Adam Smith Institute

I spent a lovely evening at the Waterstone's bookstore in Picadilly last night and enjoyed perusing Mr Jones' Rules for the Modern Man by Dylan Jones. As I read the table of contents, I noticed a chapter entitled "How to Fire Someone." Jones then outlined what he claimed was the complicated procedure of giving warnings--both written and verbal--and of notifying HR, recording bad behaviour, and keeping witnesses.

Little does he know how good he has it. According to a Times article:

Talking to one headmaster at a London school last week, he told me that his hands were tied. Getting rid of a poor teacher, he explained, was nigh on impossible. Even though parents had complained about one of his own members of his staff, he had done little because the process was long and arduous, created dischord in the school, and might not even work.

An anecdote from my own lovely education. My history teacher when I was 16 did nothing more than make us read our textbook. She never lectured, never taught--just told us to read. If someone spoke, she yelled. Our principal wanted to fire her, but was scared she would sue. After several years of poor performance, she assaulted a student. Finally the axe fell.

It should not be this hard! Are the students for the teacher or the teacher for the students? I love and respect the thousands upon thousands of truly excellent teachers. There is hardly a more dedicated and altruistic bunch. But making it difficult to fire protects teachers at the expense of children.

As things are, if children get stuck with the poor teacher, they just have to accept it.
 

Dr Terence Kealey, vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham and a Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, had an article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph responding to criticisms of British universities made by Peter Williams, chief executive of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), the QUANGO responsible for maintaining university standards. Kealey disputes his claim that universities are "rotten" basing grades on "arbitrary and unreliable", and says Williams would do better to focus on the real problem: namely, that students don't get enough contact with their teachers. The end of his article is particularly strong:

Williams is being political. The QAA is power-hungry and resents the autonomy our universities have retained in this target-driven world. He wants more bureaucracy and he wants his QAA to supply it.

The QAA is already too intrusive. The best universities are in America, yet American higher education bureaucracy is trivial. There are no external examiners at American universities, for example, and the US equivalents of the QAA are pussy cats - which is why American universities flourish.

The QAA and other bureaucracies damage higher education because universities flourish only by self-regulation. Universities do best when they are independent, because scholars are innately self-critical, so only when external agencies displace self-criticism with arbitrary ticks in boxes do standards slip.

It's the QAA, not our degree classification, that is arbitrary and unreliable.

On Tuesday, the Rector of a top UK university announced a new entrance test may be used to distinguish between applicants with high marks. Sir Richard Sykes, of Imperial College London, informed the Independent Schools Council’s annual conference that while applicants have four or five A-levels, "grade inflation" had "destroyed" the intended role A-levels have in measuring undergraduate acceptance. Surprisingly, 40% of those applicants receive private schooling, from a mere 7% of UK schools.

“We are doing this not because we don't believe in A-level but we cannot use A-levels any more as a discriminatory factor.” –Sir Richard Sykes

A-levels have received much criticism over the past few years, and rightly so. From the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)’s website, the Q&A section answers ‘How are A level grades set?’ with this:

“With great care. Criteria are set across particular grade boundaries and it is important that these criteria are met each year. Up until the mid-80s there were fixed percentages of students awarded grades with little variation from year to year… Whereas the system used since that time, called ‘criteria referencing’ is a much fairer system and it measures standards of achievement rather than fixed percentages.”

In the US, specialised postgraduate schools require an entry test based upon percentages. For example, the LSAT, and MCAT results state this percentage to distinguish the pupil’s rank in relation to their competition. Though undergraduate course quality will vary, individuals applying are expected to undertake a set coursework (pre-med, etc) and the tests. Furthermore, a report has been recently released by Reform demonstrating a significant decline in the standard of maths testing, with the steepest change since 1990.

Frankly, it’s about time a UK university started requiring entrance tests. Universities should not be forced to lower their expectations, nor bear any unnecessary risk for students whom are incapable of completing the coursework. The UK education system needs radical reform, including an open access scheme, much like the one proposed here. Until the government stops interfering and allows a rigorous school exaxmination system to develop independently, it will become increasingly common for applicants to be tested.

Angela Phillips is concerned about the possibility that the cap on universtiy fees might be raised. 

Should our world-class universities be allowed to operate like football clubs and raise entry fees in order to pay the higher wages it takes to attract the Beckhams of the academic establishment?

I for one would welcome an influx of monosyllabic academics who were actually good at what they do, yes, and if raising tuition fees is the only way to achieve it then I'm all for that plan. A little more seriously:

Are we really ready to contemplate the possibility that education is not about social justice and that we should save the best minds in the world to educate a bunch of bankers and lawyers? Because that what we are talking about if we allow a market to develop in higher education.

No, education isn't about social justice: it might be a means of achieving some but that's a by product. The aim of education is, as the very word itself implies, to educate people, no, not just for the economic value of their subsequent output, but in the sense of aiding in the development of the full and rounded personality. The liberation of the whole human being if you wish. However, before I get accused of being a little too New Age in my outlook, this doesn't mean that fees should not be uncapped.

The people who benefit from the higher education system are those who go through it: not just in the higher rewards that some of them get in the jobs market, but in that greater appreciation of life which a rounded education will aid. Just as it should be the polluter who pays, so should it be those who benefit who pay. In this case the soon-to-be graduates should pay for the costs of the system which provides then with the benefits that graduation will bring.

The only alternative is that higher education be paid for from the tax system - and it's very difficult to see a moral argument that those who do not benefit from having graduated should have to pay the costs of the system which benefits those who do.

Free the fees and not just allow but encourage a market to develop in higher education. As I've said before, there are things which are simply to important for them to be excluded from the market.

Seriously, start with a blank page and ask yourself what we actually desire in a school system? This would be a good start of course:

The country that came top of the Unicef report and did consistently well in the international league tables was...

Yes, all in favour of that, being one of the best in the world means that you're at least doing things better than many, perhaps as well as it can actually be done.

But what it really means is that parents don't snare themselves in mortgages to get into catchment areas they can't afford, or pay expensive school fees or face the humiliation of having to rediscover a lapsed faith.

Yes, that sounds like something to be desired as well: not having to face financial ruin simply to educate the ankle-biters would appeal to most.

There is choice though, and ... children are in the upper quartile of the international tables, which might help explain why the ... is rated as the best place for a child to grow up in the developed world.

Oh, my, yes, that does sound like a good idea. So, how is this done then? What's the magic secret here? Clearly it's going to cost a fortune, yes?

If we want better schools for our children we need to spend more money, don't we? Well actually, no.(....) The surprising answer is that their results have nothing to do with money – in fact, they're spending quite a lot less than we are.

Really? Better schools, better education, the best place in the world to grow up, and it costs less money? Where? How?

They can choose whichever school will suit their child best. Not all parents make an active choice but enough do to influence the standard of schools everywhere. All this is based on the fact that parental choice in education is a part of the Dutch constitution. It assumes that one size does not fit all.

Yes, it's Holland, the Netherlands. The how is that they have a variation of the voucher system that we argue for here at the ASI. The parents choose the school, any one of them that they wish subject to minimal licencing requirements and the government pays the bills. Yes, top up fees are allowed, parents making that decision for themselves as well. We might also note that the Netherlands is a great deal more egalitarian than the UK and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it has greater social mobility as well (for those who worry about such things).

Engineers have a saying that you can have "better, faster, cheaper, pick any two" for you can't have all three. But it appears that we run our current education system so appallingly badly that we can indeed make it better, fairer and cheaper.

So why is there anyone at all who opposes such voucher systems?

According to Shadow Universities Secretary David Willets, the government's new £165 million package of student support will disproportionately benefit middle-class students and do little to help the poor.

As The Times says, the reforms are meant to encourage more working class students into higher education by providing a "means-tested student maintenance grant, which covers living costs but not fees" and which "will be available to students whose parents earn up to £60,000. Previously the cap was £39,305." Willets says that the most affluent families will gain £150m from the scheme, while those from poorer families will only gain £15m.

I can't say whether Willets' sums are right, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were. State-financed universities have always represented a particularly perverse kind of redistribution of wealth – from the working poor to the unproductive offspring of the middle and upper classes. Essentially, people on low incomes who didn't go to university (and whose children probably won't either) pay taxes so that better-off kids can lounge around for three years at someone else's expense. The costs of university do not fall only the beneficiaries of higher education, then, but on taxpayers at large.

I'd like to see British higher education given a substantial overhaul. First of all, universities should be freed from state control and allowed to charge fees as they see fit, but helped (through the tax system) to establish endowment funds to support poorer students. 

To meet any gaps in funding, the government-backed student loans system could be expanded, with loans gradually paid back as students become taxpayers. Such a system would ensure that anyone able to go to university could afford to go to university – but knowing they would eventually be footing the bill, young people would be encouraged to work hard and pursue useful degrees that would boost their future earning power. Turning students into paying customers would also make them demand a higher standard of education than they currently settle for.

Introducing these reforms would certainly not be easy, but the benefits would justify the effort.

Wednesday's Times carried the story that demand for places at independent schools is at its highest in five years, despite above inflation rises in fees and the worsening economic situation. Yesterday's Times reported that thousands of children are set to miss out on their first choice state primary school this year – in some places as many as a quarter of students are to be disappointed. These two pieces of news are not unrelated.

Parents care about where their child goes to school, and want the best for them. In increasing numbers, they are realizing that the state system cannot deliver this and are turning to the private sector instead. Of course, that's fine for families who can afford to pay an average £11,000 a year in fees, but it does leave the less advantaged in a bit of a pickle. They probably cant afford to move into the catchment area of a good state school or pay to go private. They will be stuck with the school they are allocated to by their local authority, regardless of how bad it is.

It doesn't have to be like this. First of all, there are things you can do to improve standards in existing schools. Give them the freedom from regulation and targets that they need to innovate and tailor teaching to the pupils in front of them. Put headteachers back in charge of discipline and expulsions and let them deal with staff pay, using incentives if they want to. Then make them accountable to parents, not bureaucrats.

And that means giving parents a real and effective choice over where to send their children. As in Sweden, the independent sector needs to be encouraged to open more schools, which would be eligible for state-funding on a per-capita basis. As in Denmark, groups of parents should be able to group together, demand their share of state funding, and set up their own schools. The real key here is to create many more good school places, so that the competitive pressures of parent choice can truly be effective. 
 

Last week lots of teachers went on strike because they thought the 2.4 percent pay rise they were being offered by the government was not enough (the NUT wanted 10 percent). Even though only one in four of the teachers' unions called the strike, with only a quarter of the NUT voting in favour and only one in ten teachers supporting it, 5000 schools were closed and 4,500 had their classes disrupted. And this with exams fast approaching.

I liked Alice Thompson's take on this in Friday's Telegraph:

Here's a really good lesson, one I am sure you will all want your children to learn. If you don't like having to eat salad or you don't feel like discussing frogspawn in biology, if you hate swimming or think it is unfair to have Double Maths on a Monday morning, then go on strike. It's easy: just sit on your desk and refuse to move, or don't come in at all - go shopping or play football instead. If the teachers complain, you can explain that it is the only way you can get your point across, that nothing ever happens through negotiation, and confrontation is the best way forward.

If the head teacher tells you that these are the rules and that the majority of pupils abide by them, stick two fingers up. Why shouldn't you disrupt everyone else's lives? If you don't look after yourself, no one else will. The more attention you draw to yourself, the better. Get the camera crews in, parade up and down the high street. It doesn't matter if most of the other pupils want to negotiate a deal to have chips instead of salad one day a week, or change Double Maths to a Tuesday. That would be a pathetic compromise

To be honest, some teachers definitely do deserve more money. They do a tough and vitally important job. But on the other hand, some teachers don't even deserve the money they're getting at the moment. In a sensible system, teachers' pay would be decided by each individual school, who would factor local living expenses, the teacher's qualifications and perhaps their performance into the salary.  Yet because education is nationalized, so is pay-bargaining, meaning everyone has to get the same pay rise. And so we get national strikes when that rise isn't high enough.

It's yet another reason why we need a localised education voucher system like the one in Sweden. Our recent report, Open Access for UK Schools, tells you everthing you need to know.    

There was a protest across the road from the ASI last night. Not directed at us, but rather at our neighbours, the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

There is plenty to protest about. Like the fact that Britain has plummeted down the international league tables of school performance in maths, literacy and science. Or the fact that 350,000 pupils a year fail to get five good GCSEs including maths and English. Or even the fact that children in deprived areas do far worse than those in wealthy ones, with the gap growing wider.

But the protestors weren’t there about that. They were protesting about one of the good things the department is doing – its city academies programme. More specifically, they were protesting against the new academy which is due to replace Pimlico School in September. Frankly, their opposition puzzles me.

After all, city academies (independently run state schools) do much better than the schools they replace. Their test scores and GCSE results are improving much faster than the national average, even though they admit more pupils with special educational needs or eligible for free school meals than their area average. Most tellingly, existing academies are three times oversubscribed, which is to say a lot of parents want to send their kids to them (a good indicator of quality, in my opinion).

The funny thing is, the reason the protestors don't like academies is also the main reason for their success: they are free from local authority control. They have more power to shape their own curriculum, to hire and reward staff, and to deal with unruly pupils than do other state schools. Rather than being weighed down by rules and regulations, they can innovate and tailor tuition to their pupils' needs.

Academies are not perfect, of course. They should be even freer from the state. They should focus less on fancy new buildings and more on teaching. Most importantly, they should be much easier to set up, so that more children get to attend them. But whatever the protestors say, the country needs more academies, not less.
 

66. "Schools should provide our children a risk-free environment."

There is no such thing as a risk-free environment. There are degrees of risk and there are ways of managing risk. Growing up is not a risk-free zone. Children learn by making mistakes. They hurt themselves and each other at play. Each day has its coterie of bumps and bruises and grazes. On more serious occasions bones are broken.

Schools cannot be risk-free. They have hard surfaces and corners, desks and chairs. They feature sports and games. Children will injure themselves. There is a balance to be struck between recklessly exposing children to potential dangers and maintaining such tight controls that they have no independence or learning experience. Schools which ban marbles because people might slip on them or swallow them, or which ban conkers because a child might get struck by one, are in effect banning part of childhood.

The attempt to be risk-free leads schools to abandon foreign visits such as ski trips, and adventure holidays such as canoeing or camping. Even educational visits can be banned because of the risk of traffic accidents en route. None of this does the children any favours. It denies them learning experiences, and it even denies them the carefree fun and excitement that childhood should involve.

Part of the problem is the litigation culture which assumes that everything that happens is somebody's fault, and that someone has to pay every time any child is injured. Part of it is the health and safety bureaucracy seeking to cover itself. Anything that happens will be laid at its door, so its officials seek to anticipate all eventualities and allow nothing that could come back at them. They try to make schools places where no-one has cause to sue, or to blame health and safety officers for failing to anticipate accidents. In doing so they make schools unfit for children. Schools, like childhood itself, cannot be risk free.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the UK's new school admissions policy, it will be a political disaster.

At present, middle class parents get their kids into good state schools by moving into the catchment areas of the best ones. So the plan is to allocate school places by lottery rather than catchment, so that poorer parents have an equal chance (and so that schools would get a wider social mix too).

While the parents whose kids get into good schools under this scheme will be pleased, they won't exactly be marching on City Hall to express their pleasure. But the middle-class parents whose kids don't get into nearby good schools will be absolutely furious, and campaigning in their thousands. And poorer parents whose kids don't get into their preferred nearby school will be marching alongside them.

And whatever the merits of the policy, its inevitable result is that kids will have to travel longer distances to get to school. That means they are going to be walking or cycling greater distances along busy streets, and (come winter) more are going to get killed or injured. Already there is a spike in road fatalities around the age of eleven, when kids transfer from their neighbourhood primary schools to the more distant secondary schools. The first case of a kid being killed on one of these forced cycle trips will get the media, and parents, baying for ministers' blood.

A better policy would focus on incentivizing state schools to improve, not rationing them by throwing dice. For some ideas, ministers should check here.

52. "Schooling should seek to make children equal."

The trouble with notions such as this is that they end up by restraining the talented. Children are not equal. Some are cleverer, some are stronger, some are faster. Some have musical talent, some linguistic and some mathematical. Any attempt to impose an artificial equality on them inevitably reduces down to the lowest common denominator.

Equality is not a good thing in itself. Diversity is. People of different talents will do different things, and be of service to their fellow men and women in different ways. It should be the aim of schooling to try to avoid any waste of talent, to bring out in each child the maximum of his or her potential. This is not achieved by pretending that everyone is equal, and by denying the talented any recognition.

Children might be equally worthy of consideration as individuals; they might be equally entitled to fair treatment. They are done no service, however, if they are taught that a poor performance is the same as an excellent one. Schools which avoid competitive sports or prize-giving ceremonies do their children no favours. The real world outside school is not like that, and they will be ill-prepared for it.

Even equality of opportunity has its limits. Some children will have more thoughtful or more loving parents. Some will have educational opportunities for foreign travel because their parents choose such holidays. Others will have more access to books because their parents keep them about the house. The ultimate logic of total equality of opportunity is the state battery farm. It is, however, a worthwhile goal for society to try to develop the potential of each child, and not to discriminate against any particular groups.

If children are diverse in their talents and abilities, then schooling itself should be diverse, enabling the parents of each child to find an education suited to it.

48. "A university or college education is a public good that society should pay for."

There's truth in the first part of this. Most of us prefer a society with educated people in it, and benefit from it. Educated people can provide services for us, and create the jobs and wealth for the future. They often also add a certain civility which enhances the lives of others.

But they already have access to the rewards of their own education. The main beneficiary of education is the recipient, directly and in measurable ways. The university or college graduate has access to a greater range of fulfilling career opportunities, and has access to much better paying jobs than their uneducated or untrained counterpart. Those who pay towards their education make one of life's very best investments – it repays them many times over in money as well as opportunity.

Someone has to pay for tertiary education. Lecturers have to be paid, buildings and facilities maintained. If this is paid out of taxation, it means that taxpayers in general pay for it, rather than just the beneficiaries of it. It means that the person who leaves school to become a casual labourer is paying higher taxes so that someone who is already better intellectually endowed will have access to better jobs and a higher income for life.

UK university education used to be "free". No tuition was charged and students were given a living allowance to support them. It was a luxury product that could only be given to one in twenty of the age group. Now students have to support themselves with the help of loans, and contribute to the costs of their education. It is much less of a luxury, and one that nearly half the age group can have access to. Education is indeed a good, and should be as widely available as possible.