Why Shouldn't the Education System be Privatised?

[Neil_F]

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

I'm not sure you understand what capitalism actually is...

 

[Neil_F]

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.

That makes no sense. Teacher remuneration would be independently set in my system. You could therefore introduce more performance related pay and share profits among staff if you were so inclined. For example, rather than have 5 classes of 20 I would have 4 classes of 25 and use the saving to attract better teachers with higher pay. It is a simplified example but the principle holds.

 

[Mad Cyril]

I would abolish the education sector completely and issue every child with a copy of Sun Tzu's The art of war at birth.

The rest is up to the child and the parents.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

That makes no sense. Teacher remuneration would be independently set in my system. You could therefore introduce more performance related pay and share profits among staff if you were so inclined. For example, rather than have 5 classes of 20 I would have 4 classes of 25 and use the saving to attract better teachers with higher pay. It is a simplified example but the principle holds.

except that class sizes are already at 30 so to make savings you'd have to go up from 30 not 20

 

[Holy Joe]

it'd be much cheaper for the taxpayer as the current pension schemes could be easily closed.

 

[Neil_F]

except that class sizes are already at 30 so to make savings you'd have to go up from 30 not 20

I said it was a simplified example. The point I was trying to demonstrate was that cash can be freed up (and unit costs reduced) through efficiency gains and productivity increases. The current system offers no motivation to realise such productivity gains because budgets exist to be spent.

This is why markets have 1500 years of evidence demonstrating that it is the most efficient way of allocating capital and increasing productivity.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I said it was a simplified example. The point I was trying to demonstrate was that cash can be freed up (and unit costs reduced) through efficiency gains and productivity increases. The current system offers no motivation to realise such productivity gains because budgets exist to be spent.

This is why markets have 1500 years of evidence demonstrating that it is the most efficient way of allocating capital and increasing productivity.

the real figures of 30 kids per class are as simple as the hyperthetical figures of 20 kids per class - just more....real

the public will be more receptive to private companies taking over public services once the images of soldiers and police officers securing the Olympics has faded a little

I take your point but increasing class sizes has already been done and there are issues already with recruiting suitable teachers and over reliance on agency staff from Australia and South Africa. I genuinely think that given that they would want to be putting out a quality product, private companies would reach the conclusion that schools are expensive to run and profitability is not there and they would lose interest.

 

[Reg Martin]

the real figures of 30 kids per class are as simple as the hyperthetical figures of 20 kids per class - just more....real

the public will be more receptive to private companies taking over public services once the images of soldiers and police officers securing the Olympics has faded a little

I take your point but increasing class sizes has already been done and there are issues already with recruiting suitable teachers and over reliance on agency staff from Australia and South Africa. I genuinely think that given that they would want to be putting out a quality product, private companies would reach the conclusion that schools are expensive to run and profitability is not there and they would lose interest.

The current G4S fiasco is a good illustration that 'private sector good, public sector bad' mantra of the current government is just as naive as the 'public sector good, private sector bad' philosophy of past governments. Also illustrates that when the public sector is outsourced to the private sector and the latter fails, it is the public sector that has to step in to sort out the mess

 

[South Bank Hank]

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

I was actually quite enjoying the discussion without it getting personal. What part of NeilF's theory do you disagree with?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

As someone who went to a boarding school-Highfield College in Leigh-I'm just glad it closed down in time for me to get a decent education and academic qualifications at Eastwood HS and WHS.

 

[applelover]

I was actually quite enjoying the discussion without it getting personal. What part of NeilF's theory do you disagree with?

Yawn. I always thought that ':)' was the universal symbol for a tounge in cheek comment. Humourless as always I see Hank.

In response to your question about Neil F's theory I believe that the general thread of Neil F's posts are broadly along the lines that a minimal state is preferable in almost all social and economic spheres. I compare him to Nozick who wrote an extremely entertaining book call 'anarchy, the state and utopia' It's a brilliantly written book but, like Neil F, adheres to myth that private sector activity is inherently efficient. Private sector activity is not inherently efficent as should be clear by the mess we are in today.

Of course private education has a place but privitisation of the whole system is a ludicrous position. Unless we all start educating from home over internet then you'll end up with a multitude of local monopolies as children can't travel long distances to exercise choice. Children need stability and parents generally aren't going to start moving their children from school to school everytime a new school pops up in their area. This creates a brand loyalty of sorts which would restrict the market opportunity for new providers. This would entrench local monopolies. Not enough competition in a market inevitably leads to lower standards and ever increasingly pricing. It's all about the margin in business.

I agree with Neil on a lot of issues, for instance I too believe that the state as it is too big. However I believe that Neil is too attached to a dogmatic free market ideology to accept different approaches to different issues. 'What works' (horses for courses) should be the guiding principal, not the outdated dogma of state v private sector.

 

[South Bank Hank]

Yawn. I always thought that ':)' was the universal symbol for a tounge in cheek comment. Humourless as always I see Hank.

That's not something anyone's ever accused me of before. Well, not since the last time you did anyway. :thumbsup:

 

[Neil_F]

but, like Neil F, adheres to myth that private sector activity is inherently efficient. Private sector activity is not inherently efficent as should be clear by the mess we are in today.

I've never said that the private sector is "inherently efficient" (though I don't understand what that means given that efficiency is not a binary state). I've said that market economies are the most efficient way of allocating capital and raising total factor productivity. This is not dogma; there is 1,500 years of evidence to demonstrate this is the case.

Unless we all start educating from home over internet then you'll end up with a multitude of local monopolies as children can't travel long distances to exercise choice.

Why? That is not the evidence in Sweden or the US Charter school system. If there is sufficient demand then there will be new suppliers or existing suppliers will expand. This is basic economics of a fixed price system.

Children need stability and parents generally aren't going to start moving their children from school to school everytime a new school pops up in their area.

I'm not suggesting that they would. Competitive markets lead to innovation (almost exclusively through new entrants), which filters through the system and drives general productivity improvements. In other words, introducing a good new school to the area can improve all the other schools as well. There is empirical evidence to back this up from Sweden.

This would entrench local monopolies. Not enough competition in a market inevitably leads to lower standards and ever increasingly pricing. It's all about the margin in business.

You've just described the current education system.

I do think there are two valid objections: some schools will fail (that is how a competitive market system works) and that may be disruptive for the pupils if they had to move schools (rather than a buy out and re-structuring). The second objection, and this is not one I agree with, is that there would be a plurality of provision. There is a distinctly British disease whereby people prefer everyone to move the same mediocre education than 90% have a better education. I think this is nuts personally, but it is the whole point of the comprehensive system.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It was of course the historian Niall Ferguson, who argued in the recent BBC Reith lectures that the UK would benefit from more private education institutions, as greater competition would incentivise the state sector to up its game. After all, he says, "Nobody is going to pay between £10,000 and £30,000 a year for an education that is just a wee bit better than the free option.
I happen to think he's wrong, for the reason I alluded to earlier, i.e. the free option is far from always inferior.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

To answer the thread's title question, because, quite simply, the pursuit of money ruins everything.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

To answer the thread's title question, because, quite simply, the pursuit of money ruins everything.

I agree.(I learnt yesterday that I would,after all, be paid on time, ie at the end of the month :happy:for the intensive teachers course I've been doing all July.I can't say I've enjoyed the thought of working for free, or rather an uncertain payment date but it hasn't affected my teaching in any way).

 

[steveo]

I agree.(I learnt yesterday that I would,after all, be paid on time, ie at the end of the month :happy:for the intensive teachers course I've been doing all July.I can't say I've enjoyed the thought of working for free, or rather an uncertain payment date but it hasn't affected my teaching in any way).

That's the trouble with you Barna, you and your never ending pursuit of money.

 

[applelover]

I've never said that the private sector is "inherently efficient" (though I don't understand what that means given that efficiency is not a binary state). I've said that market economies are the most efficient way of allocating capital and raising total factor productivity. This is not dogma; there is 1,500 years of evidence to demonstrate this is the case.



Why? That is not the evidence in Sweden or the US Charter school system. If there is sufficient demand then there will be new suppliers or existing suppliers will expand. This is basic economics of a fixed price system.



I'm not suggesting that they would. Competitive markets lead to innovation (almost exclusively through new entrants), which filters through the system and drives general productivity improvements. In other words, introducing a good new school to the area can improve all the other schools as well. There is empirical evidence to back this up from Sweden.



You've just described the current education system.

I do think there are two valid objections: some schools will fail (that is how a competitive market system works) and that may be disruptive for the pupils if they had to move schools (rather than a buy out and re-structuring). The second objection, and this is not one I agree with, is that there would be a plurality of provision. There is a distinctly British disease whereby people prefer everyone to move the same mediocre education than 90% have a better education. I think this is nuts personally, but it is the whole point of the comprehensive system.

Personally i've never understood what's wrong with grammar schools. It gives kids with an aptitude for more academic subjects the chance to learn with kids of a similar aptitude. Kids that do well in comprehensives can often choose to move to a grammar school if they don't get into the school at eleven. I also don't see the problem of streaming in comprehensives.

People say it makes kids feel like failures but that is only if we frame it as a failure to them. Kids need to learn that you need to put hard work in to achieve your goals and also that sometimes no matter how hard you work there are ocassions when someone is going to be a little bit better. Shouldn't the pursuit of improvement to achieve goals be what we are teaching our kids.

We do need to stop putting academia on a pedestal above other career paths. Most of my friends went to university but its happens to be the two that didn't that are earning the most money now. Sure money isn't everything but its a good yardstick.

 

[londonblue]

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.

Moreover, each school has its own ethos, even at the moment. We chose the school for our youngest because of the ethos of the school. If that school were to go bust and someone else took it over, the school's approach to learning may change, and may not suit our son, or what we want for our son.

 

[londonblue]

That makes no sense. Teacher remuneration would be independently set in my system. You could therefore introduce more performance related pay and share profits among staff if you were so inclined. For example, rather than have 5 classes of 20 I would have 4 classes of 25 and use the saving to attract better teachers with higher pay. It is a simplified example but the principle holds.

That may work in your utopia, but it doesn't in the real world. Most schools already have more than that per class. If you want to decrease the number of kids in a class then you would need to build more schools. Where would you put them? I certainly don't want any more schools built in my area.