How many of the Conservative policies that Labour abolished are they now bringing back?
1. The Governments Education Bill is effectively the Conservatives 1987 Grant Maintained Schools scheme.
2. The Government banned the Conservative internal market reforms in the NHS, massively increased spending on something else and then decided they were wrong to ban the Tory policies in the first place. Now they are pushing forward with internal market reforms to the NHS.
3. And finally we have a new scheme that is similiar in principle to the Conservatives assisted places scheme.
Here's the Adam Smith Institue Blog report on the new scheme:
'Telegraph education correspondent Julie Henry reports that up to 2,000 children in local-authority care in Britain could be offered places in private boarding schools.
Despite the £2.5bn a year that is spent looking after some 60,000 children in care, only 6% of them end up gaining five or more good GCSEs – the standard target in secondary schools. More than a third of them get no GCSE exams at all. They are also three times more likely to get involved in crime than other children. So access to private education could be a great boon for them.
Trials of the idea could start next year. There is, of course, a bit of self-interest for the local councils too. To keep a child in a children’s home costs four times the fees in posh schools like Eton or Winchester.
But what struck me as remarkable is that here we are – eight years later – bringing back a version of the ‘assisted places’ scheme that Tony Blair’s government abolished as soon as it came into office. The scheme offended Old Labour backbenchers, who wanted to make life as difficult as possible for the private schools. So despite the fact that it had given thousands of poor but bright kids access to the very best schooling in the country, it had to go.
So let us hope that this new idea takes root and grows. But why stop at 2,000? Why not give all children state-paid access to the school of their choice? The state does not have to provide an entire service – education, health, food, footwear, clothes – to make sure that everyone has access to it. All it has to do is pay – specifically, for those who could not otherwise afford these things. That gives equal access of the kind Old Labour wants: but without the nationalized industry provision that we all know is a disaster.'
Who knows maybe this is an example of Labour Ideology being best served by Conservative policies. If that's the case it would appear the Government has wasted a lot of money and effort over the last nine years. (Incidently, no book quite defines the right as Marx's Communist manifesto does the left but I reckon Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' and its theory of the Market's 'invisible hand'comes closest).
2 comments:
From the way it's described, this new plan for kids in care sounds somewhat different to the assisted places scheme. Assisted places was about subsidising parents who wanted to send their kids to private school but couldn't afford it. The new scheme doesn't sound like it has that element of choice. Sounds more like local authorities being able to outsource their care to the private sector (the key point I think is that the kids are a) in care, and b) will be sent to boarding schools.) It sounds similar to the NHS outsourcing certain operations to private sector.
Not saying this makes the new scheme better. On the contrary, one may balk at the state rather than parents making the decision.
As the post makes clear, there are several examples of Labour adopting policies they previously opposed and legislation they repealed. However, I don't think this schools scheme is quite as clear cut a parallel as the other examples.
The general point - why not have funding follow pupils into private education - is an interesting one. If I'm not mistaken that's effectively what happened when all of us (UK resident) on this blog went to Uni. I can think of practical reasons why such a policy might be difficult to implement at secondary school level, but I'd be interested to hear moral / philosophical objections if anyone has any. Off the top of my head it doesn't sound like an inherently bad idea, but as a product of the state school system I do have something of a sentimental attachment to it. Would love to hear more views on this one.
Dan is right that the scheme is different from the Assisted places scheme. However they both follow the principle of the state and the private sector working hand-in-hand to help disadvantaged children.
What struck me was the claim that the scheme was in the self interest of the local councils as to 'keep a Child in a children's home costs four times the fees in posh schools like Eton or Winchester'.
Post a Comment