The intellectual capital of schools: analysing government policy statements on school improvement in light of a new theorization

"Ideology without competence is a dangerous vice. But competence without ideology is a limited virtue." (D. Miliband, Minister of State for School Standards, DfES).Opportunistic attempts have been made by successive governments to establish - some would say impose - sets of criteria against which the effectiveness of not-for-profit organisations like schools can be gauged. Most have been subjective: the extent of staff involvement in decision making, the appropriateness of the leadership shown by senior managers, the percentage of inspected classes regarded as ‘good’, and so on. Lately, UK government rhetoric, using a lexicon borrowed from Business and Economics, suggests a willingness to move to new systems of reportage; centred on improvement rather than blame, on critical friendship more than on confrontation. There appears no longer to be the puritanical tendency among policy-makers to adopt measures that cause pain in the belief that they alone can be right, but do they constitute (as critics like Thrupp suggest) a random collection of well-intentioned but poorly theorised policies, or can they be cogently conceptualised into a whole? Previously, improvement measures judged schooling simply, in terms of external stakeholder outcomes, but failed to capture the essence of what it was to be (or what it took to become) a successful improving school. This paper suggests that current government policy, whether knowingly or not, is essentially describing improvement from a different perspective - an internal perspective of ‘Intellectual Capital’. The paper knits together government policy statements on school improvement with a re-conceptualisation of Intellectual Capital specifically designed for schools, offering an imposed coherence to government policy that could potentially change the way we think about inspection

The misuses of sustainability: adult education, citizenship and the dead hand of neoliberalism

‘‘Sustainability’’ has a captivating but disingenuous simplicity: its meanings are complex, and have political and policy significance. Exploring the application of the term to adult education, this paper argues that a particular discourse of ‘‘sustainability’’ has become a common-sense, short-circuiting critical analysis and understanding of policy options. This ‘‘business discourse’’ of sustainability, strongly influenced by neoliberal ideas, encourages the presumption that educational programmes and movements which have died out were unsustainable, bound to fail, and even responsible – having failed to adapt – for their own demise. Potentially valuable experience is thus excluded from the educational policy canon. The author uses three cases from 20th-century adult education, namely (1) English liberal adult education; (2) ‘‘mass education’’, also known as community development, in the British colonies; and (3) UNESCO’s Fundamental Education, to challenge this presumption. He demonstrates for each case how a business discourse has implied their ‘‘unsustainability’’, but that the reality was more complex and involved external political intervention

Work Ethic

A work ehic is a value-based motivation for working. In the now developed world, three such values have been stressed over time: soial status, duty, and wealth or, simply, money. Craft pride has also been proffered but is increasingly a victim of automation. Each will be considered here. First, however, a few remarks about how socio-economic conditions influence a society's stance regarding one's obligation to work