According to the excellent Cato Institute blog, school choice is becoming a politically non-partisan issue in the US. I am not sure this is yet the case, but it definitely should be. It is certainly looking to be true over here – shown by the fact that the David Cameron's Conservative opposition are making school choice one the central pillars of their bid to win the next election. And it is hard to see him losing many votes on the issue.
Really, it should be no surprise that offering school choice is a non-partisan issue. The education of one’s children is one of the most crucial decisions a parent can make for their child. School choice means that the parent who believes in a classical school education, the parent who believes in more modern methods, and the parent who believes in home schooling are all on the same side of the issue. School choice requires competition between schools, of course, a fact that does not escapes many politicians, journalists and parents. But people seem to realize that more schools and more competition is a very good thing.
In Australia, the Labor leader Kevin Rudd is getting behind a few modest reforms that the previous Liberal-led John Howard government failed to get past the Labor state governments and teachers unions. We have seen in this country how Labour’s policy of establishing city academies has allowed those schools to innovate and tailor tuition to their pupils' needs. The growing demand from parents to send their children to them is the key indication of success.
At the ASI we have been at the forefront of this much needed revolution (see our education section). Next task – healthcare?
Discussion of school reform usually focuses on parental choice, and how the competitive pressures that creates can drive up standards. Less discussed, but equally important, is that the supply of schools has to be liberated too – something that features heavily in Michael Gove's Tory education plans. There's no point allowing people to choose a school if new providers can't enter the market easily to meet demand.
Even once you've introduced choice and freed up supply, there are some other aspects of reform that shouldn't be ignored. First of all, there's not much point in being able to choose from a wide-range of schools if they all have to follow the same government rules. In theory, the Tories 'New Academies' would (like Labour's 'City Academies') have no more curriculum requirements than independent schools. That is definitely a good thing – freedom from the national curriculum gives teachers the freedom to tailor tuition to their pupils, not Whitehall regulations and standardised tests. Care will just have to be taken to ensure that these schools' 'funding agreements' do not become too prescriptive.
Then there's the teachers. Schools should be able contract with them individually, setting pay and conditions as they see fit – that will allow them to attract the best people and get the most out of them. And contrary to what the unions seem to think (they are deeply opposed to such reforms), schools exist for the benefit of their pupils, not their staff.
Another important point is that the government's TeachFirst scheme (where high-quality graduates go straight into teaching after an intensive course, without having to go to a teacher training college) should be expanded. Lord Adonis, the Labour schools' minister, has said that he wants this to become the main route into the teaching profession. He is right – the scheme attracts more and better graduates, and prevents trainee teachers being indoctrinated by a left-wing educational establishment.
A recent headline in The Australian that caught my eye said, "Free market no place for unis". Apparently, a lobby group called Innovative Research Universities is worried about the role of public sector institutions and has demanded protection for public institutions because it claims private competition will be harmful to education.
Competition is a key aspect to providing quality, low-cost services to consumers. It makes the providers more efficient, forcing them to provide what is demanded and keeping costs down. But IRU says that competition will cause student fees to rise. And that just doesn’t make any sense.
The IRU also fears "greater homogenisation" because all institutions will focus on courses that are in high demand. But there isn't really a problem with institutions focusing on what is in demand, because what is in demand in terms of education is a reflection of what the economy demands in terms of its labour needs. After the introduction of computers to the workplace, the market demanded workers with knowledge about programming, development, design, etc and those courses became demanded in university and so universities provided them.
Finally the IRU is worried of "market failure". Well, yes, there are market failures, but they're usually better than the government failures that replace them. Too often government steps in 'to help' and distorts the messages about supply and demand, leading to false pricing and inefficiency. Education will always be a highly demanded good and if allowed to operate without excessive regulations should be just fine.
If IRU believes, as they say, that universities "are critically important" then they should start lobbying for goals that aren’t detrimental to the quality of education.
At university, I've heard people advised not to take economics because "it's just codified common sense." Be that as it may, people are quite bad at codifying and generalizing common sense when they aren't forced to, and the kind of common sense that economics deals with is fundamental to the functioning of society. That's why I was so depressed to read the following sentence on the BBC's website:
Only three economics teachers were trained on teacher training courses in the whole of England last year.
Three?! Out of 38.000 new teachers? No wonder Labour is in power. Right now, twice as many students study Media Studies as study economics, and economics' popularity is expected to dwindle with the number of teachers. The decline in popularity means that universities are also having a harder time getting students to study economics.
The more I hear the public discuss policy, the more convinced I am that the world would be a much better place if more people took the time to study economics. We all vote, and at least understanding the basic language of economics is crucial to making sense out of policy. A functioning democracy requires an informed citizenry. If economics continues to be neglected, I must say, I fear for the future...
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 Timessays, 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.
According to the excellent 
At university, I've heard people advised not to take economics because "it's just codified common sense." Be that as it may, people are quite bad at codifying and generalizing common sense when they aren't forced to, and the kind of common sense that economics deals with is fundamental to the functioning of society. That's why I was so depressed to read the .jpg)
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.
Dr Terence Kealey, vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham and a Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, had an .jpg)
On Tuesday, the Rector of a top UK university 
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.