained so low and many services such as university restaurants and sports activities are subsidised. Another oft-evoked argument is that the ‘Faculté’, where social sciences and arts are taught as opposed to more vocational courses, is not a machine for the training of workers but a place for the formation of citizens.
But the government’s case for reform of the diploma is strong: of all those who enter higher education, 30% leave without a qualification – with a failure rate of 50% in first year. France lags behind its European neighbours, particularly Britain and the Netherlands, in attracting foreign students and University facilities rank poorly in comparison with other European countries.
The reforms also fall within European and global trends. The Bologna process in the European Union (EU) sets the tone: it’s stated aims include the creation of one ‘higher educational space’ in Europe, improved competitiveness of Higher Education (HE) across the EU and the development of comparable criteria and methodologies.
The Bologna conception of HE, however, echoes the World Trade Organisation (WTO), in particular its treaty dealing with services known as ‘GATS’. At the core, it is underpinned by a view of education as a marketable commodity rather than a citizen’s right.
If education is eventually fully included within a market framework, it could result in national governments being sued for subsidizing institutions, in accordance with principles of free trade. Such ideas have been heavily criticised by student bodies and Human Rights organisations. Academics have also argued that dealing with HE in purely economic terms and subjecting it to market forces will result in a loss of democratic control over education.
Despite murmurs of dissent, anything resembling the tumultuous struggles against education and labour reforms of last year appears unlikely following the defeat of protests last autumn. That movement ground to a halt – the reform blow softened by the concession of an extra 12bn for student accommodation. Yet despite the promise that tuition fees would not increase as a result of the LRU, some universities have already upped prices.
Whilst the French system differs vastly from its British counterpart, there are similarities. There is growing discontent among British students at the tendency to opt for a business-based approach which allows for scarce or meaningless student involvement, like their French counterparts.
Student activists worldwide argue that education should not be subject to a supplier-consumer paradigm of service provision. And they are prepared to fight for learning with interaction, involvement and a democratic participation.
More: Manchester
Comments
No comments found
The comments are closed.
