Critics of choice in education should go back to school

5762

critics-of-choice-in-education-should-go-back-to-school

Writing in the TES, English teacher Julie Greenhough has a short article entitled ‘Why freedom of choice is often no freedom at all’. It is sympathetic towards a view that has recently been expressed by many working in education: that freedom doesn’t work.

Ms Greenhough opens with the classic ‘too much choice’ argument. Apparently, she didn’t buy a cup of tea because she was faced with too much choice. I suppose that is why shops don’t tend to sell thousands of different pots of jam or types tea for that matter. And this, I suppose, is the reason companies advertise and build up branding, as we don’t want to read the label of every product. Instead, we can draw on information from the market and get a free ride from even more advanced consumers. Variable pricing also transmits useful signals of this front, while feedback from friends, family, the media, as well as consumer oriented magazines and websites are part of the process.

Next there is a swipe at those supporting Swedish-style reforms in education. Ms Greenhough thinks the fact that we spend 5.6% of GDP and Sweden spends 7.1% of GDP on education is enough to cast the reforms aside as useless. Of course more money can help (up to a point), but it is far from the be all and end all of a good education system. If it were, Cuba would be twice as advanced in education as even Sweden and that is clearly not the case. In fact, the fact that the Swedish reforms have proved so successful – garnering increasing support from parents, pupils and politicians – suggests that we can see improvements without having to spend more money, a policy that surely deserves support from libertarians and socialists alike.

In the final part of the article, Ms Greenhough suggests that because more pupils have been achieving better grades, we are already seeing educational improvement. I wish this were the case. Recently Mick Waters claimed that the exam system is ‘diseased’. Although Mr Waters misdirects his ire at the wrong target – it is principally the fault of government regulation, not disreputable companies – there can be little doubt that the image he portrays is broadly accurate. Grades are being inflated and devalued as fast as the pound. Radical change is needed if this is to be reversed.

The US university alternative

5744

the-us-university-alternative

This Saturday is USA College Day, when over 100 US institutions hold an open day to recruit UK students. Held at Kensington Town Hall from 11 am to 4 pm, the event will feature stalls from 127 US universities, including top Ivy League ones.

The Telegraph reports a record demand from UK students. "In some cases," they report, "students are being tempted by generous bursaries and scholarships worth more than £20,000 that are not available in this country."

There may be several factors behind this rising demand, but two reasons stand out. UK higher education is inadequately and inappropriately financed. A huge increase in students wanting places has not been matched by a corresponding increase in the places available, leaving a record number of students, perhaps 180,000, failing to gain admission.

A second reason might arise from the discrimination practiced by some universities in favour of students from disadvantaged backgrounds with poorer A-level passes. Some students with As and even A*s who attended good schools have been rejected in favour of those from poorer schools with a few Bs among their scores. Rather than settle for universities they regard as second best, many of those denied admission to top UK universities have looked to illustrious US institutions instead.

It is obviously a good thing that access to US institutions gives the chance of a university education to more UK students, and gives talented students more chances of gaining a prestigious degree. It provides yet more evidence that the US model of university education featuring a mixture of state and private institutions seems to do a better job than the almost entirely public sector UK model.

There is an overwhelming case for turning UK universities into free-standing independent institutions no longer under state control, and of reforming the finance of higher education to make this possible. This is unlikely to please egalitarians who want universities to be instruments of social engineering, and it cannot be long before some of them come up with an alternative solution: that of making it illegal to study abroad.

Students know the value of education

5730

students-know-the-value-of-education

Researchers from the University of Leicester have surveyed students and found that “increasing tuition fees – even to £10,000 per year – would not significantly reduce applications for university in England.” This is hardly surprising, just on the basis of a cost-benefit-analysis, many courses would still open up the possibility of earning more throughout one’s career than the costs of paying for university. Of course, more than future earnings are taken into account, but it must be a significant factor in explaining the results.

It is also unsurprising that “[t]he survey shows that while the most prestigious universities would not lose applications from a fee increase, there would be much greater resistance to pay higher fees at new universities.” That there is some correlation between the prestige of a university and the amount that students are willing to pay is not headline news. That potential university graduates are hesitant about paying for a course that would not offer them the same opportunities is also to be expected. It would have been remarkable if the survey had found anything else. This is precisely why the price mechanism needs to be allowed to function, with different courses at different universities charging varying amounts, with all the feedback to customer and supplier that a more open market allows.

In response, NUS president, Aaron Porter claims ”Fees have always unfairly impacted those from poorer backgrounds”. He is not entirely wrong about the impact; people from poorer backgrounds are more likely to take courses that are currently less value for their money compared to those from wealthier backgrounds. Removing the cap might mean that the poorer will have to pay more, or they may choose not to go university at all. However, this just brings to light the fact that prior to university, many poorer students are not adequately taught by their schools to compete with those educated privately – and lets not forget that these schools are funded through general taxation, heavily regulated and run by the government.

Competition works: yes, even in education

5721

competition-works-yes-even-in-education

While the authors of The Spirit Level were wrong they did at least have an interesting theory. Which was that inequality is bad for everyone, not just for those being unequaled upon by society. As I say, they were wrong, but let us see if we can take the same basic idea, that x is better for everyone, and then see if those who swooned over The Spirit Level will support it. 

An interesting x to explore is the effect of private schooling upon general levels of education. We all know that going to a school where at least an attempt to teach something is better for the pupil than one where little to nothing is taught. Private schools certainly benefit those who go to them. Ah, but our lefty friends then tell us, but this leaves those left in the State schools worse off and that will never do.

But what if the existence of private schools makes all better off? What if the very fact that there is competition, examples of different ways of doing things, raises the standard of education for everyone, whether they go to private or State schools? For that does indeed seem to be the case as a paper in the Economic Journal shows (£ so no link). The essence of the finding, looking at a century of records over 29 countries is:

Countries with a higher proportion of students enrolled in private schools score higher on internationally comparable exams taken by 15 year olds. Cross-national research published in the Economic Journal shows that competition from private schools improves achievement for both state and private school students while decreasing overall spending on education.

For example, a 10% increase in enrolment in private schools improves a country’s mathematics test scores in PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) by almost half a year’s worth of learning. A 10% increase in private school enrolment also reduces total educational spending per student by over 5% of the OECD average.

Yes, competition works. No doubt all those currently opposing academies, even the very existence of private education, will now support them? For, as the man said, when the evidence changes I change my mind sir, what do you do?

Really free schools

5666

really-free-schools

At the ASI, we like the Government’s free schools policy. However, we agree with the outgoing chief of Ofsted’s comments that it would be more effective were private firms allowed to establish and run publically funded schools at a profit.

Here are two good reasons why:

1. Adding the profit-motive to the mix would bring a host of new providers into the free schools fold. From entrepreneurs to private schools, many people and organisations currently lack the incentive to establish or run free schools. Allowing them to make a profit will change this, directing new talent at the provision of state-education. The rationale for free schools policies is the truth that greater competition for pupils lifts standards. Permitting more (and more diverse) providers to compete, as in Sweden, lifts standards to greater heights. Whilst having third sector groups competing with the state is good, having the third sector, profit makers and the state all competing with each other is better.
2. Private firms are better placed than most parent, teacher and charitable groups to finance capital expenditures on new school buildings, etc. Encouraging them to provide this finance, by, shock-horror, allowing them to make a return on it, will improve the policy in two ways. First, it’ll ease its impact on the taxpayer, allowing more new schools to be established at less cost. Second, it will accelerate the creation of such schools. If their construction can be paid for privately, The Department for Education will not need to limit their number in line with its capital budget.

Despite these reasons, opposition to introducing the profit motive into state-education remains strong. It’s worth scrutinising two of the more common objections.

1. ‘Having firms profit from children’s education is wrong!’ Really? Let’s go back to basics for a second and consider why we have an education policy at all. A sensible answer is, unsurprisingly, in the name: to educate. It thus seems off the point to quibble about means; if we accept that private involvement with free schools will raise standards, it should not matter whether profits are made.
2. ‘Having firms take a slice of public funding as profit means that less money is spent educating the child than would be with state provision’ So far so true. If the state provides, say, £3000 per annum for a child’s education, the firm can only make a profit if it spends less than £3000 educating the child. However, we must be careful not to make the (rather New Labour) mistake of confusing money-in with education-out. Whilst profit-making firms may spend less per head than the state or voluntary groups educating the child, their expertise and greater incentive to minimise costs likely enable them to achieve better educational outcomes whilst spending less per child.

We have, then, a slight policy adjustment that would yield better results and isn’t all that objectionable. Come on Gove, let’s really set schools free.

It's all Greek to me

5658

its-all-greek-to-me

The BBC asked “Should British pupils give up studying French?” However, the key issue isn’t whether or not children should be learning French, but the fact that schools are encouraging children to take easier subjects so that the school scores well on the league tables. Crucially this is not always to the advantage of the children, especially if they plan to apply to elite universities.

Independent schools tend not to do this because their reputation requires that they take greater interest in their pupils. In contrast, many state schools are taking the easy way out. Without radical reform of the education system, the government will only be able to choose between the blunt tools of either compulsion or league tables. Both have undesirable unintended consequences.

Others in the article echo my point. For example, the language learning expert Paul Noble states that "the core reason is because pupils know French is difficult to pass, and difficult to get something out of it”, while Michel Monsauret, attache for education at the French Embassy in London, points out that subjects such as religious studies are on the increase because they are perceived to be easier. Mr Monsauret correctly states that “languages are taught more extensively at private schools in the UK, and their pupils go on to dominate places at Oxbridge and the other best universities."

Predictably the National University of Teachers (NUT) is appalled: “The policy drift on modern foreign languages is unforgivable”. Children, according to the NUT, aren’t adequately equipped for life in a global society. A bit rich coming from an organization set up to protect the interests of teachers even when against the benefits to parents and children; an organization that is the biggest impediment to reform. Asking the NUT what is best for children is like asking a turkey what should be eaten at Christmas – the goose will always be cooked.

Whether one’s child should be taught French, German, Cantonese or Chamicuro should be solely that of the parents. Of course, they will be limited by what is being offered, which is an argument for a dynamic and competitive system – one driven by the free market, not bureaucratic oversight. That learning a language involves no literature shows how bankrupt the teaching is many of our schools. As such, the lamentations of Aida Edemariam and others are frankly irrelevant.

The teaching of French – or lack of it – is symbolic of the wider failure of bureaucratic control of the education.

Interference with universities’ admissions policies is, frankly, unnecessary

5629

interference-with-universities-admissions-policies-is-frankly-unnecessary

In Sunday’s Telegraph, David Willetts, the Minister responsible for universities, suggested that universities aren’t doing enough to accept bright pupils from poorer backgrounds. He contests that many such pupils’ educational backgrounds prevent them from meeting the demanding offers set by the top universities and recommends offering them reserved places at lower grades than required by their better-off counterparts to correct this discrepancy between potential and places. Yet this solution seeks to address a discrepancy that does not exist. Willetts assumes that universities do not already consider an applicant’s potential when offering her a place when, in fact, they do.

The vast majority of universities offer students places based on three pieces of evidence: AS grades, personal statements and teacher references. Whilst the first is admittedly concerned with a candidate’s attainment, the others offer scope for the display of her potential. Personal statements are used to demonstrate her extra-curricular successes, motivations and interests, whilst teacher references highlight the student’s pace of development and attitude to her work. A standard UCAS form contains a multitude of measures of potential, all of which are considered before a university makes an individual offer.

Further means of assessing potential are utilised by Oxbridge and the Russell Group universities, presumably the targets of such a quota (no-one hears about London Metropolitan’s failures to further social mobility). Not only do they require the completion of entrance exams with a more IQ-test feel than the standard A level for some courses (such as the LNAT and BMAT), they also tend to invite applicants to interview for places. These give admissions tutors an opportunity to examine how candidates think, by subjecting them to a line of questioning designed to reveal thought processes. Were a candidate with mediocre AS levels to truly dazzle at interview, the university would have few qualms offering her a place, complete with realistic grade-requirement suitable to her educational background. Indeed, I’ve met people to whom exactly this has happened.

Universities already take the applicants whom possess the most potential. They have both the means to identify them and the incentive to reduce offers in line with personal circumstances; allowing the best candidates in can only raise the university’s position in the league tables. Universities do not need government instruction to act in their own best interest, and recruit the best applicants thereby.

Madsen Pirie on universities

5610

madsen-pirie-on-universities

Today, more than 100,000 students with decent grades, will begin the scrabble for the smallest number of clearing places in decades. Droves of young people will be turned away proving what everyone already knows: university finances are in a mess.

If you are subscribed to The Times, click here to read Madsen's solution.

Grade inflation

5602

grade-inflation

Bagehot asks the right questions.

A Level results: Funding reform

5599

a-level-results-funding-reform

It’s difficult not to feel sorry for those students receiving their A Level results this Thursday. Last year 3500 applicants who achieved three A grades were denied places while it is estimated that as many as 200,000 applicants may be turned down this year. If we wish to see more of our young people studying at university, we must acknowledge the need to fund a greater number of university places.

However, given the scale of Britain’s budget deficit, few people would be comfortable diverting more public funds to universities. This leaves private funding. While philanthropy is helpful, the size of the problem necessitates that students themselves must pay for any expansion of higher education. Fee increases seem the obvious source of funding. Unlike a graduate tax, fees are collected upfront. The shortage of places is an immediate problem. As such, it requires an immediate solution. An increase in fees can allow the expansion of university places to begin right away.

Furthermore, a fee increase would channel existing resources to those degrees that yield higher graduate premiums (i.e. those that are most valuable). Were fees to double, a three-year degree would cost the student about £21,000 (excluding the other private costs associated with university, such as accommodation). If the expected premium of a degree were less than this, it wouldn’t be worth applying for. Such degrees would thus be decreasingly taken up. Public funding for these degrees would be set free and could instead be spent increasing the number of places on degree courses that offer better returns to the student. Degree programmes that allow higher incomes to be commanded would be made more widely available whilst ‘Mickey Mouse degrees’, which do little good for those studying them, would be scaled back.

Increased tuition fees could do more than close the gap between applications and university places. They could do so in a way that doubly expands the availability of the most worthwhile degrees.