Never let it be said that The Spectator makes no space for dissenting views. Ed Balls makes the case for his school policy today – worth reading. It is a powerful tour of the arguments and half-truths which compose Labour’s education policy. To Fisk this would end up in an article four times the length of the original, so I will confine myself to his criticism of Tory policy.
Okay, just one other point. “On each of our key reforms — education to 18, diplomas, school admissions, raising standards and tackling underperforming schools — there is a clear difference between the two main parties” says Balls. Note how he says “education to 18” without the word “compulsory.” This is because Labour seeks to misrepresent this as them being in favour of education to 18 and the Tories being against. “Education to 18 should not be for everybody, they say” as Balls puts it. Really? The Tories’ simple position is the settled will of the British public – that one cannot and should not force 17 and 18 year olds to be educated or trained against their wishes. But every opportunity should be made available for those who do want it.
But on to the Gove plan for school reform to offer a fixed sum – about £6,000 per head – to any independent schools that wants to set up. You can’t top the sum up. It is, in effect, the Swedish system which has led to the creation of hundreds of new independent schools and kickstarted entrepreneurialism. Swedish schools are now circling Britain, believing the same can work here. We have not heard Mr Balls’ critique of it – until now. Here are the points he makes in the few paragraphs he spends dealing with it.
1) The Tories are being centralisers, as they would take power out of local authorities. No. The new Tory schools would make education a direct contract between the parents and the schools – with the state simply paying the bill. No politicians, local or national, are involved. You literally can’t get more decentralised than that.
2) “The new schools will not replace existing ones.” That’s right, they will be extra ones. Increasing the supply of education and giving the poor the choice which only the rich can afford today (via moving house or private fees).
3) The new schools “will not be targeted at areas of greatest need.” Oh yes they will – but not targeted by a politician. The new schools will live or die by demand, so will go where demand (and, yes, need) is the greatest. And this will be where state-run provision is the worst. So “need” as defined by parents, not by ministers. Obviously a difficult concept for Balls to grasp.
4) The new schools “will not be planned in any way”. I love how Balls presents this as a self-evident absurdity. How can one have education, if it is not centrally planned? Actually the new Tory schools would be planned – but, again, not by ministers. Planned by new school providers liaising directly with parents. The state’s only role is to sign the cheque. Again, this appears to be beyond the scope of Balls’ comprehension
5) It “would divert £4.5 billion of capital spending from areas currently expecting new investment to rebuild schools”. The money will be diverted spent from refurbishing schools to opening new schools. The budget remains for education. The Tory plan will simply democratise that money, ie having more of it spent along the priorities of parents. My mind goes back to that BBC report on Tuesday about how the failing Clackton on Sea school with a 15% pass rate was in a beautiful recently-refurbished building. The Tory proposal accepts: it’s what’s inside that counts.
6) “It’s unclear how the Tories would fund the revenue costs of their promised 220,000 ‘additional’ school places over the next nine years. Does Balls genuinely think the Tories propose 220,000 “additional” places over and above what is planned for state pupils? If so, he can only be suggesting that the new Tory schools will be so good they will lure pupils back from the independent sector which has 585,000 pupils. Only in Whitehall can they think “perish the thought”.
7) If state pupils migrate than “existing schools face severe funding cuts as pupils move to the new schools”. Note how Balls thinks in terms of institutions, not people. Money follows the pupil in the Tory scheme – and yes, if an unpopular state school loses pupils it will lose cash. But the per capita funding remains the same. As Balls knows, schools contract very easily – there are few fixed costs and teacher turnover is such that layoffs are not required. If a school is so unpopular that it is deserted in droves, then it loses money. And deserves to. Schools that do not serve pupils properly will pray for another Labour government which will force parents to send pupils there whether they like it or not. And who does Balls think fares worse from this arrangement – rich or poor? Which system do you think a better engine for social mobility?
8) Gove’s plans are “no way to guarantee improvements in the poorest performing schools, but a recipe for cuts and chaos.” Note Mr Balls again believes the alternative to state control is “chaos”. One would take him seriously if he could point “chaos” in the countries where school liberalisation has been enacted, countries as diverse as Chile and The Netherlands.
9) “Put another way – do you entrench advantage or spread it?” Sickeningly, under the system Balls seeks to protect, there is a near-perfect link between wealth and education results. Not only does it entrench advantage but there can, quite literally, be no more unequal system. Only the Conservatives break free from this scandalous comprehensive state-run system.
Some readers may be surprised to see us giving such space to Ed Balls, but I believe it’s worth it. His article is choc full of passages that Spectator subscribers will read out aloud to their spouses in disbelief. He passionately believes in the state, like Gordon Brown. He seems to think the poor cannot handle the power of choice, which the rich have enjoyed for so long. He is being faithful to Labour’s Fabian tradition, and shows that Tony Blair’s attempts to break from it have been unsuccessful. The hunt for things that Tories would do differently is a long and lonely one. But at least on education, as Mr Balls makes abundantly clear, there is plenty of clear, blue water.
Comments