« Yet Even More MTAS | Main | Fat Lesbians »

May 22, 2007

David Cameron on Education

Not sure if everyone has decoded these words:

Since then, however, we have been overtaken by countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands and some states in the US.

Those two countries, and certain States, have voucher systems.

That means opening up the supply of education – to social enterprises formed by parents, groups of teachers, charities and others. They would receive state funding for each pupil they attract, would be free to do things differently, and their success would then provide a benchmark of what can be achieved, encouraging existing schools to raise their game.

This positive competitive pressure is why Caroline Hoxby, of Harvard University, has described school reform as “the rising tide that lifts all boats”. And the best international examples of school reform share two key features.

The first is a fair funding formula showing clearly how much money goes with each pupil – nobody must be able to say “these schools do better just because they have more money to spend”. The second is a bar on academic selection – pupils choosing schools rather than schools choosing pupils.

That does look very like a voucher system. Hurrah! a Tory policy that's actually worth supporting!

May 22, 2007 in Academia | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23056/18673932

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference David Cameron on Education:

Comments

Ah yes, but a truly fair non-interventionist voucher system would of course allow parents to "top up" the voucher income or offset against private school fees however high and whether they are selective or not.

I for one have no problem with people saying “these schools do better just because they have more money to spend”, if that happens to be true, then let them say it.

Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 22, 2007 10:01:48 AM

I heard something similar on the Today programme this morning and came to the same conclusion.

Irritatingly, the presenter seemed more interested in the fact that five? of the shadow cabinet are old Etonians and suggested that this meant that the Tory party is not really interested in equality of opportunity.

Posted by: Alastair | May 22, 2007 10:40:25 AM

Here is my contribution, so far, to this interesting and important debate: at Heraklites and at An Englishman's Castle.

Best regards

Posted by: Nigel Sedgwick | May 22, 2007 10:48:55 AM

If Cameron goes down this road I'll (very happily) eat my hat.

Posted by: ChrisC | May 22, 2007 11:22:22 AM

If that is Cameron's opinion then why all this nonsense about grammar schools? There was no need to mention them. If parents, a local association &c wanted a grammar school they would be able to found one. Or would that not be allowed?

Posted by: Little Black Sambo | May 22, 2007 12:14:40 PM

Hurrah. You spotted it too!

Posted by: Jackart | May 22, 2007 1:24:02 PM

The nonsense about grammar schools is clearly Cameron's version of spin: go on about the 11+ and other unpopular things, get everyone thinking he's "bashing the backward Tories" and then quietly slip in something sensible.

One can hope, anyway...

Posted by: Stephen | May 22, 2007 1:41:25 PM

It sounds like he's going with a half-way voucher system. Obviously, much better than nothing, but not the best possible policy.

Posted by: Marcin Tustin | May 22, 2007 2:22:32 PM

Isn't a bit hard to believe that a party too afraid to attack Blairism head-on will be brave enough to float an idea as radical as vouchers?

Posted by: Heraklites | May 22, 2007 2:52:29 PM

Thanks for decoding this.

This gets two cheers from me - I'm holding back on the third cheer becasue of my skepticism that the educational bureaucracy will really let the bad and unpopular schools go under when insufficient pupils want to attend them.

I think that only proper markets are ruthless enough to generate the benefits of markets - 'internal markets' have been extensively tried within the NHS (back in the earluy 1990s) and when it came to the crunch the state officials would not let the 'creative destruction' of markets do its work.

Which means that you don't get efficiency gains from sub-standard workers getting sacked and sub-standard institutions going bust.

Which means that these pseudo-markets can be very expensive (due to higher transaction costs associated with costing and billing).

My skepticism is fuelled by the fact that Cameron doesn't use the word 'vouchers'. If he is too worried to speak plainly about what he intends to do (and argue the case for it) then probably he is not robust enough actually to do it.

Still, UK elections are about the choice between two parties - and the Conservatives are certainly preferable on this issue, so far.

Posted by: Bruce G Charlton | May 22, 2007 4:33:24 PM

Well, I don't think that one has to use vouchers, but one does have to have an equivalent way of describing a proper scheme, such as "Every child sent to a private school."

The creative destruction of the market is key, as if it is not present, the state sector will mainly crowd out the private voucher-funded sector.

Posted by: Marcin Tustin | May 22, 2007 11:40:17 PM

And yes, I am aware that in countries with limited schemes there are benefits, but then that is in the context of relatively independant school-providing bodies (US School boards, European devolved governments).

Posted by: Marcin Tustin | May 22, 2007 11:42:46 PM

CCO has come under some fire repeatedly for being apalling at their policy releases, always allowing them to be spun in a way most likely to annoy the grassroots, when in actual fact, the policies are quite mild and Conservative.

CCO is either very stupid, or very smart. They seem stupid for these apparent PR cockups. But perhaps appearing to annoy the grassroots with very Conservative policies is in fact a very smart, strategic move to be making.

Posted by: Josh | May 23, 2007 1:19:42 AM

The Blairites all basically favour vouchers but know hell would freeze over before they could get anything like past Labour, given the reaction to the far more modest reforms they've attempted to date. A Blair-led Tory party has its attractions.

Posted by: cerebus | May 23, 2007 8:34:15 PM

Post a comment