Why Shouldn't the Education System be Privatised?

[Neil_F]

I'm looking for some help here. I was discussing the topic of education with some friends and colleagues when someone made a point that the entire system should be privatised. We all agreed that the universal provision of education was a good thing. My colleague said that didn't necessarily mean that the state had to be the provider. Why could the state not pay for every child to be educated at a private institution?

His point here was that an amount per pupil could be agreed (say what it is now with regional variances and perhaps even a pupil for lower income families). A parent could enrol their child at any registered school, all of which were private and able to make a profit. There would obviously have to be restrictions on top of fee to prevent it being the subsidy of existing private school fees. His argument was that it would introduce competition and innovation such that pupils would benefit from an increase in standards.

So, why wouldn't this be a good idea?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Because the providers would want to make a profit and therefore it would be more expensive for the tax payer. Because we would still need many layers of government beaurocracy to oversee education to make sure the provision was adequate. Because when schools failed or went bankrupt the state would need to step in. Because private enterprize would cherry pick where they wanted to run schools. Because there would be areas such as parts of the countryside where it would be deemed there were not enough pupils for a private company to opperate. Because the market place would want league tables style accessment to be even more rigorous and would see special needs and poorer academic kids without places as they would bring the average down. I expect the suggestion came from people without children or with children already in private education? It would be an absolute nightmare to set up. Its a big NO from me.

 

[Jam_Man]

Look at the trains.

Privatised and now the Fenchurch Street line have newer trains and cost less than the Liverpool Street line. Makes no sense.

Exactly the same applies, expept you are talking about educating kids and Im talking about trains. Or something like that.

I fear change.

 

[Neil_F]

Because the providers would want to make a profit and therefore it would be more expensive for the tax payer.

Why would a profit motive increase cost? 1500 years of evidence suggests to the contrary.

Because we would still need many layers of government beaurocracy to oversee education to make sure the provision was adequate.

wouldn't you just need a regulator of some kind?

Because when schools failed or went bankrupt the state would need to step in.

why? The pupils could just transfer to another school couldn't they? There would be a natural turnover of schools, which is a characteristic of market economies that has foolishly been suspended for the banks. New market entrants is one of the key drivers of productivity improvements though, which push costs down.

Because private enterprize would cherry pick where they wanted to run schools.

Doesn't the academy programme demonstrate that this isn't the case? i.e. the majority are setup in inner London boroughs with failing schools. Even if it is the case, why not tweek the pricing structure such that the payment per pupil is higher by region or income level?

Because there would be areas such as parts of the countryside where it would be deemed there were not enough pupils for a private company to opperate.

Again, why not amend the pricing structure?

Because the market place would want league tables style accessment to be even more rigorous and would see special needs and poorer academic kids without places as they would bring the average down.

What would be the incentive to deny a child a place? Wouldn't the school want the child at their school if it would result in a net profit?

I expect the suggestion came from people without children or with children already in private education? It would be an absolute nightmare to set up. Its a big NO from me.

They don't have children, but I don't see why that makes the suggestion any less valid. I don't understand what the administrative problems would be either. You could have a management buy out of all existing schools or put them up for sale/lease. It would be a drastic simplification of the bureaucracy wouldn't it?

 

[Neil_F]

Look at the trains.

Privatised and now the Fenchurch Street line have newer trains and cost less than the Liverpool Street line. Makes no sense.

That is a franchising system. The equivalent would be each county putting all education services out to tender to a single provider. That, I agree, would be a stupid idea.

I'm talking about something similar to the telecoms privitisations.

 

[Jam_Man]

why? The pupils could just transfer to another school couldn't they? There would be a natural turnover of schools, which is a characteristic of market economies that has foolishly been suspended for the banks. New market entrants is one of the key drivers of productivity improvements though, which push costs down.

Do you have kids Neil ?

That comment would suggest not as transferring kids from one school to another would be a nightmare from a parents and also from a practical perspective.

How would you fit 1300 kids from one school into surrounding schools ?

How would families be able to facilitate that without all moving house?

 

[Neil_F]

Do you have kids Neil ?

That comment would suggest not as transferring kids from one school to another would be a nightmare from a parents and also from a practical perspective.

How would you fit 1300 kids from one school into surrounding schools ?

How would families be able to facilitate that without all moving house?

No, I don't have children, and I suspect that argument will be deployed a lot in this thread. I don't see how it has any validity though.

So assume school A goes bust due to financial mismanagement. Company B runs 10 other succssful, profitable schools in the county that are popular with parents. School A leaves behind facilities and pupils. Why would company B not want to take over school A and run it under new management (assuming they can raise the capital).

Parents get a better school without doing anything.

You might consider this an extreme example, but I don't think it is. There is demand for the service and a secure revenue stream - that will attract suppliers. You'd probably end up in the situation where the parents/governers/whoever got to choose which school provider took over the school because of multiple bidders.

 

[Jam_Man]

No, I don't have children, and I suspect that argument will be deployed a lot in this thread. I don't see how it has any validity though.

So assume school A goes bust due to financial mismanagement. Company B runs 10 other succssful, profitable schools in the county that are popular with parents. School A leaves behind facilities and pupils. Why would company B not want to take over school A and run it under new management (assuming they can raise the capital).

Parents get a better school without doing anything.

You might consider this an extreme example, but I don't think it is. There is demand for the service and a secure revenue stream - that will attract suppliers. You'd probably end up in the situation where the parents/governers/whoever got to choose which school provider took over the school because of multiple bidders.

Dont mean to be patronising but when you have a family your perception on certain things changes, especially when it comes to schools etc.

Your comment that I replied to said kids would move schools, which just isnt practical. Getting kids places at moment is hard enough.

However your suggestion above that the school would remain and be run by someone else is a different kettle of fish.

I would however be terrified at that happening if my kids were at a school that was changing hands. The uncertainty of it would be awful. You spend ages working out the best school and the ones to avoid and if the school suddenly went through a change like that it would be a nightmare.
Would teachers be laid off ? Changed ?
Would curriculms changed?

If its just administration then thats different but if it anyway affects front end services of the schools it would be a mess.

If a school changed for the better then smashing, but if it didnt (and private companies dont always improve) then your kids could find their education affected.

Im not for or against privatisation of schools, I know next to nothing of the subject, just giving a parents viewpoint of what Id be afraid of.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The price of it going wrong is too high. I've worked for too many companies that behind the scenes are a mess because management don't understand the workings of the set up, I wouldn't want to export those set ups into education. I'm not saying no schools are badly run but I think issues now would increase with a radical new set up. Education is too important to fail and its needs are way above free market economics in importance.
If you read Toby Young's autobiography and then learn that this is the calibre of person allowed to run 'free' schools it makes you shudder.

 

[Neil_F]

The uncertainty of it would be awful. You spend ages working out the best school and the ones to avoid and if the school suddenly went through a change like that it would be a nightmare.

So would it be preferable to have a stable system with a lot more bad schools than a fluid system with fewer bad schools?

I understand that there are barriers to changing schools (though I'm sure I don't fully appreciate them as I don't have children), but are those barriers insurmountable?

Is it a case of better the devil you know?

 

[Neil_F]

The price of it going wrong is too high. I've worked for too many companies that behind the scenes are a mess because management don't understand the workings of the set up,

There is great danger in extrapolating personal experience. There will obviously be badly run schools, as there are now. Why would it be any higher if the system was privatised?

Education is too important to fail.

Are there not already circumstances in which it fails?

If you read Toby Young's autobiography and then learn that this is the calibre of person allowed to run 'free' schools it makes you shudder.

Even if we ignore the problem of extrapoltaing a single example to a national level, Toby Young is not running the West London Free School. He was instrumental in its inception and he is a governor but he has no management or teaching responsibilities.

 

[Reg Martin]

I work in local government so I have a vested interest and/or some background knowledge on this subject
There is a strong push from the government for all schools to become academies whether individual schools wish to or not. This is unlikely to change even if Labour return to power as academies was an idea started by last Labour goverment.
Academies are free from local council control, though these days I think the financial incentives from govt are limited though I think academies have freedom to pay staff what they want and set their own curriculum.
There is very mixed evidence, to say the least, so far as to whether academies produce better educational results and when they do get into trouble financially or into terms of poor exam results, it is the big bad council who still has to step in and sort out the mess.

 

[Jam_Man]

So would it be preferable to have a stable system with a lot more bad schools than a fluid system with fewer bad schools?

I understand that there are barriers to changing schools (though I'm sure I don't fully appreciate them as I don't have children), but are those barriers insurmountable?

Is it a case of better the devil you know?

The way it works now is I find a good school for kids to go to based on results etc. I wouldnt send mine to a bad school.

However if the school was making a loss, although providing a decent education, in theory someone comes along and takes over. At that point I have no idea if the standards will slip or improve.

As I know how the schools are performing now Im not sure how I benefit.

 

[OldBlueLady]

The academy model is definitely one that allows schools to "make a profit", it's similar in many ways to the theories behind the old Grant Maintained Schools. I don't think you will ever be able to take every school along this step though because there will always have to be schools for those children with no choice over where they go. At the moment, academies are able to publish their own policy on numbers to admit and the criteria on which admission is decided. Schools still under LEAs don't quite have the same control.

For me, until they get rid of Ofsted and find some other fairer method of evaluating schools rather than just on results you'll always have poor or failing schools which is why I don't think there will ever be full privatisation.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

There is great danger in extrapolating personal experience. There will obviously be badly run schools, as there are now. Why would it be any higher if the system was privatised?

Are there not already circumstances in which it fails?

Even if we ignore the problem of extrapoltaing a single example to a national level, Toby Young is not running the West London Free School. He was instrumental in its inception and he is a governor but he has no management or teaching responsibilities.

Personal experience is an obvious source for building an opinion. My 3 kids are of school age, my wife is a teacher and a governor, I've been through school, college and university, one of my kids went to a private school for one term (against my wishes - unusual circumstances and wifey gave herself the casting vote). I have worked for varoius private sector companies over the last 20 years. This personal experience doesn't make me feel that privatising education would benefit the pupils. I do think that private companies would be interested as a means to make profits and that will only come through cutting costs of running a school or increasing the income from taxes - neither of which would seem a benefit to anyone except the private company.
Parents on the whole would not trust wholesale changes and teachers on the whole would not want to switch their employment. Parents views we have already seen to be ignored in cases such as schools being forced to become academies and the amount of children not offered places in the borough where they live. Teachers already vote with their feet and hence there are so many Australian temps.
The 'too important to fail' is not refering to individual schools failing Ofsted but replacing LEAs with untested private companies where if it doesn't work there is no alternative as the infrastructure will have been dismantled. LEA offers protection from things such as being sued by an employee or health and safety issues - the more schools being a single unit the more they need to spend to fill services and guidance that the LEA would provide.

I know Toby Young isn't running the school but he is the free schooling poster boy and if those involved in publicising the merits of free schools think that his image is one they are happy to be associated with then I instantly don't trust their judgement.

 

[Napster]

I'm all for privatising education and I have kids. Teachers would be better remunerated, schools would be encouraged to tailor their lessons better...

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I'm all for privatising education and I have kids. Teachers would be better remunerated, schools would be encouraged to tailor their lessons better...

Teachers would only be paid more if more tax went into education or education was no longer funded publically at which point many could not afford to educate their children.

 

[Jam_Man]

I'm all for privatising education and I have kids. Teachers would be better remunerated, schools would be encouraged to tailor their lessons better...

I have nothing against privatisation, the only issues I had with what Neil was saying was schools being moved/taken over and the chaos that would cause if it could happen.

Whatever system provides better eduction is fine by me.

 

[applelover]

Because anarcho-capitalism only works in Neil f's head and books written by Robert Nozick :)

 

[Hotman]

Teachers would only be paid more if more tax went into education or education was no longer funded publically at which point many could not afford to educate their children.

or, of course if they were run as businesses rather than public sector organisations with budgets to fill...