I was at a supper this evening at which it was suggested to a senior member of the shadow cabinet that all state schools should be made into private schools. The senior Tory agreed and said that that was the current policy. But this assertion was really an exaggeration, as became clear.
The current policy, it seems, is that state schools should be made into independent trusts. That is not the same as privatisation. A privatised company can be taken over. It can go bust and nobody except the shareholders will care too much. It can, if it is successful, take over other private companies or develop new ones. These are all things that would help to lead quickly to better schools. These are things that would happen if all state schools were sold to companies and/or charities and/or trade unions. But the Tory plan, it seems, is that they should all be made into these independent trusts - a very different matter.
This would mean, in the overwhelming majority of cases, that the same heads would remain in position who would probably continue with the same teachers to administer the schools in pretty much the same way as before.
The senior Tory said that parents would choose some schools over others, so the bad ones would die out. But because they would be independent trusts and because they presumably would not be able to be taken over by companies, they would die long drawn-out deaths that will cause outcries among parents and in the media. They would survive from year to year with their dwindling student numbers by selling off bits of land here and there. The complaints about this would put enormous pressure on the government of the day to send in 'experts' to try to rescue the failing schools.
It would be far better if failing schools could simply be taken over by companies and new heads put in place with a new approaches and perhaps the benefit of new investment. The possibility and actuality of takeovers would lead to quick improvements and vitality. The trust model is doomed to be slow and to run into terrific political problems. It would be far better if Tory policy were to put through the wholesale and genuine privatisation of all state schools.
Incidentally, I am far from sure, even now, that I really know what the Tory policy on this is. In a recent speech, David Willetts (not the man at supper tonight) seemed to imply that not all state schools would become trusts anyway.
Here is the recent speech on education by David Willetts. It does not address the issues abpve but has, as you would expect with Willetts, has plenty of evidence and intelligence in it. The evidence is about the benefit of choice. What he needs to look at next is the benefit of private ownership compared to trust status.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Education
Comments (6)
TrackBack (0)
Comments
I went to a Q&A session in Oxford about a month ago with Oliver Letwin, he said then that the Tories are in the process of deciding policy. I personally don't mind if it takes the Tories between now and 6 months before the next election to come up with good policies. I would mind a lot more if it took them that long to come up with bad ones. I really want them to get privatisation of schools right, if they do it badly as James thinks that they may, it will turn public opinion against privatisation all together, not a hard task with the help of the media.
Posted by: Jack Peter Gunning at March 30, 2006 01:33 PM
Problem with Princess Tony's nonsense is no-one wants to do what he wants to do. New Labour control freakery is just as bad in schools as everywhere else. He won't let his GM schools (whatever they're called now) do what they want, and I believe he's tried to get the independent schools to heel as well.
The real thing that I think has to be stopped before you do anything else is the blatant abuse of the education system for political gain. Blair does not give a tinkers cuss about schools. (His children go to a quasi-selective one). The sole aim, as with everything else, is to produce impressive looking numbers for political gain.
Many teachers loathe the dictatorial nature of the curriculum ; it's mindlessly boring and in too many places pitifully weak in content.
The problem with privatisation is it is not a natural market economy. What the consumer sees as "the better schools" is usually little to do with the school ; despite the fantasies coming from the DfES the main driver for the 'success' of the school is the quality of the intake. "Good schools" are good schools not primarily because of better teaching but because the nature of their children is such that the teachers can do their jobs. In some schools that is virtually impossible.
In reality, except in rural areas where it really is Hobson's Choice (and where no privately run school will want to work because they can't skim the top ability level) then a market economy works already, crudely based around housing prices.
Posted by: Paul at March 31, 2006 11:10 PM
i'm puzzled by Paul's comment that a privately run school wouldn't want to work in a rural area because they couldn't skim the top ability level.
For a start, nearly all independent prep schools are non-selective. Many independent secondary schools are also non-selective and quite a few tend to cater for those of below average ability. It is simply not the case that independent schools only try to attract the top ability levels. The most selective school in my area is a state school - it attracts pupils from far and wide and entry is highly competitive. The independent school (practically next door) is selective, but considerably less so, and produces very similar results.
Posted by: HJHJ at April 1, 2006 08:20 PM
I would add that, taken as a whole, private schools are non-selective. I know of no parent who wants to send his or her child to a private school and has the means, who has been unable to get that child into a private school. Yes, of course it is true that some private schools are hard to get into - like St Paul's School for girls. But at the other end of the academic spectrum there are schools which, to use one of the phrases deployed, are 'not academic hot-houses.
It is a fantasy created by opponents of private schools that they achieve superior results through selection.
It is true, though, that there is some 'self-selection' of the children at private schools. They are more likely to have intelligent, highly-motivated parents with books in the house and keen on academic success. That background has a significant effect on academic success. An OECD study also shows that being in a school with plenty of others with that kind of background also has a significant positive impact.
Overall, the private sector has a more academically promising group of children in a more promising circumstances. But it is not because private schools decline to take less able children.
Posted by: James Bartholomew at April 2, 2006 11:39 AM
The myth that children from poor homes are all but unteachable has been assiduously spread by educators who desperately need excuses for their failures. One of the best schools I ever visited was Kobi Nazrul--a school in Whitechapel where 66% of the pupils were entitled to free school meals. Yet this school has achieved 100% pass rates on 7+ and 11+ SATs for years. Were the Government to publish primary school league tables, Kobi Nazrul would put most suburban schools (and prep schools) to shame. I tested their 9-year-olds in 1999, and they were on average 22 months ahead of norms in spelling; they were only slightly below the 12-year-olds in the lily-white Norwich suburban comprehensive where I was then teaching. The Kobi Nazrul pupils were slightly below average on a test of non-verbal reasoning; as one would expect, a first class education cannot compensate entirely for a lack of native ability.
So, Paul, what does this say about all these excuses that get repeated in the TES like a mantra? I grant you that suburban schools have an advantage, but that advantage is multiplied a thousand times because infant schools teach so little, and teach so poorly, that what a child learns at home constitutes the major part of his or her achievement.
Here's what you ought to be asking: what could an elite suburban school accomplish if they threw out all the progressive baggage about 'child development' and 'independent learning' and actually started teaching?
Tom Burkard
Posted by: tom burkard at April 3, 2006 05:17 PM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2006/03/the_tories_do_n.php on line 331
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2006/03/the_tories_do_n.php on line 331
I too am confused at Tory edu policy.
Slow painful death of anything is bad - it is especially bad if that death blights the development of young people.
We must not create something that would systemically make that happen.
Posted by: Tim at March 28, 2006 11:52 PM