One facet of a totalitarian state

4965

one-facet-of-a-totalitarian-state

The facets that define a totalitarian state are often hard to discern; there is always the risk of pushing the argument too far, evoking unsuitable analogies with the fascist governments of the last century. Nevertheless, a spade is spade, and this story of the persecution of a German family point to a dangerous state of affairs.

After the police came knocking, dragging their children off to school, Uwe and Hannalore Romeike and their three children applied for, and were thankfully granted, asylum in the US. Their crime? Educating their children in their home, rather than at school. Judge Lawrence O. Burman, a federal immigration judge in Tennessee, determined that they had a reasonable fear of persecution for their beliefs if they returned. He described the German Government’s actions as “repellent to everything we believe as Americans”.

Germany is not alone. In Sweden, a coalition led by a so-called Liberal party is getting tough on homeschooling, with the proposed introduction of a bill that would only allow home education under extraordinary circumstances. It would also allow the imposition of criminal sanctions on those parents that refused to supplicate to the will of the state.

And in the UK, the government is ignoring the Schools Select Committee in its call to make the registration of home-educated children voluntary. The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) defends its position as follows: “we cannot understand the logic of making it voluntary”. I can help them answer their confusion: because these children are not owned by the state.

There is much talk of how under Obama the US is becoming a socialist dystopia. Sure, things are bad and getting worse, but as the asylum offered to the German home educators illustrates, they still have a fair way to fall before they hit the strictures on freedom infesting the Old World.

What makes the difference in education

4956

what-makes-the-difference-in-education

Miriam Rosen, the Executive Director of Ofsted was our Power Lunch guest this week. She outlined the schools regulator's way of working, which involves a lighter touch for good and outstanding schools and more emphasis on the less satisfactory ones.

There are 1001 things one can try in order to improve education – including spending hundreds of millions on new buildings, as Gordon brown has done. Sure, kids have to be treated as individuals and not statistics (which the obsession with exam results does not help either), and need a degree of discipline in order to learn anything. What seems to come out from Rosen's experience, though, is that what really makes the difference in education is good teachers and good teaching.

That chimes in with the work of James Tooley, who can point to countless excellent schools in Africa and India which do not even have buildings, with the teaching taking place under the shade of a tree. But if it's good teaching, it works – so much so that even the poorest parents are willing to pay for it.

But talent costs money. Many excellent teachers give up because they simply can't afford to live in some of the more affluent areas; and who wants to go to a failing school in a tough part of town unless they are decently rewarded? Naturally, the problem is the politicisation of education, in which remuneration is seen as an exercise in promoting equality rather than in steering talent to where it is needed (and telling non-talent that it isn't wanted, frankly). Until schools manage their own budgets and decide their own pay scales, I can't see things improving.

Kealey on universities

4943

kealey-on-universities

Terence Kealey sets out in The Times the reasons why universities should aspire to be free of the state. For more on this, read our recent publication by James Stanfield, The Broken University.

Balls vs. Johnson vs. Parents

4926

balls-vs-johnson-vs-parents

Boris Johnson says that he’d like to give "one almighty head-butt" to Ed Balls over the Minister's refusal to give more support to Latin classes in state schools. At its core, this spat is a case of two politicians fighting over what other people's children should be taught, and it demonstrates the folly of having a state-designed national curriculum.

Boris might have a point about Latin – it is central to European history and the basis of some of the world's great languages. It’s possible that Ed Balls might be right that his children would benefit more from spending their time dancing and learning about technology. But who is either of them to impose his beliefs onto how other people's children are taught?

We cannot know for sure whether Boris or Balls is correct. By imposing a one-size-fits-all plan in the shape of the national curriculum, the decision affects children across the country, often against their parent’s wishes. The only fair solution is to give parents a choice and giving schools the freedom to decide their own curriculums. This would encourage experimentation and take some power over other people’s children away from the government.

If Boris is right and children learning Latin do well, other parents would demand Latin classes for their children and the practice would spread. If Ed Balls is right and learning Latin is harmful, the practice would decline with much less damage having been done than if every student in the country had been forced to learn it. People like Boris Johnson would be free to choose Latin classes for their children, and people like Ed Balls would be free to choose dance and technology classes.

Both Johnson and Balls are wrong to think that they know how to educate other people's children. The debate around the national curriculum should centre one question: Who knows best for children – their parents, or Ed Balls and Boris Johnson?

What works in education reform

4920

what-works-in-education-reform

At lunch yesterday I met Anders Hultin, CEO of Gems Education in the UK, which is associated with the highly successful Konskapsskolan school chain in Sweden. So I was getting some good tips about what makes Sweden's school voucher system work. I thought I might pass on a few of them to the Tory schools spokesman Michael Gove MP, who wants to engineer the same supply-side revolution here. Though he probably knows it all already, but just can't say it because of political correctness.

In Sweden, the average cost of a municipal education follows the choices of parents. Even if they send their kid to a private school, that budget – about £6,500 – follows. To get the money, private schools are not allowed to charge top-up fees, and there is no academic selection. But it's easy to get a licence to enter this system, and 1,100 new schools have sprung up because of it. Most, about 800 of them (Gove please note), are profit-making. Many are small schools but in big chains (some with turnovers of £100m and more), which actually have a successful model for organising and running schools, and take that successful brand to one school after another.

Nor surprisingly, this supply-side revolution, a deregulation of the school sector, has brought plenty of new investment. In the UK it might cost £25m to set up a new school. In Sweden, it costs the state nothing, because parents, teachers, companies and others raise the money they need – and usually work out ways to do things far cheaper than the state can. And it works. the new schools have 20% better educational outcomes.

There seem to be four lessons from all of this. (1) Make it easy for new people to come in and provide education. Standards, yes, but allow people to start small, maybe renting empty office or warehouse space, rather than insisting that everything has to be built and run as the state builds and runs it. (2) Allow profit making, because that is what drives the investment and the risk-taking. (3) Don't keep subsidizing failure, but reward success. (4) Let people spread their success. That is what makes the Swedish system work: it's about knowing how to deliver education effectively, and taking that expertise far and wide.

If it’s broke...

4906

if-its-broke

Ian Craig, England's Chief Schools Adjudicator, has called on councils to make random checks on 10% of school applications to cut fraud and set up hotlines to catch parents who ‘cheat’ to get their children into their chosen school.

As it's only Mr Craig’s job to determine admissions arrangements, he really has only two options in the face of the estimated 4,200 fraudulent applications that were made in England: do nothing or act. In choosing the latter, he is advocating bringing in abhorrent impositions upon the freedom of the people of this country. This always happens when the state has a near monopoly on anything, fails to satisfy the demand, and people as a consequence dare to break the rules.

The real bogeyman in this instance is the Schools Secretary Ed Balls. He backs Mr Craig’s ideas. His defense of this position belies the failure of his government's approach to schooling:

While I am reassured that only a tiny minority of parents apply dishonestly, I am also clear that every place gained by deception is denying another child their rightful place.

Mr Balls' cake is only so big, so we can only have so many 'good' state schools: bad luck if you don't live in the right area.

And the following rhetorical twisting and turning shows that despite his best intentions, Mr Balls is ideologically up the proverbial creek without an intellectual paddle in sight:

No child should be punished for their parents' actions, but neither should families on waiting lists be unfairly disadvantaged or delayed.

I have not an ounce of bad will towards parents who lie about where they live in order to get their children into the best schools possible. These are taxpayers that have been let down by the government's failure to deliver an adequate education for their children.

I’ll end with a quote from a spokeswoman for the Local Government Association on this matter:

In an ideal world there would be no need to ask councils to investigate parents, because the system works best when everyone is honest and open in applying for school places.

What was it that Kant said about always treating people as ends in themselves, never as means to an end?

Taxpayer beware

4879

taxpayer-beware

Click here to read James Stanfield writing in Times Higher Education on his recently published report for the ASI: The Broken University.

New Report: The Broken University

4870

new-report-the-broken-university

The government must abolish the cap on university tuition fees, according to a new report from think tank the Adam Smith Institute. The Broken University, by academic and education expert James Stanfield, argues that if the UK is to be a world leader in the higher education in the 21st Century, all institutions must be free to sell their services at whatever price they choose.

Reforming higher education funding

In contrast to other recent proposals, Stanfield’s report emphatically rejects the idea of merely raising the cap on tuition fees, arguing that such a policy not only fails to recognize the independence of universities, but also completely overlooks the various malign consequences of the higher education sector not having a functioning price system. According to the report, capping tuition fees: 

· artificially increases the demand for university places

· causes students to value their education less, and therefore choose inappropriate courses or not work as hard

· results in less overall investment in higher education

· encourages universities to be less responsive to student needs

ASI Fellow, James Stanfield said:

There is a lot of talk about the importance of the universities in our new ‘knowledge economy’. But how effectively can any market work when the government is distorting prices to such an extent?

What politicians don’t realize is that tuition fees ought to send important signals about the relative value of different university courses, and help to co-ordinate the interests of students, universities, and future employers. By dictating what fees may be charged, the government is severely retarding the natural development of higher education.

The report goes on to propose reforms to public subsidy of higher education, calling for an end to the taxpayer subsidizing universities directly, with funding instead being channeled directly to students through an expanded student loans programme. Controversially, the report also suggests that loans be targeted at those students most in need of support, with loans to wealthier students limited to a set percentage of their university fees.

Executive Director of the Adam Smith Institute, Tom Clougherty, added:

The funding system outlined in the report would be a huge step forward. Ending the direct subsidy would empower students, because universities would be forced to treat them as paying customers. In the long run, it would also benefit universities since it would help them regain their independence from central government. And it would also benefit the taxpayer, by ensuring their money was used as effectively as possible.

Stanfield, however, is open about his longer term plans for higher education, making it clear that he believes the government’s £14.3bn subsidy ultimately acts as a transfer of income from the poor to the better off – “taxing the poor to help the rich get richer”, as he puts it – with little economic benefit. He recommends that the government adopt a clear 10-15 year timetable for winding down the government’s support of higher education, so as to give ample opportunity for universities to attract philanthropic donations and corporate sponsorship.

Making Britain a world leader in higher education

Stanfield’s report, which runs to more than 100 pages, also goes beyond university funding to look at the broader question of how to make UK higher education – which he regards as one of our most significant service industries for the future – more dynamic, competitive and entrepreneurial. The report stresses a number of key points:

· Firstly, the government must establish full freedom of entry into the higher education sector for fully private providers. This means ending the historic protection of the word ‘university’, as well as the role of the Privy Council in approving new institutions.

· Secondly, the government should extend those tax benefits currently enjoyed by charitable non-profit institutions to for-profit higher education providers.

· Thirdly, and most importantly, the government must restrict itself to a very limited role in higher education, promoting and stimulating competition rather planning or directing the sector, or using it to meet ‘national objectives’.

Stanfield concludes:

It is clear to me that the government’s involvement in higher education is doing far more harm than good. Despite the best intentions, government attempts to subsidize and centrally plan industrial sectors like steel, automobiles and telecommunications all failed miserably. Higher education is no different. It has the potential to become our most successful service industry and provide a vital boost to our economy – but that won’t happen unless the government is prepared to back off.

Click here for the report.

Press enquiries: 020 7222 4995

Gove's underwhelming revolution

4842

goves-underwhelming-revolution

Yesterday, the Shadow Schools Minister Michael Gove MP fielded questions on the website SchoolGate. I asked Mr. Gove if he would allow his proposed free schools to make a profit, seeing as the policy appears to have changed a number of times. Astonishingly, I was the only person in an hour-long session to ask a question about profit. All I got was a cryptic and unsatisfactory

"Dear Anton, Policy has been the same throughout - money spent on education should stay in education".

He is certainly wrong on one count: policy has changed. Before the last Conservative Party conference he very clearly stated that profit would not be allowed. Then he backtracked after the conference by saying that schools would be allowed to charge a "management fee". This was taken to be a signal that he would allow profit after all. The Conservative draft manifesto does not say anything on the subject, although companies and other for-profits are not mentioned as being able to set up a school under the plans. Following this latest answer, it's even less clear what he intends to do. A yes or no would have sufficed.

However, it now seems that Gove has completely abandoned the prospect of allowing for-profits. Publicly funded free schools will therefore experience disappointing take-up and will be nowhere near as revolutionary as had been hoped. Underwhelming take-up has been the principle criticism of the policy so far, and so the Conservatives would be playing right into their opponents' hands.

A further risk is that the policy will be so slow to take effect that a future government could easily reverse it. In Sweden, the Social Democrats, Labour's ideological brothers, have dropped their policy of abandoning the system due to its obvious effectiveness. In America, the very similar Charter Schools programme is likely to be expanded by the Obama administration. Even without profit-making allowed, the policy is significant in breaking open the government monopoly on state-funded education. But without profit, even this small victory risks being jeopardised.

Hands up for school choice

4821

hands-up-for-school-choice

A few years ago, relatives of mine in India mentioned that they were profiting from investing in new private schools. Contrasted with the bureaucratic nightmare that is Britain's school system, this came as something of a surprise.

The Conservatives plan to adopt Swedish-style school reform would enable exactly the sort of innovation that is rapidly improving Indian schools, but was yesterday attacked by The Independent. They claim that the improvements in Sweden were only due to the fact that school choice was totally non-existent beforehand. The UK, with its 'extensive school choice' (for those who lie about their religion, or have the money to move to a new catchment area/pay privately) would see minimal improvements.

The fact that choice and competition amongst UK schools are really at the embryonic stage was missed by the great minds at The Independent. Failing schools are still insulated from the effects of poor performance and are accountable, not to parents, but to government bureaucrats who dole out the money. In the Swedish school system, the parents control the money and hold schools to account.

The Independent argues that some parents would not be as effective as customers because they "[lack the] personal resources to access and understand information about school quality". If they can distinguish this from Sir Humphrey Appleby's claims that the intellectual superiority of civil servants makes them better at choosing schools than parents, I'd welcome their rebuttal. However, they will also have to explain why the most enthusiastic supporters of school voucher programs in America live in deprived inner city neighbourhoods.

Similarly, the authors argue that teachers and head-teachers are against the plan. What they go on to say is that the National Union of Teachers is against it, which is not exactly the same thing. This is an opportunity. Only teachers who aren't competent have anything to fear.

However, it is hardly surprising that teachers unions are not too keen on the school choice program. Their counterparts in the USA persuaded President Obama to abandon it in Washington DC. Of course Obama had the means to educate his children privately. The unions' line appears to be that competitive education is good for the wealthy but not the poor. The ASI's line is much more egalitarian.