The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

running schools for profit... of course!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 82395.html

Aren't most of our good schools already profit-seeking businesses?

[Prufrock]

I thought most of them were not-allowed-to-make-a-profit 'charities'?

[thebish]

running schools for profit... of course!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 82395.html

Aren't most of our good schools already profit-seeking businesses?

no.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I thought most of them were not-allowed-to-make-a-profit 'charities'?

Ah yes, I forgot the tax thing.

I always felt my school was run like a business, which introduced some tensions, but generally produced a good service.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Anyway, yes, I had a brain fart there when I woke up this morning - carry on!

Speaks volumes for my memory of how our school's financial matters were handled....

[Lord Kangana]

I can you all somert for nowt on that matter. Naming no names, but of the four top public schools
In the region, one soars away for profitability, as its realised that making money is all about making money. The other three are on their arses financially.

You can all have a couple of guesses as to which of the four's results are the worst, and have been steadily declining in direct proportion to its growth.

So yeah, some schools are run for profit. Doesn't make them good. Which is a real shame, as it blows a massive hole under the waterline of the argument that the profit motive increases effectiveness, competition, whatever. Its nonsense, it doesn't.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I can you all somert for nowt on that matter. Naming no names, but of the four top public schools
In the region, one soars away for profitability, as its realised that making money is all about making money. The other three are on their arses financially.

You can all have a couple of guesses as to which of the four's results are the worst, and have been steadily declining in direct proportion to its growth.

So yeah, some schools are run for profit. Doesn't make them good. Which is a real shame, as it blows a massive hole under the waterline of the argument that the profit motive increases effectiveness, competition, whatever. Its nonsense, it doesn't.

I would never say that the profit motive is the font of all good things. Plainly it isn't.

I just can't have it that it's inherently bad and undesirable.

The possibility for some profit is usually a prerequisite for attracting private investment.

Therefore, anyone looking to increase the total amount this country invests in education would be a fool to dismiss the idea of a profit-making school out of hand, in my opinion.

[thebish]

I would never say that the profit motive is the font of all good things. Plainly it isn't.

I just can't have it that it's inherently bad and undesirable.

The possibility for some profit is usually a prerequisite for attracting private investment.

Therefore, anyone looking to increase the total amount this country invests in education would be a fool to dismiss the idea of a profit-making school out of hand, in my opinion.

i may be a fool - but i cannot see how the profit-motive would obviously be good for education.

it's a fairly complex world - but the basic income a school gets (assuming the idea is that they would all become fee-paying) is the per-capita amount per pupil. with a few amendments (special social categories - poverty premiums) - this is pretty much fixed. the amount the company gets per pupil is fixed revenue - it cannot be increased by adding value to the pupil - it is the same whether or not that pupil thrives/succeeds... hence there is no real profit value to be had in offering a broad and deep education. you might argue that results would lead to a bigger intake and therefore more - but schools are not infinitely expandable - there is a cap on the numbers they can take - and most attractive (to an investor) schools with the potential for excellent grades are already full...

the way to increase profit is therefore to drive down costs... teachers' pay, expensive subjects in the curriculum, school trips, playing fields... none of these things (it seems to me) lead to an obvious improvement to education... and the govt. is still forking out as much as it did before...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

i may be a fool - but i cannot see how the profit-motive would obviously be good for education.

I'm saying that only a fool would dismiss it out of hand - not that anything is 'obviously good'.

There are already severe funding pressures driving costs down in most areas of government spending - there's nothing inherently wrong with thinking about what part profit-making private companies could play, especially in areas where there is a need for capital investment up front.

[thebish]

i may be a fool - but i cannot see how the profit-motive would obviously be good for education.

I'm saying that only a fool would dismiss it out of hand - not that anything is 'obviously good'.

There are already severe funding pressures driving costs down in most areas of government spending - there's nothing inherently wrong with thinking about what part profit-making private companies could play, especially in areas where there is a need for capital investment up front.

well - I have thought it through - and can't see the benefits for our education system... or how it would work...

(of course - some smaller elements of our education system are already privatised and for-profit - I can see how those work - but not whole-scale for-profit schools)

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

i may be a fool - but i cannot see how the profit-motive would obviously be good for education.

I'm saying that only a fool would dismiss it out of hand - not that anything is 'obviously good'.

There are already severe funding pressures driving costs down in most areas of government spending - there's nothing inherently wrong with thinking about what part profit-making private companies could play, especially in areas where there is a need for capital investment up front.

A government can usually borrow money more cheaply than a private enterprise. If the private enterprise had the cash up front, it is guaranteed that the shareholders will want at least the going borrowing rate profit wise. I see no gain to the government/taxpayer as they will pay at least the same and probably more than if they just borrowed the money anyway. The only difference is the government can claim they aren't borrowing money...aka a fudge.

[Lord Kangana]

Ooh, you cynic AT. They wouldn't do that, would they?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

i may be a fool - but i cannot see how the profit-motive would obviously be good for education.

I'm saying that only a fool would dismiss it out of hand - not that anything is 'obviously good'.

There are already severe funding pressures driving costs down in most areas of government spending - there's nothing inherently wrong with thinking about what part profit-making private companies could play, especially in areas where there is a need for capital investment up front.

well - I have thought it through - and can't see the benefits for our education system... or how it would work...

(of course - some smaller elements of our education system are already privatised and for-profit - I can see how those work - but not whole-scale for-profit schools)

Let's try a bit of a thought experiment, given that it wouldn't take a lot of things to be radically different for me to want to be a teacher...

I've got some ideas for running schools. I think the way we do things now leaves children far too detached from the world of work. This is not because I think school is about training for jobs, rather than helping children develop as people so that they can live happy, fulfilled and productive lives. I don't. Mainly what I would like to achieve is to fire aspiration and ambition in kids and to encourage them to appreciate what an opportunity school is.

So one thing I would like to do across my small portfolio of schools is to have an expanded version of the 'Teach First' scheme that lets graduates with good grades from top universities have a fast-tracked route into teaching, while they work out whether that's what they want to do. Some will stay on, some won't, as in the actual scheme, but I think giving kids access to bright, enthusiastic, high-achieving graduates would be a good thing.

Another innovation I'd like to introduce is to make it easier in my schools for outsiders to come in and give lessons (under supervised conditions, of course). I'd like to draw on my contacts to bring in lawyers to give lessons on the legal system, bankers to come in and give lessons on the financial system, engineers to come in and explain their big projects. Not only would these sessions help kids to understand some big themes in the world better than they currently do, but they'd be great for firing career ideas, and help to give to kids a clearer picture of what it takes to have a career in these fields.

I know professionals who would love to do 10 half days a year doing some of the teaching they'd always have quite liked to have done, if other elements of a teaching career were more attractive today. I also know lots of firms who are looking at how they can engage their employees better and meet their corporate social responsibility obligations better, who might even let some of these 5 days a year be taken fully paid for this purpose. It might even become a major way of attracting good employees.

And who knows, maybe I had contacts that could offer corporate sponsorship - partnering with banks or engineering firms so that they can be involved in spotting their recruits for the future, both amongst my pupils and my Teach First recruits.

Let's say the state offers the amount it spends on a child in the state system (let's call it £7k for the sake of argument) as a passportable voucher that could be spent in my schools. Then perhaps I could charge parents another £3k on top of this - something that might appeal to people who currently find private schools out of reach. So I'm collecting £10k per pupil.

Parents might find some of what I have described above and decide they want to make the necessary sacrifices to send their kid to one of my schools and buy into my vision. Who knows what else I could add to my philosophy to make it even more attractive - I could have an entrance exam and be selective about the intake, I could adopt a traditional approach to history and classics that isn't seen outside private schools these days etc - the sorts of things that have become no-go areas in the state system.

Let's say I could do all of this and make £1k profit on every pupil. Then let's imagine the only way I can do all this is by persuading investors that my new schools are an exciting thing for them to be part of, as well offering a modest long rate return on their investment.

Of course lots of this could be beset by practical problems, by the numbers not adding up, by the consequences for the rest of the education system, by the risk to the kids of it all going wrong... however, each and every one of these issues deserves a hearing on its merits, without automatically dismissing 'running schools for profit' out of hand from the start because 'profit' is a dirty word.

[Lord Kangana]

Some points.

I had grizzled old history teachers for the overwhelming majority of my time in school. They were quite a notorious department at the time. It was a subject I did at both A-Level and degree level. I remember in our upper 6th year, we had a brilliant young mind foisted upon us. There was a rebellion by certain members of our set (all 4, by the way, went to either Oxford or Cambridge to study history) to get rid of the "fast-tracked" fresh from university bright young thing, and they appealed directly to to the head of history. Because he was a terrible teacher. And he was. And he was put to use doing things he was perhaps better suited to. Like learning the ropes teaching ten year olds. Sometimes a system exists, despite its obvious flaws, because of larger but less obvious flaws.

We had a certain amount of people come to speak to us at school. But you also have to realise that people who do those kind of jobs you've listed are really very busy, and only getting busier if statistics are to be believed. Are you suggesting equal recompense? Because I'm fairly sure if it were possible it would already be being done as often as you suggest.

And finally....Schools are an inflexible way of making money. Therefore, and any accountant worth his salt would advise you similarly, if you wanted to run a school as a business you would have to be prepared to diversify, because even in your example it doesn't take into account such unpredictables as... what happens if the parents, after a couple of years can't afford their top up?.... What happens if your take-up is low (remember birth rates and income are elastic, but your overheads are fixed) and leaves the school in deficit? After all, you are a business, so administration and liquidation it is then, and f*ck the pupils? Perhaps you could close the educating part of the business, and concentrate on, I don't know, chimney sweeping or something, after all you'll have a large and unproductive group of drain-on-society kids, won't you?

As I have said many times, certain markets just aren't markets. Your suggestions bring to mind, again as I've mentioned before Southern Cross, and no matter how many ways you attempt to surmount the problem by jiggery-pokery, the ultimate end-game is that we'll all just have to accept that educating children is a loss making exercise. At least it should be in non la-la land.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Ok great - as I say, all of that's a substantive debate.

I do think my 'get professionals into schools' idea has legs in a way that hasn't been attempted before, by the way. I'd write a paper on how it could work if I thought anyone would take a blind bit of notice.

I didn't know you were an Oxbridge historian, by the way?!

[Lord Kangana]

I'm not! Bloody hell! I did way too much f*cking about at school for that. No, thats just reflected glory. Though its fairly impressive that 50% of our set went there. And we were taught by a guy from your alma mater. He gave me my love of Keynes. And socialism, bizarrely. I'm not sure he intended either.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm not! Bloody hell! I did way too much f*cking about at school for that. No, thats just reflected glory. Though its fairly impressive that 50% of our set went there. And we were taught by a guy from your alma mater. He gave me my love of Keynes. And socialism, bizarrely. I'm not sure he intended either.

Ah, I see - I thought there were four of you in your history set!

I did wonder...

[Lord Kangana]

Cheeky bastard.

[Lord Kangana]

I have to add, by the way, there was a guy who worked one of the bars at a restaurant I worked at many moons ago who harped on and on about his first from Oxford (and he did have one). Used to tell anyone who would listen. I did ask him one time what f*cking use a first from Oxford was to him when mixing cocktails. He rather rapidly changed the subject. I'm sure you'll probably not see the irony, it being Oxford and everything, but you can lead the horse to water....

[Montreal Wanderer]

I wonder whether our best and brightest should end up teaching high school. Those who can't do, teach. Teachers who inspire us don't necessarily have a first from university, they have a rapport and ability to communicate with teenagers. Our brilliant university graduates should work on cures for cancer or achieving world peace. Just my opinion.