Parent power

mart

Only if the market works properly, and provides enough supply of good quality "product". What if, in a given area, it does not? The "market" in education provision then cannot be guarantor of quality. It can't even guarantee sufficient quantity. If this is what Richards was getting at, then he's on to something. The market-will-sort-it-all-out philosophy might just fail some people some of the time. Then who will people blame - the government. Who will receive the complaints - the MPs. And they will be duty-bound to raise the problems in Parliament. Really, I think increasing the amount and diversity of supply is theoretically a good thing. But problems have to be thought through and solved before they happen. Have they been? Then I humbly apologise - and could you supply a reference to where it's been solved? Thanks

Dave B

I think Mr Richards makes an important point:

"It is a myth that they [acadamies] float entirely free. The introduction of academies marks a shift away from local authorities to the centre. "

The Conservatives plans for new schools, are for schools funded by a direct grant from central government. More centralisation.

Writing on ConservativeHome Reform's Andrew Haldenby said:

"Per Unckel, the Swedish Minister who led their school reforms, explained at a Reform conference in 2004, his first step was to make education entirely a matter for local government."

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2007/11/sam-freedman-co.html

It's possible that the Conservatives will amend their plans in the future, to reduce central government control.

I prefer the Direct Democracy funding proposal of granting parents the right to opt-out of Local Gov't schools, and instead receive, from their local gov't, the equivalent funding to be spent at the school of their choice.

http://www.douglascarswell.co.uk/files/pdf_pdf_17.pdf

Chris Gilmour

Surely what's more likely to happen is that any school that isn't up to scratch is going to find itself with only pupils who's parents don't really give a crap.

London Calling

I can see where all this is going and its not the
solution, its like taking a square peg and trying to fit it in a round hole.
I think we need to go back in time and remember just what it was that made a good school?, instead of just concentrating on the ofsted reports and exam results.
A good school is known by the company it keeps, well behaved pupils, quality teaching and governed efficiently, but instead we have badly behaved pupils, poor quality teaching and powerless governors.
All schools should be good schools and of a high standard, therefore the solution is to aim high not low by shifting the problem elsewhere, which I'm afraid Politicians are frightfully good at.
Moral guidance,respect and discipline should be implemented in all primary schools and secondary schools and pupils that continue to be disruptive in class should be removed and taught separately with specialist teachers.

All Parents want good schools, they don't want to end up fighting for places in the few good school left only to be turned down and have to send their children to what's left at the bottom of the barrel.

Simon Orr

Mart says:
"Only if the market works properly, and provides enough supply of good quality "product". What if, in a given area, it does not?"

I believe that if this system were to be implemented, it would be an opening up of the market to new providers rather than 'marketising' all existing schools. We wouldn't be in any worse position than now.

Dave B says:
The Conservatives plans for new schools, are for schools funded by a direct grant from central government. More centralisation.

This is misleading statement. If taxes for education are set and collected at national level then it is just a waste of money to set up a local bureaucracy to distribute the money. As long as control is being transfered to school there is no underhand centralisation going on.

Chris Gilmour says:
Surely what's more likely to happen is that any school that isn't up to scratch is going to find itself with only pupils who's parents don't really give a crap.

Fancy that, a society in which people's actions have consequences.

David Lindsay

"Richards is surely right that education is fast becoming the main dividing line between the two parties."

Yer what! There is no difference at all. The Tories even voted in favour of the Government Bill to ban the creation of any more grammar schools.

Like Tory Eurosceptics or advocates of Wisconsin welfare, you seem to think that if you keep saying something then it will eventually become the truth. It won't.

And as for Richards, he regularly pops up to insist how honest and upstanding politicians are. Nuff said.

Fergus Pickering

The answer. of course is GRAMMAR SCHOOLS. We have them in Kent. You can have them too if you make enough fuss.

Dave B

@Simon Orr
"This is misleading statement. If taxes for education are set and collected at national level then it is just a waste of money to set up a local bureaucracy to distribute the money."

The bureaucracy already exists, and it will continue to exist as there will still be schools under local authority control.

"As long as control is being transfered to school there is no underhand centralisation going on."

The Conservatives will not be in government forever. When schools are funded directly by central government then there is a clear mechanism for meddling. The benefit of Direct Democracy's 'opt out' funding proposal is that meddling with the schools requires co-ordinated action from both central and local government bureaucrats.

Simon Orr

"The bureaucracy already exists, and it will continue to exist as there will still be schools under local authority control."

Very true, and I wish it didn't. But you can bet that if this system was funded by LEA's you'd have thousands more bureaucrats in duplicate jobs, paid to move money around.

Dave B

"But you can bet that if this system was funded by LEA's you'd have thousands more bureaucrats in duplicate jobs, paid to move money around."

No. You'd have fewer, as the existing duplication at Westminster would be removed, rather than increased.

If you've the time, I'd recommend reading Direct Democracy's (short) policy paper "Neighbourhood Education"

Tim Carpenter

The problem I see with the Conservative position is that it still meddles and skews the market by deciding where it will provide subsidy and so draw attention and resources there. If people say the market can get things wrong, then they must admit that the State can too and by meddling, the State compounds the problems of itself, the market and the distortions it adds on top.

Better to keep the spending per pupil across the board and step back to allow new AND EXISTING schools to be free from LEA control. If the school gets the voucher revenue it is essential that the LEA has to bill the schools for admin costs - that will soon sort out the sheep from the goats.

Steve Richards makes a misleading point: "Setting up the new one would not be cheap. So for a time, at least, genuine choice would mean a surplus of schools, good teachers and places."

Until all bad schools are resolved we need a surplus of places in each geography. Good schools and good teachers only need to be sufficient, but there is no ideal way to determine this but the least worst is the market. Far worse to rely on the State to bungle its way forward and "plan". Borderline good schools will vie to become good schools and thus survive and then thrive.

Unless there is a surplus, bad schools can always "make a living" from the vouchers and that cannot be good for anybody, even those bad teachers who will end up in them. It will certainly not be good for the children! A surplus will sift the worst school administrations and then the (empty) buildings can be transformed by good administrations taking them over. Mr Richards is right in saying, however, that it is hard to understand a surplus in a State run entity. Seeing as a surplus is the way to enable the best to thrive and the worst to whither, it is clear the State has to back off as far as possible.

Tim Carpenter
Libertarian Party, UK
www.lpuk.org