"A refreshing addition to the world of think-tanks" Daily Telegraph, 18/10/2007
PROGRESSIVE views on ...
|
||||||||||
|
We need your support: Donate to PROGRESSIVE vision using PayPal... |
||||||||||
|
EDUCATION
Last updated: 26/03/2008
Education is currently in the hands of bureaucrats and producers. Giving real power to students and parents will deliver real benefits, especially for the less well off.
Britain’s state education system offers no choice, and this lack of choice leads to poor standards. Education has become a political football with debates over exam standards, which must be rather disconcerting for talented students being told that their grades are inferior to the equivalent grades awarded ten years ago.
The best solution for education at all levels is to institute a system of school choice similar to that used in Sweden. Allow parents to choose the school that suits their needs and allow the tax money to pay for the education to follow the student, regardless if this is to a private or state school.
With resource allocation being determined by parents, there is no longer any need for the large education bureaucracy, either at Whitehall or in local councils. The freed resources from shrinking this bureaucracy can then be reinvested back into the school system. Freed from this bureaucracy, innovation will thrive, with new schools opening to meet the individual needs of students.
Progressive Vision believes, contrary to the Swedish system, that parents should be able to top up the fees (about £6,000 for secondary schools) provided from the government, should they wish to send their child to a private school that charges more than the government allowance. It is claimed that this would be unfair as rich people who already send their children to a private school will receive a windfall. This is a misguided concern, but there is a practical implication to this: If the eight per cent of pupils who currently attend private schools were to be paid this allowance, either the exchequer would have to find a considerable additional amount of money or the money to all other pupils would drop proportionally. As neither option is desirable, the allowance should be tapered according to the level of top-up. For example, you might allow a top-up of £3,000 to bring the fee to £9,000, with no taper. But you might then start dropping the £6,000K in such a way that a school with fees of £20,000 would receive no state support. A school with fees of £15,000 might receive £500 in state support.
Under such a system, failing schools would close. However, the Swedish system demonstrates that the more likely result for failing schools is that the falling roles forces the management to make drastic changes to the failing school so that the parent want their children to remain. Under the current system, failing schools continue to fail and parents, especially poor parents, have no options – harming their future.
KEY POINTS
• The current school system should be
replaced with one of school choice - based on Sweden
• Funding must follow the pupil
• This is currently estimated to be £5,500 per pupil
• Parents must be able to top up the state's contribution to send their
children to the school of their choice
• Failing schools can close, but are more likely to be reformed
________________________
Who should have the final say in running schools?
Sir Humphrey...
...or parents?
.jpg){kind=small}