Public schools are being threatened again. This time, it's the Education Secretary and Labour deputy leadership hopeful, Alan Johnson. Two weeks ago, he was muttering darkly about public schools having to do more to 'earn their charitable status'.
As if they don't do enough already. Even if they did no more than offer the number of free and subsidised places that they currently do, I would say that they do quite enough. But then, in addition to that, many of them already offer their facilities for use by neighbouring state schools. And let us not even talk about the money they save the state by educating fee-paying pupils whose parents, having already paid into general taxation, are in effect paying for a school place they do not use.
Perhaps the public schools need to sit down and do a few sums. Work out how much they gain from tax-exempt status, and see whether they can afford to lose that amount. Figures released by the Independent Schools Council reveal that scholarships and bursaries awarded by independent schools for 2007, exceeded £300 million. This far exceeds the estimated total of tax breaks worth £100 million that independent schools receive. Granted, these are round sums, and a break down of the schools and figures may well show that some schools may receive more in tax breaks than they award in scholarships and subsidies. However, the point I am making is that the independent sector, as a whole, is not the grasping, selfish bastion of privilege that Labour politicians love to pretend it is.
Given the fact that some schools definitely give away more in scholarships etc than they receive in tax breaks, those schools would actually be in no worse position financially if they called the Government's bluff, waved goodbye to charitable status, and cut back on the subsidies and scholarships they awarded.
In fact, the people who would be adversely affected by such a decision would be those who would have received the cancelled scholarships. Perhaps this fact should concentrate the minds of the class warriors on what is really meant by 'public benefit'. But then again, the possibility of some poor kid losing a place at a public school is not going to bother the Government that casually abolished the Assisted Places Scheme.
Remember the Assisted Places Scheme? It was a means by which clever children who could not otherwise afford it, were granted free or subsidised places at fee-paying schools. The Scheme was abolished by the Labour Government in 1998. Interesting that Alan Johnson is now proposing that teachers in public schools spend part of their time teaching in the local comprehensive. So rather than allow clever pupils into the private education sector by means of the Assisted Places Scheme, the Government would prefer a teacher to go in the opposite direction. If the aim is for state school children to benefit from public school teaching, would it not therefore have made sense to have retained the Assisted Places Scheme? That way the public school teaching would have been targeted at those who were most likely to have benefited from it.
When will this Government learn that it is not possible to enforce uniformity of quality? Some schools are better than others, irrespective of legislation, threats or lottery. This is the case even within the state sector. There are many reasons why public schools tend to be better than state schools, eg the calibre of pupils (due to the fact that many public schools select by ability), and, of course, the very fact that parents who are spending their own money tend to ensure that their children are getting the best. Crude attempts by the Government to replicate public school conditions in the local comprehensive are bound to fail. This is because no amount of "Government investment" or threats will reproduce in a state school the exact conditions that obtain in a public school. The Government think that the answer is in spending more money, buying more equipment, and corralling public school teachers into service in the state sector. They are wrong. Even a gifted public school teacher would feel despondent after a few months of service in the state sector, when faced with the burden of compliance with Government 'targets', and similar soul-wasting activity.
As always, the Government's solutions revolve around things that are 'seen'. They want to be seen to be doing something. See all the money we poured in? See all the equipment we bought? I would suggest that sometimes the answers lie in the 'unseen' things. The answer lies not in showy, smash-and-grab raids on the private sector. Instead of grabbing their staff and equipment, it would be a more productive exercise for all (not least the pupils) if the Government simply pinched their ideas.
As far as involving public schools in the state sector, the Conservative Party currently has the makings of a good idea. They propose an easing of the stringent conditions that apply before an organisation can run a city academy. For a start, they propose to scrap the requirement that an organisation wishing to run an academy first raise £2m from the private sector. This will most likely encourage some private schools to run these academies, and will be a more effective way of ensuring that the state sector benefits from public schools. Perhaps the Government could learn from that.
Here is another recommendation for the Government: rather than looking on enviously at public schools, the Government should ask itself what it is that makes some public schools so successful, and then implement those things in the state sector. But the Government will not ask that question, because it knows that the answer is not one it wants to hear. It does not want to hear about selection, independence for teachers, a greater role for parents, or even the simple fact that very often, things work better without Government interference. Because it does not want to ask these questions, state education will continue to be poorly served by ignorant politicians, whose first thought, always, is for their narrow political ends.
3 comments:
One of the biggest threats to education is the levelling of the playing field. Not that this is a bad thing in itself, but rather because the levelling is always downwards.
This government has not raised standards in our schools. It has not ensured students are equipped with intellectual rigour and questioning minds. It has not helped youngsters determine their strengths so they can embark on more academic study or vocational careers.
It has merely presided over examination hothouses, where the focus is on the limited scope of a curriculum that will be tested. Good grades in exams do not necessarily equate to good education. This is clear when you see the poor standard of Maths and English demonstrated by school leavers.
What do you think of the evidence that vouchers increase the engagement of parents in schooling?
A heck of a lot to digest here. As the parent of a 12 year old in private education there are one or two things I might 'see' differently. But basically I do agree that a lot of what the government is thinking is wrong (for many reasons) but more importantly just plain won't work. However I would like to make the point that while the lesser-moneyed children might lose out on not being able to attend these schools if scholarships were withdrawn - the children who would still be able to attend would miss out greatly on the richness and diversity that many of these scholarship students bring.
Post a Comment