- Latest Blog Post: The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. by Tabman
- Latest Comment: Xdxaepcz on Is the BBC hurting British politics?
Subscribe to our RSS feed here
PAUL MARSHALL says we must raise our game …
Why does our party have credibility on the environment and not on education? In the last General Election, according to MORI polling, Lib Dem policies scored highly with the public (ie higher than Labour or the Conservatives) on only two issues, Iraq and the environment. We came second on transport. On all other issues, including education, we trailed
in third.
Our poll ratings on education were particularly frustrating. Only 16 percent of those polled by
MORI thought we had the best policies, compared with 35 percent for Labour and 20 percent for
the Tories.
In fact, the party has never had real branding power on education. In 1992 our commitment to an extra 1p on the standard rate of tax to fund greater education spending lifted our rating on the issue to 19 pct, the highest we have achieved in the past 15 years. Since then we have languished in the low teens.
Nobody should underestimate the difficulty, as the third party, of achieving high poll ratings. But if we are to score well in any field after the environment, surely it should be education. For many of us, education is at the heart of our vision for an equal opportunity society. It can be the centrepiece of our alternative to Gordon Brown’s dependency society – “a hand up, not a hand out�. And it is an issue which resonates hugely with our core supporters, not least in the university towns.
There is no magic formula for credibility on education. But I believe we have to start by finding ways to demonstrate just how much of a priority it is for us. And then we need to show that we are a
party which is brimming over with new ideas.
An easy (and cheap) way of showing that education is a priority would be to borrow from our environmental approach and include an educational commitment in each policy silo of the manifesto. It is obvious why education and skills should be central to our strategy on the economy. But equally, educating criminals is a key part of our strategy for prison reform, citizenship training is vital to building bridges between communities, schools can play a vital part in changing attitudes to the environment, pensions, anti-social behaviour etc., and the curriculum developed accordingly.
These are easy wins. The harder ‘priority’ question is how much our country should spend on education. Tony Blair has addressed some of the Tory-years shortfall in education spending, and we are now spending slightly above the OECD average as a share of GDP. But there is a strong case that we should be spending more than this. Countries like Finland and South Korea have demonstrated what can be achieved when education is explicitly made a government priority. And if we are to compete in the skills race we need to spend accordingly.
This is not an argument for tax and spend – tax and spend damages credibility. But it is an argument
for ‘save and spend’. Let’s find savings elsewhere to spend more
on education.
Tony Blair has demonstrated that more spending alone is not enough to really shift the needle on education. We need new ideas too – so here are a few:
l Let’s champion education for the under 5s. Britain gives more public subsidy to university students than we do to the under ‘5s, despite much evidence that early years education will make an (even) bigger difference to life chances. Why not turn the working families’ tax credit into a voucher for early years education?
l Let’s really open up the debate on deprivation funding by making funding follow the pupil (as we agreed at Harrogate) but with much wider differentials than currently exist. Why shouldn’t pupils from the most deprived backgrounds get the same level of funding (£8000 p.a.) as those at private schools?
l And let’s lead a crusade against the appalling levels of illiteracy and innumeracy in our schools. The starting point here should be a more flexible curriculum – recognising that children in Southwark have completely different needs from children in Cheadle and allowing teachers in deprived communities to focus on the basics of English and maths for as long as it takes.
Education is where social justice meets economic efficiency. We should make it our issue.
Paul Marshall is Chair of CentreForum
(Thanks to Liberal Democrat News for this article. You can subscribe to Liberal Democrat News here.)
This is pretty poor stuff. The lesson of the last ten years has been that the problem is nothing to do with lack of money and everything to do with the fact that we have a state monopoly on provision. You clearly recognise this. Why then are you demanding still more money?
Your "new ideas" are not going to set the world on fire are they? Spend a bit more here, a bit less there. A crusade against illiteracy? Haven't you noticed that we've already had one? Literacy hours anyone?
I'm sorry but you really are going to have to justify the continued existence of the state monopoly. Everything you suggest as a solution to the problems of the education system could be accepted by the Labour party. What is the point of the Liberal Democrats if their ideas are just more socialism?
Perhaps Paul Marshall hasn't heard of Childcare Vouchers which give parents a tax break on £243 per week of any form of registered under 5s care and education they choose, the National Education Grant for three and four year olds which gives each child £500 per term of free education (currently planned to be extended to two year olds) or the Childcare Accessability Programme which makes childcare more affordable for middle income earners who can't afford the fees of most private nurseries but are exempt from accessing the state provision?
There are many ways in which childcare is financed without having to throw more money at the problem. A better solution for the future would be to give more financial incentives to employers to help their working parents, which would have the added benefit of rejuvinating the workforce and aiding staff retention.
Tiffany, as someone who uses childcare vouchers I can testify to the benefit they bring. Our nursery is excellent and the one we would have chosen anyway, but being able to part fund this way is a bonus.
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
Co-payment is now an established part of both pre-school and university education. I am coming round to the view that it might be extended within the state school system, though I think a top-up preferable to the introduction of a voucher system to allocate existing funding.
Simon
Why only a top-up?
Bishop, to answer: because I'd like to see the provision of state education get better for the mass of people who will continue primarily to rely on the state sector, rather than to provide a subsidy for those who are already the users of education outside the state system. As it seems to me, a top-up is a way of increasing funding for state schools, while vouchers are a way of either (a) allocating funding within an education system or (b) a way of funding being transferred to the private education sector. Neither (a) nor (b) increase funding per capita for school children.
As it seems to me, those who are opposed to the expansion of the state (such as yourself, Bishop) should refrain from supporting vouchers because it increases the leverage that the Government will have over private schools. It is a slender definition of the state that only includes funding - "the state" in its fullest sense also includes the regulations and policy contraints within which people or organisations operate. Private schools are subject to such state involvement already, and should beware of tha maxim that he who pays the piper calls the tune. As I see it, vouchers that can be redeemed in fee-paying schools as well state schools extend state control, while a financial top-up to state schools direct from parents will increase parental control, involvement, accountability and influence over schools. As a general rule I'm against the former and for the latter, but doubly so in this case because the former comes with a potential real-terms cut in funding per head (for children in the state sector) - effectively a subsidy for the rich.
OK, I see what you mean. I think what you propose would deal with some of the issues that schools have, by creating a direct financial link between producer and consumer. I'm not sure that people will take kindly to be asked to fork out more cash for a service they have already paid for via their taxes though. And unless the amount is significant there will not be a strong incentive for schools to respond to consumer demands. The childcare schemes have worked because most of the costs are paid by consumers still.
It's worth also saying that lack of funding is not the problem with the UK schooling system. I can't remember the figures but state spend per pupil is not far short of average day fees in private schools.
Your point about capture of the private providers by the government is a good one. It's another reason to keep the value of the private contribution high as a proportion of the total cost, or better still, to get the government to only involve itself with the poorest. This was, of course why the government got involved in education in the first place and the sooner they go back to this kind of limited involvement, the better.
I think you also miss the point about what all this should achieve. The objective surely has to be to rid of the state monopoly (or near-monopoly)in education. Everyone should be going to a private school. There are only a few idealogues who think that state education is better than private education. Anyone who can afford it goes private don't they? So let's stop kidding ourselves that we just need more cash or different curricula and work out how to get everyone into a private school.
Simon,
Be they state schools, or not, your plan to allow parents to top-up the funding from their own pocket is a recipe for (even more) large scale inequality in the education sector. Funding levels would rise in the rich areas as compared to the poor areas.
Given the relative difficulties that kids from less well-to-do homes have compared to their wealthier contemporaries, it seems to me we should be thinking of ways to make their schooling experience better - for the purpose of equalising "life chances". Your proposal would almost certainly take us in the exact opposite direction, I'm afraid.
I also find it strange that you would not countenance vouchers that can be topped-up as this would provide a subsidy (compared to the status quo) for privately educated children, but you are willing to allow the wealthy to gain from a very similar subsidy in state schools. Is it not the issue of inequality that bothers you about the subsidy to the private school-goers, then?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for choice and even vouchers, but I draw the line at top-ups.
I come down in favour of vouchers. Competition drives up standards, it's as simple as that.
Top-ups confuse me a little; presumably schools could set top-up fees and you can't get your kids into the school without paying it? Even if you're poor enough to qualify for government assistance?
If the government does match the top-ups for poor kids, what happens to those in the middle who can't afford large top-ups, but don't qualify for government assistance either?
If schools could determine their own top-up levels, and the government were to commit to paying those top-ups for (a subset of all) students, that would amount to a blank cheque for schools, as far as I can tell.
Guys, you're getting bogged down with specifics and mechanics (and I can understand why - the devil tends to be in the detail), but my point was one of principle not a worked policy.
However, I do not think it beyond the realm of possibility to allow PTAs to voluntarily and democratically (through a ballot of parents) opt to levy a small charge - perhaps based round means - on the parents of children. Means testing already goes on in the private sector to a degree and personal financial circumstances can be taken into consideration. I see no reason why state schools could not make a similar charge.
I think the important thing to note here is that the "top" state schools already do this. A friend who works for a successful state school (a community school) told me that parents are repeatedly sent direct-debit forms and are encouraged to contribute financially to the school's "Trust" until they do so. Peer pressure (from other parents) and institutional expectation normalise this process. Another friend told me of a similar situation in a similarly successful school - and explained that the funds generated are used for added extras, irregular costs, and special provision which augment the pupils experience of the school - adding to the sense of ethos, community and it being a dynamic educational environment.
Now, you might well ask what is to happen to schools where the parents do not vote for top-ups, or vote to have them but are, on the whole, too poor to contribute to the same extent. This is a problem, possibly alleviated by special grants from govenment (targetting the poorest schools), or possibly simply accepted as being a negative result of an overall beneficial enhancement to most schools. It certainly may be no worse than the current situation where the rich opt out of the system entirely and the richer middle classes within already augment the state system.
To address the rather different points made by Bishop and Tim. I certainly would not advocate rising inequality in schools: I think that more has to be done to break middle class monopolies on good state schools - and in this sense I support some of the measures mooted in the Government's recent rather incoherent Education Bill. Parents would still be incentivised to vote for a top-up, with the children of poorer parents free-riding on the back of middle class self-interest. That's tackling inequality.
Secondly, the reason I do not support vouchers that could be topped up is that this would result in a subsidy to a sector that already thrives on its own and a bung to people who are already wealthy enough to opt out of the state sector. Since this would dramatically increase the cost to Government of education without improving the education of the mass of people who still would be forced by financial neccesity to use the state sector, I am opposed to such a measure. Does that mean that people whose children in the private sector are missing out on state funding that they might notionally deserve as the offspring of taxpayers? Yes. And tough. If the rich think they are losing out, they can always re-enter the state sector, pay their top-up, and their children will benefit from a decent education in a socially plural educational environment.
Finally, to address Rob's point - I do not believe that competition neccessarily drives up standards. It drives up efficiency relating to the regulatory framework designed to calibrate success, and/or (financially) the efficieny of the allocation of resources in education. To take the first - the use of League Tables as a measure of success has created a classical reflexive repsonse where teachers respond to what the tables say is "success". Grade inflation, the increase in coursework (hat-tip to Steve - I think you are right, now) which is more controllable by parents and teachers are all responses to measures of success which might (or might not) have little to do with any objective measure of educational achievement. Similarly, the financial allocation of resources via vouchers may be efficient in terms of the boundedly rational choice exercised by (only some) parents, but as this is in relation to indicators that may themselves be a faulty measure of educational success, there is no guarantee that overall standards will rise.
By the way, as I understand it, top-ups already exist in Australia. I am to go there shortly and will endeavour to find out more....
Enjoyed a lot!
You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it http://www.aluminiumfishingboat.info http://www.healthinsurancecalifornia2.info/must_california_employers_off_room_mate_health_ins.html http://www.eczema-in-dogs.info http://www.platinum-jewelry-7.info/women_s_diamond_ring_with_antiquing.html http://www.eczema-in-dogs.info/da-eczema-toshiba-tv.html http://meridia-2940.s5.com/Penis-enlargement-pill-zdd-ionamin.html http://www.eczema-in-dogs.info/eczema-sebaceo-etiologia.html http://www.hondacivichx.info
Spam, glorious spam!
oberon2001.blogspot.com
uklawstudent.blogspot.com