The Centre for Policy
Studies is a conservative (note the small
‘c’) think tank. It has published a document called School Quangos: a blueprint for abolition and
reform, in which the authors look at
each of the education-related non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in the UK
and argue that they should either be radically changed or abolished
altogether.
Should we take it seriously?
I think it is always
useful to scrutinise the work, and the value for money, of these kinds of
organisations. However, this report is spoilt for me by its obvious
partisanship. This is evidenced in a single sentence:
“Independent [i.e. fee-paying] schools should not be subject to
inspection.”
If the authors really
were as concerned about value for money as the document suggests, this sentence
would not have appeared. If parents are being asked to pay for their
child’s education they have every right to expect the school to be
held accountable, and I don’t see why that should not be the case for
independent schools as well as state-funded schools.
The report does not look at technology specifically, but it seems to
me that one of the key issues is not whether the organisations provide value for
money according to some narrow criteria, but whether they do so when the wider
social costs and benefits are taken into account.
For example, if you take the myguide website, I do
not see how its setting up and running can be cost-effective, in ordinary
accounting terms, considering that its resources are completely free for people
to use at the point of consumption. However, if its instructions on how to spot
internet scams prevents some people from losing money, and helps to reduce
identity theft, then it probably is cost-effective.
The value of NDPBs is that they are able to take a wider view than an
organisation that has to always balance the books in a narrow way. However, I do
think the principle of scrutinising them is a good one, if only from the point
of view of Milton Friedman’s (the economist, and no relation) rubric.
He asserted that when people buy goods and services, they have one or both of
two main motivations: to maximise value for money, and to minimise expenditure.
However, your incentive to do either depends on whose money you are spending,
and on whom you are spending it. Thus we obtain this
table:
Whose
money? | Spent on
whom? | Incentive
to minimise spending? | Incentive
to maximise value for money? |
Your own | Yourself | Yes | Yes |
Your own | Someone else | Yes | No (“It’s the thought that
counts”) |
Someone else’s | Yourself | No | Yes |
Someone else’s | Someone else | No | No |
Looked at like that,
nobody in public service has any incentive to spend taxpayers’ money
on a third party (schools, teachers etc) in a way that guarantees value for
money or which minimises expenditure. Personally, I think it’s a bit
of a cynical viewpoint, but Friedman does have a point. Surely, though, the
answer is not to simply abolish public sector organisations but to ensure that
they are accountable – which, indeed, they are.
I
suspect that the publishers do not actually want too much of a debate.
Otherwise, why publish the report in August, when a lot of people in education
are on vacation? Still, it’s always good to debate these sorts of
issues, and by producing a report containing statistics
‘proving’ that lots of educational organisations are not
giving value for money, the Centre for Policy Studies has perhaps provided the
valuable service of getting people to think about such
matters.
This article is taken
from the latest issue of Computers in
Classrooms, which will be published on 3rd September 2009. Click the
link for more information about this free ezine.
I am currently in
the process of trying out various blog clients, and will report on my
experiences in due course. I have created this post
using Ecto.
Subscribe to article summaries