Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Arms companies are making money by taking over UK schools

By Andrew Smith | Open Democracy | June 2, 2015

Corporations have already established a growing foothold in many UK schools, but the idea of Europe’s biggest arms company running a school still seems like something out of an Orwellian nightmare.

However, it may be about to happen in Barrow, Cumbria, where BAE Systems is on the verge of taking over the faltering Furness Academy. The proposal is currently going through due diligence before being opened to a consultation with stakeholders, parents and staff, where it is expected to be supported. If it is agreed, BAE will become the school’s sole sponsor later this year. They will also take responsibility for the ‘strategic direction’ of the school.

Education isn’t just about grades, it’s also about promoting values, informing perspectives and expanding minds. Could a weapons manufacturer ever act in the best interests of school children? How can a company that profits from international hostility ever be trusted to teach about areas like conflict resolution or the human cost of war?

BAE has a shameful, inglorious history of corruption and deals with dictators. It has been the subject of investigations across a number of countries and was fined $400 million in the US for bribery. It has also sold weapons to human rights abusers and dubious regimes across the world, including Saudi Arabia, Libya, Bahrain and Egypt.

Despite all of the ramifications for education, the move has been welcomed by local MP John Woodcock, who greeted it as a “really exciting” development. Furness Academy’s acting head called it “a fantastic opportunity.

Arms companies and schools

If education is a public good, should it be given away to big business? Arms companies already spend a lot of time and resources on infiltrating schools and trying to influence the curriculum.

One way they are doing this is through their marketing and promotional materials. Raytheon, an arms company that has been linked to the production of bombs used against Gaza last summer, hosts competitions for science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) students. Similarly, fighter jet manufacturer Boeing works with schools to design mock military planes and BAE runs a schools “ambassador” program, with the stated objective of improving its “corporate reputation at both a local and national level.”

Things will get worse this September, with the opening of a number of institutions that are directly tied to arms companies. These include South Wiltshire University Technical College, which will teach science and engineering to 14-18 year olds “in the context of the defence industries.” Its ‘sponsors’ include Chemring, which has been linked to the use of tear gas in Hong Kong and Egypt, and QinetiQ, which has applied for arms export licences to sell weapons to countries including Bahrain, Pakistan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Israel.

Although these arms companies are described as ‘sponsors’, their roles will include “helping to construct the curriculum”, allowing them to build “close links with students who will be potential future employees.”

The end goal for these companies is not to help produce an educated, questioning cohort of young people, it is to normalise their business practices and influence potentially impressionable young minds, while making a profit.

The militarisation of classrooms

All of this represents a worrying expansion of militarism into our schools, but it’s not the first sign of it. Forces Watch estimates that around 900,000 young people come into contact with the armed forces every year through their schools.

A disproportionate number of these students are those from disadvantaged backgrounds, which is where many of the resources are targeted. Some of this is done through recruitment fairs, and some through the government’s own ‘military ethos‘ programme, which brings military veterans into schools to “build character, resilience and grit in their pupils.”

The military also provides free support and resources for schools; these include promotional materials for classrooms and Armed Forces Day assembly plans for children as young as seven.

In simple terms the military wants to transform our schools into a recruitment ground. This is acknowledged by the head of army recruitment, who described army careers advisers as “skilled salesmen”, saying: “It starts with a seven-year-old boy seeing a parachutist at an air show and thinking, ‘That looks great.’ From then the army is trying to build interest by drip, drip, drip.”

As Turkish academic Serdar M. Değirmencioğlu has said: “Schools provide fertile ground for militarism: there is a captive audience, a comprehensive mandate, a hierarchical structure and a clear power differential between students and professionals.”

Groups such as Veterans for Peace and the Peace Education Network do crucial and invaluable work in promoting peace and non-violence in schools and countering the growth of youth militarisation by offering an alternative to the army’s pro-military messages. But neither has anywhere near the same level of access and support that is enjoyed by the armed forces or the arms industry.

What kind of education do we want?

Central to the debate is the wider question of what kind of values we want in our education system and what kind of future we want for young people.

Arms manufacturers would not commit to these kinds of programmes if it wasn’t profitable to do so. These companies may pay lip-service to encouraging critical thinking and promoting positive learning outcomes, but their shareholders will always be the main beneficiaries of any arrangement.

This kind of involvement gives them a chance to gloss over the human rights abuses they facilitate and to present themselves as legitimate businesses. It also gives them direct access to potential future employees and allows them to influence young people’s decisions and direction.

Schools are fundamental to our society. They are meant to be safer places for learning and should not be sold hotbeds for militarism and corporations. They exist to educate children and young people and to develop their ideas and understanding of the world. They should not be allowed to become training grounds for arms companies and those that profit from war.

June 6, 2015 - Posted by | Militarism |

2 Comments »

  1. Rubbish.
    What would you have?
    A continually poorly funded state schooling system that has failed millions and many generations or a privately sponsored system that will probably throw money at the school to make sure it doesn’t fail.

    That money that will mean kids will learn real trades and skills.
    Or would it just be better to teach them all how to claim state benefits?

    As for their arms and military association?
    The UK government sell more arms than goods to the rest of the world.
    It causes conflict and unrest and leaves wherever it “touches” in a worse state than it ever was.
    The same government that forces kids through the poor state system.
    The same system that churns out kids where joining the forces is preferable to living in poverty.

    On the other hand Oil firms who also sponsor education wreak havoc on the Eco system, and some religious groups who run schools seem to churn out nothing but radicals. Big business sponsors universities and some of them are REALLY good at churning out the worst sort of politicians and bankers let alone a good few terrorists.

    But that’s beside the point. My kids were educated in both military and the chemical industry supported schools.

    One went onto be a graphic designer, the other a nursing sister.
    Hardly “killer” occupations.

    Like

    Comment by thoughtfullyprepping | June 7, 2015 | Reply

    • Firstly, ‘schooling’ and ‘education’ are not the same thing. One is about controlling minds and manufacturing conformity and uniformity, while the other is about equipping someone (in this case a child) with the tools necessary to think and reason for themselves. You use the term schooling to refer to the system: that is correct because that is what we have.

      Secondly, we all pay enough in taxes, both direct and indirect, to enable the state to fund a proper system of education for all, while keeping state control of the curriculum limited. There is too much micro management of what exactly is covered. Our taxes would be better used to fund sound education than for destroying other countries, providing perks for corporations or inflated salaries to politicians and their cronies. There should never be a need or an opportunity for companies like this to have any control over our schools and, consequently, over how our children think (or not) and act.

      Thirdly, if I had it to do over again, I would opt for home schooling in order to minimise the influence other people can have over how my children develop, despite the fact that they have turned out to be great (working abroad) adults. I sure as hell wouldn’t let them attend a school run by an arms manufacturer. We should be trying to change the fact that governments sell more arms than other goods. Look at the state of the world, for goodness sake. And you want to give these people more influence!

      Schools aren’t responsible for people having to claim state benefits, btw. That is down to lack of prudent economic management by governments and the desire of corporations to maximise profits through offshoring. I believe it a deliberate policy to keep much of the population dependent. Control again.

      Like

      Comment by am | June 7, 2015 | Reply


Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.