On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:58:40 +0000, Mark wrote:



I understand your concept of separating sourcing and delivery. I just
don't see how it could work.

It works for pretty much every other service and product that we buy.



The first key thing is that the money in the pot remains the same or
could even be supplemented by those parents wishing to do so.

If the money remains the same then each "voucher" would be worth less
than the cost of one place at a state school.

No. The value would be what is spent per child today.


Either every parent
would have to make up the cost or schools would have to cut their
budgets accordingly.

No. If they are providing a good education that parents want to
choose, then they will increase their income.


What about children whose parents cannot supplement the budget?
Schools may be forced to exclude these children if they are to
survive.

Wrong way round. The school should concentrate on and would have more
freedom to provide quality education that people will select. Today
that is done through Ofsted, who can only make a limited look at a
school. By empowering parents, the good schools will excell and
others would have the oppotunity to improve.



The second key thing is that schools, be they in any of these sectors
would have greater autonomy from government control and control of
their destiny.

Schools can have greater autonomy without your scheme. There are
already levels of autonomy such as Foundation Schools (previously
Grant Maintained).

These were certainly a better solution in the past than the present
comprehensive system because it permitted financial independence to a
degree. However, either way I think that the national curriculum
should be dumped as well.



Both of these provide for the good existing schools which are held
back by bureaucracy to excell and make themselves increasingly
attractive to parents.

In my experience this leads to greater bureaucracy as the Schools
themselves have more paperwork.

Not really true. If you take a look at how an independent school in
the private sector runs, there is very, very little bureaucracy and
very little admin overhead. Quite often, it's a full time and a
part time secretary and a part time bursar and that' it. Parents
want their fees spent on teachers and facilities.



In other words, the parents and pupils get to decide, along with the
teachers how things run and not the civil servants.

Some parents get a poorer set of choices. I am in favour of teachers,
governors and parents having more say.


So am I. Having the government out of the picture in terms of actual
running and policy of a school would enable that.



A much better way of proceeding.

Better for some and worse for others.

I think better for everybody.



You are
also talking about removing those parents best able to support such schools.

I'm not talking about removing anybody from anywhere. I am simply
suggesting that people be given more choice. After all they are
paying for these services. Why shouldn't they have the choice over
where to obtain them?

But your scheme would only give more choice to the more wealthy and
less choice to the less wealthy. I find that very unpalatable.

It gives everybody a choice, just as it does for every other service
or item that we buy. I see no issue with that.

What kind of choice? Poorer people will have a worse choice that they
do now. I don't think that is fair.

No they won't - they'll have more choice. FOr example, there doesn't
have to be a geographical boundary or school catchment areas. If
people don't want to pay additional money for their education, they
don't have to. That's no different to today.



Moreover, it encourages the schools to focus on providing a good
quality service. If they do then people will use them. If they
don't, then people won't. It's a very effective way of raising
standards to what they should be.

All the state schools I have experience with already have a good focus
on providing a quality service.


I've sadly seen a rather different side to this with demotivated
teachers and all the rest of it.



Oh dear. What a lot of silly emotive nonsense. I can appreciate that
you might have difficulty with or feel uncomfortable about ideas that
suggest less control by the state. Increasingly people are starting
to realise what is happening and will vote accordingly. Whether they
will be adventurous enough to espouse something more creative is
another thing of course.

But many schools would be destroyed as a result.

This is a pessimistic view. The reality is that the good ones would
excell and the poor ones would close. That is what should happen.

I consider it a realistic view. I know of at least one good state
school whose has no leeway for a reduction in its budget.

One more time. Nobody said anything about a reduction in its budget.
If it's a good school, then it will be able to attract more pupils and
increase its funding.


--

..andy