GOVES ATTACK ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THEIR EFFECTS-A SOFT TARGET

GOVES ATTACK ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND THEIR EFFECTS

Goes for the soft target-but what exactly is he doing to narrow the gap?

Comment

Michael Gove said in his speech at Brighton College that the dominance of the public schoolboy in every prominent role in British society is “morally indefensible”. “More than almost any developed nation, ours is a country in which your parentage dictates your progress,” he said. “Those who are born poor are more likely to stay poor and those who inherit privilege are more likely to pass on privilege in England than in any comparable country. For those of us who believe in social justice, this stratification and segregation are morally indefensible.” Gove was certainly not calling  though for the abolition of  private schools to remedy the problem.  What he meant was that state schools needed to improve to private school standards, and not that private schools should be abolished.

Clearly it is impossible to justify such inequity although when politicians start talking about morality they are, as a rule, on dangerous ground –so its worth taking a much closer look. We are certainly an unequal society in terms of outcomes. But it is too simplistic to blame the 7% of people who are educated here in private schools for such inequity and crucially  the lack of social mobility. Social mobility has stalled in our country, for sure. The problem is, though, deeply ingrained. Anthony Sampson in his  seminal book ‘Anatomy of Britain’ first published in 1962, with later revisions , highlighted that the establishment and business was dominated by the privately educated. The Sutton Trust has helpfully up-dated Sampson’s analysis and findings but  in truth  have told us not much that is new in this respect.   The reasons for the lack of social mobility are many and varied. What happens in the home up to the age of three  and parental support and education  are   regarded as very important  indeed,  in influencing  social mobility. The Jesuits maxim “Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man” is  probably only half correct in that a child’s trajectory  may be largely determined even earlier, at least according to some experts and recent research (although there is a danger of being too deterministic about this).

Politicians (educated in both state and private schools) in successive administrations   have largely failed to grasp the nettle to identify the nature of the problem ,let alone the policy levers that might help   alleviate it , and these levers  are not by any means all  related to education. Certainly its true that  if you fail to get good GCSEs at school your chances of doing well   in the world of work are severely circumscribed.  Bashing private schools though, even for a Tory Minister, it seems, pays political dividends.  They are the soft target.

Too many stubbornly underperforming state schools are at the heart of the problem, and it’s a difficult challenge to address. It is mainly about addressing  the long tail of our significant underachievers in school, perhaps as much as  20% of the school population. The next biggest  problem is  the way we treat  our  brightest and most able  pupils  , those who have the potential to succeed but who are not being given  either the personalised support  or  guidance in schools  to  enable them  to reach their  full potential. Depending on how you measure and define this group it could  range from 5%-20%. of pupils.This is bad for them, and us.

But lets be clear there is nothing immoral about choosing the type of education you want for your child, a right  that happens to be enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and those with money have every right to choose how they spend it subject  only to the law. For those like George Monbiot (privately educated) who naively call for the abolition of private schools the message is clear -it wont happen.  The Government would rightly be held to account for such an illiberal act under Human Rights law. His other solution is to remove charity status for these schools-which will marginally decrease their numbers, mainly the smaller ones, on the tightest of margins, but also serve to   make the sector more elitist ,less inclusive  and less prone, probably, to helping  the state sector.  It would also mean that tens of thousands of pupils end up looking for places in an already hard pressed state system .And if they lose their charity status, there will follow a major cull of thousands of other charities  which provide less public benefit than many private schools.

Looking at the advantages provided by an independent school education, they are perceived to be many.  Which is why surveys suggest that most parents, if they had the  means, would choose a private education for their child. Of course, class sizes tend to be much smaller. Some say the teaching is better although this is difficult to prove . But many parents are drawn to these schools because of the pastoral support, extra-curricular activities (arts music, drama), sport and facilities.   Also importantly these schools tend to  support character development,  values, self-sufficiency, self-discipline, resilience, leadership skills, teamwork, sporting prowess and nurture , too, creative talent , and ultimately  more rounded and socially- confident individuals.

Rather than abolish these schools the state sector should be learning from them. Lord Adonis talked about transferring the independent sectors DNA into state schools. And it is in the area of supporting character development, positive thinking and resilience where the state system has much to learn and where there are huge possibilities.

It is not absolutely clear though how this governments reforms will help support the development of these characteristics and attributes among our state school pupils,  and so  help  close the gap between state and private schools and promote equity. Indeed, it could be argued, and has been by Professor Tony Watts, that Gove has been personally responsible for pulling out the state-school funding for sport, music and the other performing arts (where the disparities with public schools are now particularly significant). Also the programmes for raising aspirations and improving social mobility (career guidance, AimHigher) have been halted.  How exactly are state school pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged, going to be more socially mobile if they are not  given  access to high quality, professional,   face to face advice in school  about their options and  pathways into further, higher education, training  and employment?

The Government is, of course, introducing significant reforms. The structural reforms – making schools more autonomous and giving them more freedom may well  help, providing they use this to improve educational outcomes, (some seem to have converted simply for the extra funding) . But few believe that they are sufficient in themselves to deliver significantly improved outcomes. In short, the changes are necessary but insufficient.  But the other side of this coin is what happens in the classroom, at the chalk face. There need to be improvements there in the quality of teaching. Evidence shows that improving the quality of teaching is essential to driving up standards in schools. Pupils taught by good teachers score nearly half a GCSE point more per subject than pupils taught by poor teachers. But its also, crucially, about  what children are taught , so that teachers are supporting the provision of a rounded education, and not just teaching to the test.(critics believe that exams are now the master not servant of education) .The delayed curriculum reforms and introduction of the Ebacc, might have a positive  effect. But, overall are  these  ‘ game-changers’ likely to  measurably  close the  attainment gap, to tackle the long tail of underachievement  and the widening divide between the state and independent sectors? Even after the Blair governments reforms,  Professor Barbers ‘deliverology’ and  significant new investment, the attainment gap  between the sectors actually grew (and productivity in state  education fell).  So what else is on offer? The Pupil Premium targeted at the most disadvantaged? –a possibility but unions claim that this money is being used to fill gaps arising from other cuts in school funding. Even if not, the sums involved are relatively modest and there is no guarantee that schools will use the ‘extra’ money effectively. The government has not ring-fenced Pupil Premium cash, but it will – via Ofsted and league tables – hold schools accountable for how it is spent. Unless we learn from what schools do with the premium, the money may well be wasted, and hence do nothing to narrow the achievement gap. So, what else is going to narrow the gap and improve equity? Gove deserves credit for pushing through reforms, often overcoming resistance even from within his own Department, and one would be hard pressed to name a Minister who has achieved more or performed better, certainly in the eyes of his own leader Tory MPs and  electors.  But, in terms of transforming the system, to make it fit for the 21^st Century, we are probably edging towards the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end.  And attacks on private schools tend to deflect attention away from other areas that require urgent attention and the sustained  investment of   political capital.

THE ACADEMIES COMMISSION-LAUNCH

 

THE ACADEMIES COMMISSION

Launch of new Academies Commission

Comment

Sponsored by the Cooperative and CfBT Education Trust,  the Academies Commission launch  on 8 May follows a rapid increase in the number of schools converting to academy status. As of 1 April, there were 1776 academies, a huge increase from the 270 or so that had been open or planned at the time of the last election. The commission is chaired by former Chief-Inspector of Schools Christine Gilbert who is joined by two other commissioners – Brett Wigdortz (CEO of Teach First) and Professor Chris Husbands (Director of the Institute of Education). The Academies Commission remit is:

The commission will examine the model and incipient outcomes of academisation from a school improvement perspective, focusing on issues of accountability, governance, due diligence, and outcomes for pupils.

It will highlight emerging trends, risks, and related questions, concentrating on public interest.

It will also draw on international examples of similar systems and cases, to inform and compare analyses.

It will not rehearse debates about the decision to develop the academies programme, but will focus on the consequences of this programme in terms of outcomes for children and young people and for the education system as a whole.

Particular attention will be given to the key issues of

a) accountability including processes via which schools are held accountable; the role of the sponsor; commissioning of services; governance; operation of local markets; due diligence (e.g. what happens when performance worsens or fails to improve under a particular sponsor or chain?)

b) educational outcomes and how to lever school improvement in an academised system, given school autonomy. With the speed of academisation exceeding all expectations, much of the debate has been retrospective with operational policy being created ‘on the hoof’. What has been notably absent, in government policy and media, think tank and academic comment, is analysis of the implications of mass academisation. What are the unique features of an entirely academised system and what impact these will have on young people’s educational outcomes?  The Commission ‘will develop a practical but compelling vision for the future of UK Academisation.’  The Commission claims to ‘bring together a breadth of perspectives and a wealth of experience with Commissioners drawn from across the political spectrum, academia, private and third sectors.’ The inquiry will run for several months reporting towards the end of 2012.’

 

Christine Gilbert said at the launch on 8 May: “So the commission’s work will review the landscape, but with a view to looking firmly at the future rather than revisiting the past. We do not intend to rehearse debates about the decision to develop the academies programme. We are far more interested in ensuring that it delivers on its promise of a better education for every child.’

Speeches at  the opening found here:

http://www.academiescommission.org/

http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/583088/08.05.03-Christine-Gilbert-Speech-Text.pdf

A QUEENS SPEECH – CLEARLY NOT DESIGNED TO RELAUNCH THE COALITION

Comment

The Queens Speech has been described as insubstantial and dull by critics. There is, though ,  quite a lot to be said for a dull Queens speech. Too much legislation, often poorly conceived and drafted  , is  a  commonplace and busy governments may like to  be seen to  be doing a lot  but, rather too often, much of what they do is not actually very good and almost always wasteful.  But this speech, we were warned in advance, would revitalise , and relaunch the Coalition after a difficult two months. But it is unlikely to do that. Rather optimistically some commentators were saying that the UK requires urgent action to re-start economic growth and this should have been included in the speech as if a bit more legislation is the answer. Somehow I doubt it.  Critics  turn decidedly vague and non-committal  when you challenge them  on what  is missing from the statute book  that will  kick start economic  growth (or reduce the so-called  economic headwinds which  push us off- course  ie euro crisis etc). Governments are not very good at making  big economic decisions designed to breathe life into  a stagnant economy,  mainly because they have insufficient information and legislation wont do much to help.  Besides, there are far too   many variables that are   clearly  outside their control  (elections in Europe etc)  which  add to the risks.

Given that this was not a launch pad to restore confidence in the Coalition it will be interesting to see what Cameron does over the next few weeks. There must be scope for a re-shuffle. As the FT pointed out in an Editorial advising Cameron to  ‘get a grip’-  ‘ an administration that saddles the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, with responsibility not only for the economy but also for the government’s political strategy and keeping Scotland in the union, is one that is too narrowly based.’

IS THERE A DRIVE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF GRAMMAR SCHOOLS?

GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

Are they on the way back?

Legislation doesnt allow for establishment of  new Grammar schools, but existing ones can expand

Comment

For some grammar schools ( wholly selective state schools) are elitist institutions (they select pupils at 11) which restrict educational opportunity to a small, already-privileged minority and damage other local schools by cream skimming the top pupils, while damaging the self-esteem of  a majority of pupils who fail to make the grade. For others, they are a method for achieving high educational standards which benefit the whole of society and provide a ladder of opportunity for children from poor backgrounds to clamber out of the cycle of disadvantage.

Andrew Neil, the former editor of the Sunday Times, now a commentator  in the broadcast media,   made a documentary about a year ago on grammar schools .In it  he argued  that the grammar schools provided bright working-class and lower-middle class  children with a route to educational and career success. Far from being elitist and unfair institutions, they were actually effective engines of social mobility, he argued. One of the most striking pieces of evidence for Neil’s thesis is the social background of UK Prime Ministers. Between the Eton-educated Alec Douglas-Home and the Fettes-educated Tony Blair, five successive UK Prime Ministers were from modest backgrounds and four were educated at grammar schools.

Grammar schools undoubtedly polarise opinion and  the arguments over selection are rearing their heads again, following the allegation that a new grammar school is being set up in Sevenoaks. A campaign in Sevenoaks, which has no grammar school of its own, to provide for its brightest children raised a petition of 2,600 names. At present 1,120 of the town’s children have to travel to selective schools in nearby towns. The council’s recent decision means an annexe associated with these schools can now be built in Sevenoaks.

The Education and Inspections Act 2006 and the Academies Act 2010 effectively mean that there can be no ‘new’ grammar schools (ie in addition to the 164 grammar school already operating).  However, it is also the case that  any school can seek to expand by opening another site,  which has been allowed since 1944. But  to do so it must be a continuance of the original school. Hence, the compromise endorsed by councillors in Sevenoaks. The promised extra provision in Sevenoaks will not be in a ‘new’ grammar school, but in two “satellites”, each with 60 places, run by existing grammars in other towns.

What does the government think about this?  Does this amount to a drive to set up new grammar schools and broaden selection in the maintained sector? This government isn’t in fact advocating the establishment of ‘new’ grammar schools. But it doesn’t see a problem with expanding existing grammar schools. Indeed, Nick Gibb, the schools Minister, addressing the Grammar School Heads Association  recently said existing selective schools “would be able to take advantage of crucial freedoms” on admissions. This includes making it easier for popular schools to expand and scrapping rules requiring schools to consult the local community on admissions rules every five years. More grammars should also convert into independent academies, he added, giving them additional powers over the curriculum, staff pay and the academic year.  Junior Minister Lord Hill said recently in the Lords “if people want to come forward with a proposal to open or expand a satellite school, they can apply to the local authority, and to the Secretary of State in the case of an academy. Those proposals would be looked at on a case-by-case basis.”  Lord Hill was keen to add  though that in respect of free schools or the academy conversion programme ” we have been absolutely clear in the Academies Act that we have taken the opposite view and have not permitted or encouraged the expansion of selection within the maintained system. We have said-this is the point about the admissions code-that all schools, whether maintained, non-selective or selective, should have the ability, in response to parental demand, to increase their published admissions number. That is the only change that has been made.”  The conservatives see the grammar school issue as divisive and they will not open up  another front now,  in championing new grammar schools, which would also threaten real divisions within  the coalition. That said, there is a grey area surrounding the expansion of existing grammar schools, and there is every likelihood that there will be more expansion of  these schools.

 

To recap- A single school can operate  from more than one site, but to do so ‘ any other site must be a continuance of the original school.’ But  new wholly selective state schools are not permitted under existing legislation.

It would be rash, though, to assume that all grammar schools wish to expand. And indeed of those who rather like the idea of scaling up   not all will have the space or capital to do so.

ACADEMIES-ARE CRITICISMS JUSTIFIED?

ACADEMIES

Some criticisms-but are they justified?

Comment

There are a number of criticisms being levelled at Academies. Lets look at four.

First, they amount to privatising the state education system.  George Monbiot, the privately educated left wing commentator, recently made this claim in R4s Any Questions?. The normal definition of privatisation is that it involves transfer of government services or assets to the private sector. Wikipedia puts it as follows ‘the process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency, public service or property from the public sector (the state or government) to the private sector (businesses that operate for a private profit) or to private non-profit organizations.’ So does this apply to Academies? Clearly, not. Academies are not owned by private sector companies, nor are any of their assets. In ,fact they are required to be charities by law. Private companies can ,of course, now  support the Trusts that run Academies, just as they were able to under the last Labour government. Indeed private companies can also support local education authorities (Islington /CEA) too.  But the body running an academy school  has to be a  charitable trust. One is tempted to think that that the Government might as well privatise the system  given they are accused as having done  so already, so in a political sense the issue has already been discounted. To claim these supply side reforms amount  to privatisation is nonsense on stilts.

But Academies are selective aren’t they? Well, this is not quite so cut and dried. Quite a few state schools have always had some form of selection. Church or faith schools may ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship. This is a form of selection and they have been accused of not taking a proper share of pupils eligible for FSM(See this weeks Guardian story). There are also grammar schools, and, this   is something of a secret,   quite a few other schools that select a proportion of their pupils on the basis of academic ability, award places on the basis of an entrance exam or a selection test. Specialist schools that award a percentage of their places (10%) to pupils with an aptitude for certain subjects may use some form of assessment or audition where appropriate. State boarding schools may interview  a child to assess their suitability to be a boarder (interviewing is not allowed for admission into any other type of state-funded school-although there are ways of getting round this-ie having school  open days which provides the school a chance to meet informally with parents and children.) As far as academies are concerned (around 50% of all secondary schools will  have academy status by the end of this parliament)  the Academies Act 2010 allows schools that already select all or some of their pupils on the basis of ability to continue to do so. It does not provide for existing academies to become selective. When a school becomes an academy, the academy trust will become the admission authority. For some schools, such as foundation and voluntary aided schools, this will mean little change, but for community schools and voluntary controlled schools the academy will need to manage its own admissions process. This will involve periodic consultation, and regularly publishing the academy’s admission arrangements but they still remain subject to the Admissions Code. Indeed the academy funding agreement requires them to be non-selective. Remember most academies started their lives providing education in disadvantaged areas. Most have high numbers of FSM pupils, and many use banding to achieve fairer intakes than many comprehensives with middle class catchments. And you can criticise Michael Gove for a few things but  surely not his commitment to disadvantaged pupils and their education which is one of  the key priorities that inform government reforms.

But what about  their  accountability? Surely without the overarching  Local Authority responsible for the school, accountability is lost. Pause for a second, and think how many local authorities have allowed badly underperforming schools to continue teaching pupils year in ,year out while either failing to intervene or intervening ineffectively? The traditional local democratic accountability regime, which can be termed ‘long’ accountability which allows officials who have presided over failure to stay in place, regardless of local election results, is hardly a panacea.  Take a look at the academy funding agreements. Through funding agreements academies are accountable to the elected national, rather than local government.   It is true ,that with so many schools directly accountable to the Secretary of State  (over 1500 schools are  now academies), there is an interesting debate to be had around the notion of local school commissioners, providing additional accountability  (which the IPPR  think tank has been looking at ),  which is on-going.  But the Ofsted accountability regime is firmly in place  and the  newly revamped  league tables  give a clearer idea of how schools are actually performing, than they did before.  And  academies are now subject to the Freedom of Information Act, which means that it is much easier to find out what they are up to and what exams their pupils are sitting.    So ,  although academies are ‘autonomous’,  they are accountable, with   accountability working at several levels . It’s also worth noting that academies are not that autonomous and very much remain part of the state system-though  their funding agreements.  They  certainly don’t have the kind of independence from politicians and officials enjoyed by schools in the independent sector.

But are academies still focused on the most disadvantaged?  Labour Academies were focused in the most disadvantaged areas and the Coalition government is now allowing outstanding schools in wealthier areas to become academies.   Some including Ed Balls argued that this was a  corruption of the original idea behind academies .  But critics forget that not all the Academies started under Labour were in the most deprived areas. Indeed, Ed Balls who gave the impression of being ambivalent about academies, (like Gordon Brown,) when he was education secretary gave academy status, as Conor Ryan has pointed out, to two highly successful secondaries that wanted to help improve weaker schools. Indeed this is an area where the new, successful academies can play a significant role in the future.

And then  there is  the issue of how academies are using their autonomy. Are they being  more innovative than peer schools that are not academies   and personalising education, making good use of technology, providing a rounded education  for  their children perhaps encouraging more positive attitudes resilience and the development of non-cognitive skills ? The suspicion is that rather a lot of schools converted not because they were in pursuit of new freedoms but they wanted the extra cash. This goes against the grain. Supply side reforms alone will not transform our system.  Structural changes  need to go hand in hand with improved teaching at the chalk face and a move away from teaching to the test  combined with  new cutting edge thinking about what education is actually for.   Interestingly the Reform think tank is shortly to publish a report on this very issue and the extent to which academies are using their new freedoms.

Note:   Total number of secondary school places in England                  3,608,970

Total Number of (wholly ie Grammar) selective school places               161,660

Percentage of places in selective schools                                                          4.5%

The three authorities with the highest percentage of places in  selective schools are Buckinghamshire 41%, Trafford 40% and Slough 37.%

 

Note 2

1,580 Schools are now academies

1,243 Schools have converted to academy status since the election, of which 578 are outstanding

37 are sponsoring 44 academies

47% of all secondary schools are academies

53% of all outstanding secondary schools are academies.

Source: Hansard 6 March

THE CASE FOR PROFIT MAKING STATE SCHOOLS?

The case for bona fide profit-making  state schools

Sahlgren champions for -profit supply side reforms and says they should not be half-hearted

Comment 

Gabriel Sahlgren, the Swedish academic, who has done work for right of centre think tank the IEA,  put a powerful case for profit making schools in the state sector  at the recent launch of a Policy Exchange report (see below)  that pushed the John Lewis  ‘social enterprise model for school management.’ The social enterprise’ schools, would be forced to reinvest 50% of any surplus in the school. Currently schools are either run by the state, by charitable not for profit   trusts or for-profit companies, the latter confined to the independent sector, though for-profit management companies can be contracted by a charitable Trust to support a state school. (There are a couple of examples of this happening).

Sahlgren  began by asking, rhetorically, why the profit motive is important. Here, he agreed entirely with the report’s conclusions. Firstly, profit provides strong incentives for schools to grow and capitalise on scale economies. Non-profit schools generally do not have these incentives. Secondly, non-profit schools have a more difficult time finding up-front capital because they cannot target investors and obtain funds in exchange for future potential profits. Thirdly, even when non-profit schools grow, they do so because of philanthropy, and there are few incentives for philanthropists to back the best schools, as evidence from California shows. In essence, in order to produce a well-functioning education market in the UK, he claimed we need a supply-side dynamic that gives parents and pupils more than just a theoretical right to choose schools. Such a supply-side dynamic requires for-profit actors as the Swedish experience shows. The Free school initiative would not have taken off there (as Anders Hutlin has confirmed on many occasions)   had it not been for the interest and engagement of the private sector- that is the private profit making sector rather than the private charitable sector.  But doesn’t the profit motive drive down quality? The short answer is no, Sahlgren claimed.  On the whole, research from America, Chile and Sweden displays either positive or null effects vis-à-vis public and non-profit schools. One study from Sweden displays a small negative effect in upper-secondary education but he says, the results are likely to be driven by other factors than the profit motive.  He would also like to emphasise that null effects are important since we are more interested in the overall systemic-level effects from competition than in specific ‘school effects’. While evidence on competition’s effects from various reforms around the world is mixed – which could be due to the fact that competitive incentives have rarely increased more than marginally in most cases, and also that it takes time before competition matures – cross-national research analysing PISA scores and focusing on long-run, systemic effects, is not: the best estimation strategies find relatively large positive effects of specifically private-school competition on PISA scores, for pupils in both private and public schools, and also that it drives down costs. In other words, private school competition gives us more bang for our buck.  However, he also wanted to  discuss the evidence from Chile,  (which was not mentioned  in the Policy Exchange report). Chile is the only country apart from Sweden that allows for-profit schools to participate in a universal voucher scheme. And just as in Sweden, many have blamed these schools for producing more segregation rather than increasing quality. Is this true? No. He says. The most recent research demonstrates that for-profit schools that do not charge top-up fees enrol more disadvantaged pupils than non-profit and public schools. What about performance? Here the evidence is a bit more complicated: for-profit chain schools perform better than public and Protestant schools, while there are no systematic differences between for-profit chain schools, Catholic schools and non-sectarian, non-profit schools. Among pupils in eighth grade, however, for-profit chain schools also out-compete non-sectarian, non-profit schools. Small, independent for-profit schools, on the other hand, perform on a par with public and Protestant ones, but lower than the other types of for-profit and non-profit schools. Yet, the evidence is still clear: nothing indicates that the profit motive per se is dangerous. If anything, the opposite is true. While there have been, and continue to be, many flaws in the Chilean school choice model, the profit motive is not one of them.  What about the Social Enterprise model? He argues that while it is a step in the right direction, it is not the best policy option available. A duty to reinvest 50% of surplus would make it more difficult to attract investors to support new schools, or expansions of existing ones, since it means much higher risk taking. The corollary is that the sought-after supply-side dynamic might not materialise or at the very least be significantly diluted. This is not a risk we should take, Sahlgren argues.

Secondly, he understands that the social enterprise model is supposed to be a political solution, but  wonders whether critics of profits would be satisfied since they do not claim that it is okay if 50% of profits go to what they argue are exploitative capitalists. Instead, they argue that all money should be reinvested. He  therefore questions whether the proposal makes for-profit schools more politically palatable.  But aren’t there dangers in producing a more competitive framework in education, which for-profit schools are supposed to do? Yes, there certainly are, he claims. Evidence from reforms all over the world indicates that while it is relatively easy to make schools compete, it is more difficult to make them compete by increasing quality. An example is Sweden, which combines an extremely decentralised grading system – where individual teachers set the grades – with a heavily centralised admissions system that depends almost entirely on those grades. This has produced perverse incentives among rational parents and pupils to seek out the schools and teachers who give the highest grades for the least effort. A more relevant example for the UK is the danger of undifferentiated funding. Since the real cost of educating a pupil is a function of his/her background and ability, funding should be systematically differentiated based on pupil background and prior ability. If it is not, there is a danger that schools compete by attracting richer and more high-performing pupils rather than by raising quality. While the pupil premium is a step forward in this respect, it is not sufficient.  The upshot is that if schools are given opportunities to compete by other means than quality, they are likely to do so. When we allow commercial interests to enter the publicly funded education sector, it is therefore crucial that we also promote a healthy framework that harnesses incentives and channels them towards improving quality.

In conclusion, he agrees with  American Eric Hanushek, one of the world’s foremost education economists, that the key problem in today’s education systems is that there are no incentives to improve pupil performance. For-profit schools are not sufficient to improve the incentive structure. Many other complementary reforms are necessary, and  he will  discuss these in detail in his  upcoming paper for the Institute of Directors. He also mentioned the importance of a robust regulatory and accountability framework within which profit making schools would have to operate.  He argues that for-profit schools are but one important element in a coherent reform package designed to transform the current education system into an education market. He is aware of the political difficulties involved in allowing businesses to participate in a publicly funded education sector. However, he concluded that if there is anything the past 30 years of school choice research has shown, it is that half-hearted reforms are unlikely to generate more than meagre gains.

Note Graham Stuart, the Commons Education Select Committee Chair, was surprisingly downbeat about profit makers role in state education at the launch of the report , and while accepting that they had  a role in running  support services he claimed  that the most successful education systems in the world, such as South Korea, had no need for the profit motive. Actually he didn’t choose a great example in support of his case. South Koreas system relies heavily on  a massive profitmaking after school  tuition industry  to raise pupils to the  appropriate level to access Higher Education, because of the deficiencies in  their state schools.

 

The Government is currently not prepared to allow profit making state schools.Critics claim that the school  system, because of the introduction of  ’autonomous’ state schools  is being privatised . Privatisation is accepted to mean the transfer of ownership of state enterprises and assets  to private ownership . This, demonstrably,  has not happened in our state school system.

Additional Source;Institute of Economic Affairs

Policy Exchange- Social Enterprise Schools: A potential profit-sharing model for the state-funded school system 2012

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/social-enterprise-schools

ARE ACADEMIES SUCCEEDING?

ARE ACADEMIES SUCCEEDING?

Government stung by Observers allegation that Academies are underperforming compared with other state schools

Comment

Last weekend’s Observer made a number of claims about Academy performance. Academies, it said, are under-performing compared with other state schools, raising doubts over the reform programme being pursued by the education secretary. It alleged that figures show that, while 60% of pupils in non-academy schools attained five A* to C grade GCSEs last year, only 47% did so in the 249 sponsored academies. The progress that pupils achieve over time is also lower in academies than in non-academy schools, with 65% of those in academies making expected progress in English in the year leading to the 2011 GCSE examinations, compared with 74% in the community, foundation and voluntary-aided schools that make up the rest of the state sector.

Ministers were sufficiently irritated by the Observer piece that they instructed the DfE to formulate a detailed reply (or rebuttal). The essence of the reply was that the Observer was not comparing like with like. In fact all the Observer had succeeded in doing was to provide what DFE termed  ’a very poor snapshot analysis’. The DfE said ‘it’s ridiculous to lump in the lowest performing schools which may have only become Academies five months ago, with ones which have been established for years. Much of their analysis was based on a simplistic comparison between all schools and Academies – nearly all of which were previously failing local authority maintained schools. As Academies are having to recover from such a low base such a comparison is nonsensical.’  The Observer claim that; Academies with poor results in 2008 have improved no faster than maintained schools with poor results over the same period is based on an analysis  that excludes the most successful academies that opened between 2001-2007 and which had already seen huge improvements. Research by the LSE found results were strongest for schools that have been academies for longer.’  The DFE adds that the analysis of progress measures is limited because the league tables consider progress of pupils over the full five years in secondary school. All pupils in Academies will have spent the majority of their time in the underperforming predecessor school not the Academy.  Nor, added the DFE, did the Observer ‘take into account spill-over effects – e.g. local authority schools improving because an Academy has opened nearby (as the London School of Economics has suggested is happening). They have used a narrow way of comparing schools, looking purely at the Free School Meal intake. The Government and the NAO actually use a wider range of data to create comparator statistics. We look at FSM rates, previous results and prior attainment levels of pupils. This means we are genuinely comparing like for like.’

Here is the government’s official position on Academy success:

‘This year, yet again, Academies’ GCSE results improved by nearly twice the level seen across all maintained schools

Attendance figures at academies are rising faster than in other schools, and the number of NEETS are falling faster in academies than other schools. (NAO report)

The London Schools of Economics found that Academies improve faster than comparator schools even when controlling for pupil intake and the use of GCSE “equivalent” qualifications. They also found that Academies effect helped raise standards in other local schools

The attainment rate for FSM pupils in Academies improved by 8.0 percentage points between 2009 and 2010. This more than double the improvement rate recorded in comparable schools (3.1 percentage points) and also much higher than the national improvement rate for FSM pupils (4.3 percentage points).  Results in sponsored academies are generally higher for those that have been open the longest.  In 2011, the proportion of pupils achieving 5+A*-C including English and maths was 42.7% in sponsored academies open for one year and 52.0% in those open for five or more years. (DfE research)’

Note

Nobody doubts how popular with parents many, indeed most, Academies are.

There are eight applicants for every place at Mossbourne Academy, which eight years ago was described as the “worst school in Britain” when it was still Hackney Downs. A total of 1,587 children have applied for 200 places.

Ark academy schools have seen a rise in applications, with six children per place at Ark Academy in Wembley, a rise of 12 per cent, and four per place at Burlington Danes in Hammersmith, an increase of nine per cent.

The Bolingbroke Academy in Battersea, which opens in September, has five pupils chasing every place.

West London Free School in Hammersmith, which opened in September, has seen nine children applying for each place.

Observer

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00204226/response-to-the-observer-article

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT FOR STATE SCHOOLS-WHAT’S THE FUTURE?

Independent schools and support for state schools

The Government wants the independent sector to support Academies

But the mood music needs changing

Comment

A leading think tank hosted a lunch seminar this week on the developing relationship between independent schools and state schools against the backdrop of David Cameron’s  recent very public encouragement for independent schools to support state schools through the academies scheme . Indeed there was a Downing street meeting recently on this very issue. Lord Adonis the architect of the academies scheme has long championed greater support from the independent sector for the academies scheme and used  emotive language to get the point across-referencing the Berlin Wall, apartheid and so on. He even claims that independent schools have a moral obligation to offer such support. Adonis in a 2011 speech said “ Successful private schools ought to be prominent among the sponsors for the next  wave of academies. Everything about academies is in the DNA of the successful  private school: independence, excellence, innovation, social mission. And the benefit  is not only to the wider community, it is also to the private schools themselves,  whose mission is enlarged, whose relative isolation is ended, and whose social  engagement, beyond the families of the better-off, is transformed.”

Given that the seminar operated under Chatham house rules I cannot give the source of the following comments and observations but the seminar attracted some leading heads  from both independent schools and  state schools, including Academies  .

What is clear is that there are divisions in the independent sector over what, if anything, to do to support the state sector. Many schools already have extensive links with neighbouring state schools and around thirty independent schools provide some form of support for an Academy. What has caused resentment is the hectoring tone of politicians telling independent schools and the governors and trustees what to do. It is after all their decision as to how they will deliver public benefit. Support for Academies  is certainly one option but there are a range of others –bursaries, specialist teaching support, access to equipment and facilities, advice on  governance, curriculum advice and support , exam method, summer schools, pupil swaps, community support  etc.     The feeling was that the tone of the debate and perceived hostility from most political quarters towards the independent sector hardly establishes a context within which  a constructive debate can take place, rather it encourages a siege mentality (particularly given the additional antics of the Charity Commission.)   One point rammed home at the meeting was that one of the key reasons for the independent sectors success was its independence, and , specifically, independent governance. So called ‘ autonomous’ and ‘ free schools’ are not actually free in the same way as independent schools are   and are still subject to  significant bureaucratic restrictions , constraints and stipulations in their funding agreements.  However, it was also pointed out that governance was a key area where independent schools really might help  ‘autonomous ‘ state schools-ie how to use their autonomy effectively and what it could mean in practice  so harnessing  the aspirational ethos of the independent sector . There could also be more exchanges between governing boards, so independents have state school Heads on  their governing bodies and vice-versa.

But it was also clear that most independent schools are keen to have greater meaningful contact  with state schools and there can be demonstrable shared benefits  from such contacts. Every independent school that has an arrangement with an Academy agreed that this relationship brought mutual benefits. And state schools can offer expertise and know- how in particular areas-not least in adapting to big resource challenges, encouraging leadership at every level-adding value and getting the best out of challenging pupils and so on. Indeed, one independent Head said that much of the really innovative thinking going on was happening in the state sector, suggesting perhaps, some complacency in the independent sector

There seemed to be agreement that the real problem with our education system is not the fact that a relatively small percentage of pupils are educated privately but in the long tail of significant underachievers in the state sector, ie  the bottom 20-25% cohort. They are the big challenge and  a drag on the system and there seems to be an assumption that Academies are the answer to addressing this problem, although evidence is not yet clear on this.

It was also remarked that rather too much is expected of the independent sector based on wrong assumptions. It educates just 7% of the school population and most schools operate on tight margins, with small surpluses. Large endowments are limited to a few.  So the idea of supporting an academy just on practical grounds with limited resources  is daunting and hard to sell to fee paying parents.  There was a suggestion that those organisations responsible for representing the sector ISC,HMC etc  might  provide centralised support  to schools wanting to get involved with Academies but it is clear that thinking in this area is undeveloped and these organisations  have ,as yet, shown no indication that they would want to get involved. (joint approaches and action from these bodies is rare).

It was agreed ,though, that the aim for any academy engagement must be for it to be cash neutral. You cant ask hard pressed fee paying  parents to fork out additional money  to support engagement with the state sector, whatever its perceived merits. Raise funds separately so  that  the support operation is ring- fenced.  And ,of course, don’t rule out pro-bono support because, it was agreed, some of the simplest most straightforward advice can pay the biggest dividends in return.

My view is that most independent schools want to knock down perceived barriers between the sectors and agree that there are mutual benefits at stake but this is a view that is not always reciprocated in the state sector. Support for Academies is certainly one  mutually rewarding  route and maximises public benefit in a way that bursaries clearly don’t. (indeed by removing the brightest from a state school you can damage that school) But Academy engagement carries some risks, reputational and otherwise, and is by no means the only way that schools can fulfil their public benefit requirement. Academy engagement will suit some schools but not others. If the government seriously wants more independent schools involved it should help them  more in practical ways, for example by providing a matchmaking service,  rather than  hectoring them claiming that there is a moral imperative involved, which is entirely counter-productive and  just bad politics.

THE CURRICULUM OF THE BIG SOCIETY

THE CURRICULUM OF THE BIG SOCIETY

RSA report

Is the BS  too idealistic? Is it resonating with public? Not really.

Comment

The Big Society, David Cameron’s big idea at the last election, has  pretty much failed to embed itself in the public consciousness. There are a number of reasons for this. One is that the very bright think tankers and policy wonks who came up with the idea in the first place  have spent twice as much time talking  among themselves about it than they have   selling and explaining the concept, and what it looks like in practice,   to potential stakeholders.  Its all been rather incestuous.  None of this has been helped by the  shortage of public funds . The potential  delivery agents   have suffered big cuts  in   these straitened  times  . This hasn’t stopped Philip Blond and his think tank ResPublica from continuing to promote the idea , with considerable vigour, along with thinkers such as Mathew Taylor of the RSA .

A new report from the RSA ‘Beyond the Big Society Psychological Foundations of active citizenship’ looks at the Curriculum of the Big Society.  Curriculum literally means to ‘run the course’, as in curriculum vitae, the course of my life. The ‘curriculum’ of the Big Society is viewed here as a long term process of cultural change, consisting of the myriad activities and behaviours that people are  explicitly being asked to participate in and subscribe to. The hidden curriculum of this process of cultural change comprises the attitudes, values and competencies that are required for this process. The main purpose of this report is ‘to highlight the nature of this hidden curriculum, and indicate how it might inform policy and practice, particularly in relation to releasing hidden social wealth and increasing social productivity’. As this report acknowledges the public’s ambivalent attitude to the Big Society is at least partly due to the Government’s failure to articulate their vision clearly. The big idea in the Big Society that has cross-party agreement and public support, this report claims, is the need to make more of our ‘hidden wealth’- the human relationships that drive and sustain the forms of participation needed to make society more productive and at ease with itself. But this needs in turn a pretty fundamental change in peoples attitudes. Available evidence suggests the level of mental complexity required to develop the competencies required to make the Big Society work is not currently widespread in the adult population. So the report suggests that  for the Big Society to take root, we need to invest more time and energy making  sure that the forms of participation and engagement called for as part of the Big  Society are supported by formal and informal adult education. Social productivity requires that people are both supported and challenged.  Part of a think tanks job is to make us think about issues and this report certainly does that. Unfortunately it also, for me at least, reinforces the perception that there is a great divide between the aspirational thinking and expectations of Big Society thinkers and what is deliverable in practice on the ground for the foreseeable future. Big Society thinking   suggests that people need to be re-engaged as “active citizens”, and enabled to take informed decisions about their lives, communities and workplaces but also to be more participative in designing and in providing services that are demand driven.  However, many people are both disengaged and lack the confidence, skills, knowledge or understanding to do so. This is particularly true for people with little formal education and those most at risk of social exclusion. But even among educated and informed citizens, who perceive advantages in participating more in grass roots initiatives to protect their, and their communities interests, you will find few who are prepared to devote the time and energy on a sustained basis to participate in community driven initiatives, and this is even more so, if there is a lack of available  funding. And,  of course,  many will be expected to act on a pro bono basis.

It is also the case  that there have been too few examples  presented of what the Big Society looks like in practice. And the very bodies – local authorities – that might kick start the initiative  apart from feeling the financial squeeze , remain , for the most part, unsure of what the Big Society means for them and its  practical implications for their commissioning and procurement of services. Time for a rethink?

SCHOOL CHOICE AND COMPETITION

SCHOOL CHOICE AND COMPETITION

Do parents want choice?

And what effect does competition have?

Comment

The issue of choice and competition in the state education system is a focus for continuing and often ill-tempered debate, generating more heat than light.

A recent survey has sparked off another round of exchanges.  More than eight in 10 people think parents should send their children to the nearest state school, according to findings from the first survey to gauge Britons’ attitudes to school choice in detail. The new data, released from the British Social Attitudes Survey, shows that 63 per cent take this view outright, with a further 22 per cent saying they would agree if the quality of different schools and their social mix of pupils was more equal. The survey asked around 2,000 members of the British public about a parent’s ‘right to choose’ and found that attitudes were ambivalent and to some extent contradictory. While a large majority favoured children attending the local state school, there was also broad support for the concept of choice, with 68 per cent agreeing that parents should have a basic right to choose their child’s school and 50 per cent agreeing that parents have a duty to choose ‘the best possible’ school for their child, even if other schools in the local area might suffer. Dr Sonia Exley of the London School of Economics and Political Science, who led the Economic and Social Research Council-funded study, said the apparent difference showed that parents do not necessarily want to have to make choices over schools. She said: “People do believe that they ought to have a ‘right to choose’, particularly where they are not happy with their local school. However, public feeling also seems to be that if schools were of an equal and acceptable standard then choice wouldn’t be necessary.” “Parents don’t necessarily want to have to make active choices in order to secure a good school for their child; they just want their nearest school to be good enough. Government promotion of choice as an agenda diverts attention away from the bigger issue of why this isn’t the case.” She is probably right in her assessment. In an ideal world people don’t want to have to choose-ideally they want a good school on their doorstep which they can get their child into..  so no real surprise there then. But rather too many parents don’t manage this as things stand.

In terms of priorities, only four per cent think that making sure ‘parents have a lot of choice about the kind of school their child goes to’ should be the number one concern for schools. When it comes to choosing a secondary school, seven in ten (69 per cent) do believe that parents ought to put the needs and interests of their own child first. However, six in ten (60 per cent) also believe that parents ought to balance this concern against the needs and interests of other children. Hence, the contradictory responses. My bet is that when push comes to shove and they are confronted with the need to make a real choice rather than answering a pollsters question, nine out of ten parents will do what they believe to be  is in their child’s’ best interests and other considerations  barely feature on their radar.

This survey  doesn’t actually tell us very much.  Its all in the abstract. Of course  parents would like a good local school.  But there is a pretty feeble logic behind the ‘finding’ that parents would prefer that their local school- and every local school- was great, and the implication that this in some way undermines the concept of choice. For choice to be meaningful you should be able to choose to send your child to a school that is not your local school. Not all schools are the same, nor are children, and parents should have a say in how their children are educated-all of which should lead one to the inescapable conclusion that in principle and practice-choice is a good thing. The choice in too many instances now is- take it our leave it. As one leading educator observed the sub-text behind the anti-choice position is that we should just trust the professionals and stop asking awkward questions. The direction of travel though in politics is pro-choice in public services, and for services to be much more responsive to consumer’s needs.

While governments may have an obvious interest in promoting and financing the market for education, it does not necessarily follow that the public sector must have a role, or indeed a monopoly role, as some unions and politicians  believe,  in providing that education. Indeed, in many countries, including developing countries, there are other providers of education, such as church schools, home schools, and private schools, both for-profit and not-for-profit .In many of the poorest regions parents seek education for children not in  the state sector but from the private sector (see footnote)

As Stephen Gibbons, Stephen Machin and Olmo Silva have established there are two main economic arguments for moving from a neighbourhood-based school system – in which pupils attend their local school – to a system based on parental choice.  The first is about allocation: more choice allows better matching of pupils with schools according to personal tastes and pedagogical needs. If every parent can find a school that educates their child at least as effectively as under a neighbourhood based system, then average achievement must improve.

The second argument is about teaching technology: if families are free to choose, then the mechanisms of market discipline will ensure that schools offer high standards. For this to work, school finances (and headteachers’ incentives) must be linked to school popularity via pupil numbers: unpopular schools must lose pupils and money while popular schools gain pupils and additional funding. So schools must innovate and adapt to meet parental demand for ‘quality’ or shrink and ultimately close.

Does it really matter who runs the ‘good’  local school.?  It shouldn’t matter providing it operates in a regulated environment and   within a robust, transparent  accountability framework  .

Education reformers believe that the only way to ensure the standards of all schools improve ,so that you are more likely to get a good school on your doorstep than you are now, is to introduce  real competition, and this in turn improves choice.  Critics, however, say that at best evidence is mixed about the effects of choice and competition on schools and educational outcomes and it has unacceptable consequences in that it exacerbates social divisions and segregation and you end up with sink schools(although arguably we end up with sink schools anyway under the current system).  Reformers will counter saying  that competition works but only when the playing field is level, the market is fair and transparent, resources truly follow the pupil (the consumer), with a separation between funding and provision and schools are allowed to fail. Often systems that introduce competition only do so on a partial basis and don’t satisfy these criteria. So the so called ‘competition’ has a limited effect on outcomes because it is heavily circumscribed and  what you then  have is  a hybrid system, neither one thing nor the other.  School competition in a wholly private market is straightforward to understand and apply. Parents choose a school based on price and quality, and schools are incentivised to make themselves attractive to parents so that they can survive and make a profit.  By contrast, as Rebecca Allen and Simon  Burgess have pointed out government-funded schools have often operated on a very different basis, with administrators assigning pupils to schools, and schools having in effect little incentive to use resources efficiently since they cannot retain surpluses. Elements of competition can be introduced into this environment, however, through the separation of funding and provision. Parents choose schools and schools receive funding for each pupil they attract. The idea is for popular schools to grow and unpopular schools to close, so mimicking the effects of true competition. This market-like, or quasi-market, mechanism combines some elements of market competition and some bureaucratic elements (Glennerster, 1991; Le Grand, 1991)

So the international evidence, according at least to Rebecca Allen and Simon Burgess,   is mixed on the effects of competition. Indeed UK evidence, they claim, suggests that there is at the very best a weak and small positive effect of competition on student outcomes.

However, the picture internationally, according to World Banks leading education economist, Harry Patrinos, is that involving the private sector (when he talks about the private sector we are talking about for profit and not for profits) can improve school performance – through competition, accountability and autonomy – as well as expand access. However, he also notes that without strong systems of accountability, private schools with public funding aren’t likely to produce large gains. The best results, he concludes, come where competition is enhanced through choice, disadvantaged areas are targeted and there is plenty of autonomy at school level.

So if competition can drive up standards – why  doesn’t  it appear to have had much effect in some instances. The answer probably, as I have touched on, lies    in the nature  quality and  extent of that competition.  How much real competition is there?  Is success rewarded and failure punished? Does funding actually  follow the pupil etc.? If these  conditions are satisfied , competition  should   raise standards in poorly performing schools.

True competition, of course, requires a measure of deregulation which would go well beyond the reforms envisaged by this Coalition government. And deregulation is risky for politicians as it has a price attached to it. Some schools will fail.  And risk averse politicians will have to take the flak.  This is what Rebecca Allen and Simon Burgess have to say about it:  ‘Radical deregulatory reforms are intuitively appealing, and may produce important long-term benefits that increase levels of parental satisfaction with the schooling system.  However, it is important to note that they are very risky since some ‘innovations’ would necessarily fail.  Therefore, to enable market-based reforms to work in England, society would have to come to terms with greater levels of school failure than exist under a tightly regulated system.  And policy makers would need to work to ensure that critical regulatory measures are in place to ensure that the life chances are not damaged for children who happen to find themselves in failing schools.’  Those who want to introduce much more competition into the market are aware that   competition has to be regulated.  How much regulation and ensuring that  regulation   protects the most disadvantaged are , of course, contentious issues.   But we know that markets don’t work well when they are unregulated . Indeed evidence suggests that independent or autonomous schools work best when they are well regulated. It is  possible to harness the strengths of the private sector and the positive effects of competition  within an enabling environment that  protects equity.

And what do Gibbons, Machin and Silva say about schools competing? ’Although there seem to be no general benefits from competition at the primary level – it seems weakly linked to worse performance – we do find some evidence that schools running their own admission systems and characterised by more autonomous governance structures  have higher educational standards in  more competitive markets. And pupils do seem to do better if their secondary school is in an urban environment and not geographically isolated from other schools. On the downside, we have also uncovered evidence that school competition increases inequality, with high and low-ability pupils more segregated in schools that face more competition. This suggests that whatever performance advantages it offers, further expansion of market mechanisms in education may come at the cost of increased social polarisation’

The fact is that evidence across the world (acc  studies from OECD  and World Bank Group)does suggest that competition and school choice, within a properly regulated environment, help improve outcomes. Market mechanisms   can force educational “producers” to deliver services closer to what their clients really want and competition can drive improvement. But there are political risks attached. Competition means, as we have said, that some schools will fail and blame for this failure will probably fall not on the schools themselves, (although it may be justified)  but on the policy and the politicians who have championed the policy. There is also a danger that such reforms have the potential to create increased polarisation unless, that is, they are properly regulated. It is also true that some sections of the population are better than others at using choice to benefit their children. So the greater capacity by some groups to take advantage of choice can potentially widen social divisions.  But on this latter point you don’t deny people choice  simply because some people, who can choose, don’t, or indeed  make the wrong choice ie one that doesn’t in an objective sense benefit their interests . You try to support those  who may not have the capacity to choose and help nudge them, if need be in the right direction. The political and social risks though may explain, to some extent, why real competition in state education is still very much the exception rather than the rule.  Most politicians are risk averse, while progress, whether in education or  elsewhere relies on (managed) risk taking.

As a footnote, it is worth noting that in some of the poorest areas of the world, parents living on the margins choose not to use state schools for their children but choose instead private schools. Professor James Tooley has found that in Nigeria, for example, 41% of pupils go to private schools, and these schools outperform state schools. He found this pattern across the developing world. In many of the poorest and remotest areas private schools far outstripped state schools in terms of both the number of pupils  served and in the quality of provision.

The future of competition and  accountability in education  Rebecca Allen (Institute of Education, University of London)  Simon Burgess (Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol)

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/other/competition.pdf

CEP research programme by Stephen Gibbons, Stephen Machin and Olmo Silva

The educational impact of parental choice and school competition 2007

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CP216.pdf