MANDARIN IN SCHOOLS

MANDARIN IN SCHOOLS

Might it assist social mobility?

Comment

At an event last  week in the Barbican, to mark the official opening of 22 new ‘Confucius Classrooms’ in England, the keynote speaker  Michael Gove, the  Education Secretary, spoke admiringly of Chinese culture and the Chinese language.

He praised for good measure  the efforts of the SSAT Confucius Institute to widen teaching of Mandarin in English schools.(the SSAT were sponsoring to conference).

Brighton College the leading private school made Mandarin compulsory in 2006 but although over 300 schools teach Mandarin none have followed Brighton’s lead so far, in making it compulsory. One blogger attending the conference wondered whether languages and Mandarin in particular   could  perhaps improve  social mobility in this country, and  indeed  should we  be doing more to encourage schools in deprived areas in particular  to focus more on languages?  Mandarin is, after all, highly rated by both private and public sector employers here in the UK (and around the world). In  fact Mandarin is the 2nd most in-demand language to employers according to the CBI.  So, asked the blogger wouldn’t it make sense to promote Mandarin, not just for its aesthetic appeal , but as a tool to equip young people from difficult backgrounds and areas to enter the workplace on a stronger footing? Indeed, shouldn’t we be  teaching  our children  the things which the job market finds most valuable.  Maybe. But  it is a tough language to learn for Westerners. There are two main reason for this, according  Dr Frances Weightman, a lecturer in Chinese Studies at the University of Leeds. Firstly, the script poses problems. There is no alphabet, just thousands of characters. There are so many that no one can give a definitive total, but it is believed to be around 60,000.  Secondly, the tonal system is hard for Westerners. While the meaning of English words does not change with tone, the same is not true for Mandarin . Four-and-a-half tones are used, meaning a single word can have many meanings. (though Mandarin is not as hard as Cantonese which has nine tones.)And the  grammar is not nearly as complicated as many European languages. For example there are no verb tenses, no relative clauses, no singular or plural.  The Languages Trends survey 2010 published by CILT, the National Centre for Languages, in January2011, showed that the proportion of maintained secondary schools teaching Chinese  language in curriculum time at KS3 and KS4 respectively was 3% -this compares to  98% teaching  French at KS3 and 96% at KS4.  Figures for how many students study Mandarin Chinese  at University  are not available, But if you look at  Chinese Studies/Chinese Language Studies in  the 2008/09 academic year, there were 590 UK domiciled first degree enrolments studying either Chinese Studies or Chinese Language Studies at English Higher Education Institutions.

Certainly the  SSAT grant -funded   quango, which has Charity status, like the British Council, seems to have spotted a gap in the market-and new sources of income- exploiting its  closeness to the government and  its charity status,  it has moved into the Chinese market  and is  busy pushing Mandarin, already having  published a Chinese GCSE  textbook in partnership with Pearson (one as it happens  in a series of three) . In October 2006, the SSAT Confucius Institute became, it is claimed,  the first schools-based Confucius Institute in the world. The SSAT Confucius Institute and Confucius Classrooms  are,  says the SSAT, facilitating the development of the teaching and learning of Mandarin Chinese and the study of China across the curriculum in a large number of schools across the country. The SSAT Confucius Institute works in partnership with the Office of Chinese Language Council International (Hanban) and Peking University to achieve these goals. At the end of summer term 2009-2010, the SSAT Confucius Institute designated 22 new Confucius Classrooms in addition to the 12 advanced Confucius Classrooms already in the  network. According to the SSAT “ These 22 aspiring Confucius Classrooms will focus on developing Chinese within their own schools and we are looking forward to working closely with each of them during the course of this academic year and beyond.”

Clearly this is early days for Mandarin, but given its difficulty it is unlikely to compete any time soon directly with French, Spanish or German for the attentions of our youth. Schools taking up Mandarin tend to be independents, grammar and other  high performing state schools. The idea that Mandarin might help social mobility for the disadvantaged sounds good but does not take into account the fact that our most disadvantaged pupils tend to be in the lowest performing schools, and seldom have access to the best teachers,.let alone Mandarin teachers, although there may be scope here for Independent/ Maintained school partnerships  to help deliver specialist teaching to at least some state pupils.

Note: The Government affords the SSAT a privileged status and it is often awarded contracts  that are not put out to open tender so other providers, in the private and not for profit sectors,  can compete openly  for these contracts  on price and quality. It is hard to see how this fits in with the Governments commitment to secure  value for money in public services provision and in  public contracts.

CONTEXTUAL VALUE ADDED MEASURE

CONTEXTUAL VALUE ADDED  MEASUREMENT

Problematic

Comment

How to measure added value in  schools is problematic. Why? Because whatever the SSAT claims(it prefers to use CVA measurement rather than the five good GCSEs including maths and English to rate the schools it supports) there is  no international consensus  evident on the best way to measure added value. An NFER paper in 1999 when debate on added value  was really beginning in earnest said ‘What value added data cannot do is prove anything. Value added evidence is only part of the story of school effectiveness. The notion of a value added measure which tells you – and everyone else – how well your school or department or class is doing, and is also simple to calculate, understand and use, is a non-starter’. The value added concept is based on the assumption that teachers and schools add ‘value’ to the achievement of their students. It is based on the idea of measuring student progress, in academic outcomes such as reading or mathematics attainment over a given period of time.  It can be used as a performance measure for teachers too, although at best  it is only one source of comparative information about a school’s or teachers  effectiveness. Following the publication, in spring 2011, of Professor Alison Wolf’s recommendations on how vocational qualifications might be reported in performance tables, the Government will then  consider which indicators of progress might be developed to demonstrate the value that schools add for all pupils. They would be wise to give it very careful consideration.

QUANGO REVIEW BOTCHED ACCORDING TO SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT

QUANGO REVIEW BOTCHED  ACCORDING TO SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT

Public Administration Committee says that reform of quangos has been a lost opportunity and the Bill is poorly drafted

But reforms on-going

Comment

Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister, has been driving through reforms in the delivery of public services to drive down costs,  to improve efficiency,  deliver value for money, streamline public  procurement and to encourage greater  transparency and accountability. He also wants to see, at the end of this process, a greater role for small and medium sized enterprises in public service delivery.   Reforms have included a partial cull of the Quangocracy, though  more barbecue, say critics. than the widely anticipated bonfire. Although the process of reform is on-going organisations such as the British Council , the TDA  and NCSL (the SSAT now  has less public funding to manage but is still competing unfairly with non-subsidised private and not for profit operators in the markets here and abroad)  have emerged largely unscathed from the review although  critics want these organisations to be cut down to size , made more transparent and accountable and for them to demonstrate, against clear  performance benchmarks, that they deliver value for money for taxpayers  and that the services they provide cannot be provided better and cheaper by the private  and  not for profit providers ,or indeed social enterprises.

The Public Administration Committee has been looking at reforms affecting quangos and has just published a report ‘ Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State’ . The verdict is  that the Government’s “Bonfire of the Quangos” has been “poorly managed” resulting in badly drafted legislation that won’t deliver significant cost savings or improved accountability. Bernard Jenkin, the committee’s Conservative chairman, says “the whole process was rushed and poorly handled and should have been thought through a lot more”. Pre-election promises from the Conservatives  about cuts to costly bureaucracy “created a false expectation that the review would deliver greater savings” than appear likely. And to make meaningful savings, the government needs to examine not just how the quangos operate, but what they exist to do. In many cases, the committee argues, functions could have been transferred to charities or mutuals. “This was a fantastic opportunity to help build the big society and save money at the same time,” Mr Jenkin says. “But it has been botched.”

The Committee report claims that the Public Bodies Reform Bill currently with the Lords  aimed at delivering  these reforms was  badly drafted. And it  promised to issue a further detailed report on the Bill once the Lords have finished their scrutiny. The report concluded “ The Government should have reassessed what function public bodies are needed to perform and transferred many more of these activities to charities and mutuals. Doing so would have helped explain more clearly its vision for a Big Society, giving these organisations the ability to provide more government services. It should also have used the review to get control of some activities of public bodies that provide questionable benefit to the taxpayer, most notably the use of public funds for lobbying and public relations campaigns.”  The  Committee added  that ‘Deciding which bodies can be moved into the private and voluntary sector should form only part of the Government’s review. It should also reconsider what activities public bodies should continue to engage in. Some public bodies have allowed their remit to increase over the years and there is a need to refocus them on their core functions. Identifying the essential activities of these bodies will both make them more efficient and reduce cost. This principle must be embedded in future reviews. (Paragraph 114)

The Committee intends to bring forward proposals to strengthen the  Select Committees’ role in scrutinising changes to public bodies in its future report on the detail of the Public Bodies Reform Bill.

The Committee though  has failed to address the issue of  the unfair activities of quangos in the markets  both here and abroad which disadvantage non-subsidised private and not for profit providers. In short,  Quangos use taxpayers money to  cross subsidise their operations  in order to under cut  other competitors bids for contracts  and quangos, such as the SSAT and British Council,  are frequently awarded contracts that are not put out to open  tender which  apart from being unfair, cannot ensure value for money for taxpayers. Francis Maude has, though,  been made aware of providers concerns  and their  calls for urgent  reform.

Mr Maude  has rejected the Committees  criticism, promising to “see the reforms through”. The Committee welcomed the Minister’s comments which indicate that future reviews will include considerations about efficiency and value for money of quangos along with his assurances that  he would be able to devise a more cost-effective review system than previous efforts.

Reforms are on-going  driven by the Cabinet Office.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubadm/537/53702.htm

NEW SCHOOLS NETWORK

 

NEW SCHOOLS NETWORK

Pressure to tender for  its work?

Comment

The New Schools Network is an independent charitable organisation that is funded by the Department to offer support to individuals and groups interested in setting up a new school.  It  is headed by Rachel Wolf, a former aide to  Education Secretary Michael Gove, when he was in opposition. It was awarded a time limited  £500,000 grant by the Education Department without any competitive tender. And Ministers have been under pressure from the opposition  to explain why this was allowed to happen , perhaps  forgetting momentarily  that it was  not  unusual under the last government  for contracts and   grant support to be given by the Department without competition. The Department  gave similar grants in the past, to organisations such as to the NSPCC, the Holocaust Education Trust, the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (rather too often in its case) and the Youth Sport Trust.

The Free Schools Group (FRG) within the Department  also supports Free schools. It is   part of the Infrastructure and Funding Directorate of the Department, and  is responsible for all aspects of free schools policy and implementation. The FRG is, for example, working with groups wishing to join the first wave of free schools. Informed by its work with these early groups, supporting them through the process, the FRG is also developing policy for future free schools. (it might spend a bit more of its  time working out what happens if Free schools fail or don’t meet quality benchmarks) The FRG is also working with those groups that have started the business case and plan stage and will support them through the process, up to and including the opening of the new school.

The Government might find it problematic if it grants the NSN more taxpayers money without offering the function it fulfils to open competition, the next time round. Presumably there are organisations in the profit and not for profit sectors  that might wish to take on this function and could compete on price and quality. Alternatively the Department   might take this function in- house. The main justification for the grant and lack of competition was that the network was  already up and running and was regarded as effective. It also has an  Advisory Board of big hitters drawn from across the political spectrum.   Putting out the contract  to tender would have  led to delays at a time when the Government was keen to encourage  the establishment of  Free schools and to ensure that the initiative  didn’t lose any  momentum.

It is however good policy to place contracts out to tender and that should be the default position. That’s not to knock the NSN and what it does. It  seems to be  doing a reasonable job at the moment.

 

EDUCATION QUANGOS-MAKE THEM MORE ACCOUNTABLE

 

EDUCATION QUANGOS

For those left-urgent need  for  reforms to ensure transparency, accountability and competitive neutrality

Maude review-a real  opportunity for change

Comment

The Governments review of quangos  aimed to ensure, first that their  functions were deemed necessary, secondly to establish whether those functions should properly be carried out at arm’s length to government. There  are of course two agendas at work. Cost- cutting and making quangos more transparent and  accountable, ensuring that they deliver Public Value.  If the  quango carries out a highly technical activity, is required to be politically impartial or needs to act independently to establish facts, then it is right for it to remain outside direct ministerial accountability, says the Government. But it must still be accountable. And this is where the Government’s review is incomplete.  Francis Maude is due to report early  next year on how to make quangos more accountable. Currently  many quangos do not publish accounts, and if they do they offer  no clear benchmarks  to measure their outputs . There  is no central list of quangos and there are myriad different types,  with different  legal statuses. Some even escape the provisions of the  Freedom of information Act, though they spend our money on our behalf, so  its all a bit of a mess.  Some are limited  companies, others charities, others non-statutory public bodies and so on . The official list of non-departmental public bodies stands at  679 bodies but excludes a number of organisations that are clearly quangos, like the SSAT, which has for reasons presumably of political expediency , rather than consistency,  been excluded from the quango list. Reassuringly  though  all   public bodies will be subject to a rigorous triennial review, to ensure that the previous pattern of public bodies often outliving the purpose for which they were established is not repeated. They will be expected to become more open, accountable and efficient.

 

There has been a  long standing  but unmet need for publicly funded bodies to demonstrate that they deliver value for money and   do not compete unfairly with commercial, non-subsidised competitors. Quangos, which are under pressure to  find other income streams are, if anything, increasing their presence in the market place. Too many,  though, have been cavalier about the requirement  to explain what they do and how they deliver public value. Some have almost entirely ignored the Nolan Principles.  Cross subsidies are widespread in the education market from organisations such as the SSAT, NCSL,TDA  and British Council. They can absorb or conceal overheads which is not possible in a commercial operation. They support substantial infrastructures from their core funding which they can, and frequently do, deploy to demonstrate capacity to deliver new projects, with apparent (though not real) cost advantages.  Too often contracts are not put out to tender-which seems designed to protect the vested  interests of quangos rather than taxpayers. (The Treasury is supposed to be challenging vested interests)  They also exploit their privileged access to information, which affords them a competitive advantage. Private and not for profit providers have found literally to their cost that in  many  childrens services information relating to pricing, costs and performance is not readily available or accessible .Vital information is often designated ‘commercial in confidence’. This obscures the true economic costs associated with service provision and makes it difficult for potential new entrants to determine whether they can and want to provide services within the market. An example of the  exploitation of privileged access to information can be found at the  NCSL  which has a captive audience as every teacher aspiring to headship has to complete NPQH as it is a mandatory pre-requisite – these  teachers names then go onto a data base  that is then accessed  for ‘selling’ other products and services. Commercial traders are  of course constrained by data protection laws that preclude  them from blanket e-mailing. The SSAT  too can similarly ‘trade’ to their membership of Specialist schools and Academies. 90% of Schools  now have some form of  Specialism (however liberally defined) and the SSAT sells support services to these schools, with competitors, who  might compete on  both price and quality,  largely  excluded in practice  from this protected market .Protected markets,  affording privileges to one provider,  we know  are extremely unlikely to deliver value for money.

 

Politicians, thus far,  have failed to address the issue of competitive neutrality, despite the damaging effects this has on the education markets both here and abroad .Quangos presence in these markets  distorts competition, while undermining  ‘contestability’ which was supposed to be a guiding principle, informing the way  public and  near to government organisations behave in the market. The main premise of the theory of contestable markets is that even with a single provider, the threat of other providers entering the market may force a monopoly provider to contain costs to competitive levels or maintain a specific level of quality in the service delivered, as long as the barriers to market  entry and exit are not significant. It is arguable though  that barriers to entry imposed by the presence of subsidised providers are very significant.  It is no coincidence that UK based education providers are seeking income streams abroad (often finding quangos competing with them there too ,and equally  unfairly).   Unfair competition puts at risk the whole principle of the best provider delivering services, which means that the consumers of that service ,  which in education, is largely  children and parents, lose out.

 

The Government must give careful consideration in developing this new framework  to the  interlinked issues surrounding competition, transparency, accountability and the delivery of public value   within the quangocracy.  And Education service suppliers should make their views known sooner rather than later  to Ministers and officials responsible for developing this new framework.

 

STATUS OF EDUCATION QUANGOS-SELECTED LIST-CABINET OFFICE

STATUS OF EDUCATION QUANGOS-SELECTED  LIST-CABINET OFFICE

Comment

We know already that on the education front  QCDA, BECTA and the GTC are being culled. The Youth Justice Board is on the way out too probably because its management has been weak, particularly in controlling its costs (its ICT team was led by an Executive on over £300,000 a year, with ten  staff  earning  £100,000)  and it has found it hard to demonstrate that it improves outcomes.

The Quango  list was leaked by the Daily Telegraph two weeks ago but has now been formally released  (14 October). One quango , the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, was not on the list, apparently  because it is  ’a charity’ so  er…its not classed as a quango . However there are quangos on the list that are Charities-like the British Council.So work that one out if you can. If it looks like a quango, acts like one and is subsidised by the taxpayer-then guess what-it probably is one.

The British Council seems to have survived the Review although there are no grounds for its complacency. Aid Charities are upset that some of the DFIDs supposedly ‘ring-fenced’ Budget has  been siphoned off to support British Council projects  previously funded by the FCO.  Meaning there is less for them.  What these projects are and whether or not they deliver value for money has not been made public. So much for transparency.Education exporters who receive little or no support from the British Council , though its supposed to support them as part of its remit, find that the Council competes with them for contracts abroad ,using its subsidised status to  gain competitive advantage so  they  are up in arms too. The Government  seems unconcerned that the Councils activities are restricting the growth of the education market and is now  redirecting funds away from aid charities who know the most cost effective ways to deliver aid and have ,rather obviously , a better record of delivering aid than has the British Council. Pressure will  continue  to mount on the BC and Ministers until these issues are addressed head on. This has to be work in progress and it is encouraging that the Government is looking to review Quangos every three years.  But one has to wonder just how rigorous this Review has been  . There is a long way to go before many of these organisations reach an appropriate  level of transparency and accountability that is implied in Ministers rhetoric and which most  of  the public expect from  organisations which  undertake tasks on behalf of the Government using  hard pressed   taxpayers money.

For the record here is whats happening to other education related quangos:

Student Loans Company

Under consideration - Proposals on the future of the Student Loan Company will be made in the White Paper on the future strategy for higher education to be published by the end of the year

UK Commission for Employment and Skills

Under consideration - Complete review by end of year of core functions and the most appropriate organisational model to deliver a simplified skills landscape across the UK

Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service

Under Consideration - Being considered by the Family Justice Review Panel as part of a full review of the family justice system, reporting in 2011

Children’s Workforce Development Council

Under Consideration - Options being considered with an announcement being made before the end of 2010

General Teaching Council for England

No longer an NDPB - Abolish body as part of the Government’s wider plans to streamline and improve arrangements for tackling underperforming teachers, as previously announced

Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy

No longer an NDPB - Abolish once the existing remit for the group comes to an end in December 2010. Arrangements to be made for access to expert advice to Government as required

National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services

Under Consideration - Options being considered with an announcement being made before the end of 2010

Ofqual

Retain - Retain on grounds of performing a technical function which requires impartiality. Introduce legislation to strengthen governance arrangements

Ofsted

Retain - Retain on grounds of performing a technical function which requires impartiality. Reform inspection functions to increase proportionality and reduce burdens

Partnerships for Schools

Under Consideration - Subject to the overarching review of Department for Education’s capital expenditure, to be completed in December 2010

Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency

No longer an NDPB – Abolish body and transfer some functions (including key activities such as National Curriculum Tests) to the Department for Education, as previously announced

School Food Trust

No longer an NDPB - Abolish NDPB status, but continue as a charity with the potential to become a community interest company

School Support Staff Negotiating Body

Under Consideration - Subject to further discussions with employer and union representatives

School Teachers’ Review Body

Retain - Retain on grounds of performing a function which requires political impartiality

Teachers TV Board of Governors No longer an NDPB - Abolish body and functions

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner

Under Consideration - Subject to a formal review to be finalised by the end of November 2010

Training and Development Agency for Schools

Under Consideration - Options being considered with an announcement being made before the end of 2010

Young People’s Learning Agency

Under Consideration - Subject to education structural reforms

British Council

Retain - Retain on grounds of impartiality

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

No longer an NDPB – Abolish as part of wider criminal justice reforms

Cabinet Office List

QUANGO WATCH

New report calls for reform

Comment

The Government have already announced plans to abolish the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the General Teaching Council for England. The coalition agreement also announced plans to abolish the Government Office for London, the Standards Board and the Infrastructure Planning Commission. It announced too that regional development agencies would be replaced with local enterprise partnerships. The list of remaining quangos to be abolished is not yet finalised although rumours abound that the Partnership for Schools which manages the BSF programme is under threat.  Other Quangos look likely to have their budgets significantly cut and there are calls to make those that remain more transparent and accountable. Some are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act and are often reluctant to disclose important financial information. On 24 May the Chancellor and Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that savings from these reforms, plus additional savings from departments, will total around £600 million in 2010-11.There is also a Public Bodies Bill in the wings .Its primary aim is to increase the accountability of public bodies, but it is  also expected  that abolitions and mergers arising from the Bill will create savings in future years and departments will be incorporating initial savings into their spending review plans.  Professor Matt Flinders of Sheffield university has written much about quangos quite a lot of it critical, mainly  about their duplication and waste. But he has also said that some are indispensable.  “You can’t just get rid of all of them,” he says. “Some fulfil important tasks. What’s needed is a master plan for them.”

A report, called Read Before Burning, backed by cabinet secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell,is aimed at ministers  and details the muddle and waste surrounding quangos but it also comes up with some constructive  suggestions for reform that could apply across the board. The report claims there are nearly a dozen different types of quangos, that nobody knows how many there are or how they operate; nobody, least of all the public, knows who is accountable for what they get up to. Indeed many are simply unaccountable and operate in a secret garden. Moreover, quangos and their sponsoring departments have different ideas on where the buck stops. The report is an indictment of the way the quangocracy has been allowed to grow. The report was written with the help of the Treasury and the Cabinet Office  and says that as a first step the vast array of quangos should be boiled down into four types: constitutional quangos; executive agencies; departmental quangos; and independent public interest bodies. Some quangos even pretend that they are not Quangos- the SSAT springs to mind-because they have Charity status-but if they get grant funding , are subsidiised by the taxpayer and carry out tasks on behalf of Government Departments they are quangos. In   the SSATS case Academy schools which it supports will be shortly subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but it will remain outside its disclosure requirements. That makes no sense at all.   If they look like quangos and act like quangos then they probably are quangos.  And  frankly they  should all  be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and its public disclosure requirements- otherwise they are not transparent in their dealings. Lack of transparency- equals lack of accountability.

ACADEMIES AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

ACADEMIES AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Comment

The think tank Civitas has  accused Academies  of inflating  their exam results by choosing softer options including vocational subjects.

It found  in a report last year that Academies were  not publishing the subjects and qualifications in which they are achieving their so-called headline results – that is, the percentage achieving ’5+A*-C GCSEs or equivalent’ and ’5+A*-C GCSEs or equivalent including English and maths’. And unlike all other state-funded schools, Academies are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act – meaning a breakdown of their results cannot be requested. And what was decidedly odd was that the  then DCSF, which was so keen normally  for schools to reach its benchmark of five good GCSEs including English and maths  didn’t hold this information on what Academies are up to centrally.  Remember that Academies are funded by more taxpayers money than other maintained schools.

Academies have charity status . An academy trust,  is a charitable company limited by guarantee, so  are not subject to  the Freedom of Information Act ,2002  This means  that it is very difficult to work out whether they are actually raising  the attainment of their pupils  or simply choosing softer options for them, to improve league table rankings.  The last Government, to its credit,  agreed that Academies should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and set the ball in motion. The Coalition Government  agrees with the   last governments approach on this    and  intends to extend the scope of the FOI Act to provide greater transparency for Academies . So to this end  the  Ministry of Justice is currently considering how best to  deliver this. Which is good. Many Academies, I suspect, wont have much to hide.

But what should also be clear to the Government is  that this level of transparency  should be extended to  the grant- funded  quango that oversees Academies and Specialist schools, the SSAT, which is also a charity and  which has a reputation for lacking both  transparency  and competitive neutrality. And, yes, some Charities are also quangos, think British Council.

GOVE AND THE REFORM OF QUANGOS

GOVE AND THE REFORM OF QUANGOS

Two cheers on Quango reforms

Comment

Michael Gove made it clear in the debate on the Queens speech (2 June) that he  wants resources on the front line, in the classroom, raising attainment.

He claimed that teachers  do not want  resources  “spent on the bureaucratic bodies that have for too long siphoned money from where it needs to be spent”.

He has  already announced  that he will abolish three education  quangos,  Becta, the QCDA and the GTC .  Others may follow and we know, for sure, that the FE sector will see the loss of quangos too. The influential 157 Group of leading FE Colleges  in a plea to new Ministers  called for:

‘The abolition of quangos, retaining only the essential regional and national functions in a simplified and minimal structure that enables colleges to carry out critical functions such as accreditation, peer review and continual improvement themselves.’

Remaining quangos will suffer significant cuts.

Rationalisation of the quangocracy is long overdue, so Goves efforts should be welcomed. But there needs to be a cultural change within the education quangocracy and this requires even more draconian action.

More often than not they prefer to measure their inputs rather than their outputs  so with little or no evaluation of their effectiveness.  When leading the opposition David Cameron, instructed shadow spokesmen to look at all the quangos in the departments they were shadowing and find out which ones were essential and which weren’t. Did this review  find that  that the NCSL and TDA  are absolutely essential to learners? I think not. And what about the SSAT too.

Some of the work it has done has been good. But quite a lot has been wasteful too. Funding Headteachers to swan off to Mauritius in the midst of a recession to learn about global citizenship typifies the arrogance of an organisation out of touch with the shifting political and economic landscape and the new imperatives.

It should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, rather than shielding itself behind its charity status. The last Government agreed that Academies should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so allowing more public disclosure, and so they should. But so too should the quango that is responsible for supporting them, the SSAT.  It is secretive about how it rewards its executives and  whether its programmes are working or not. And why is the private sector not allowed to bid for some contracts in support of Academies?

More generally what about quangos  lack of accountability and transparency? What about unfair competition? Which  ones are delivering value for money and ‘public Value’ and which arent? Nobody knows.  Indeed what  about the salaries and expense accounts of  their senior executives ?  And  indeed what about the Nolan principles? Are they being applied? Apparently not, in many instances. The Government, and Gove in particular,  have  got off to a good start but   the drive for greater accountability, transparency and value for money must  continue, to ensure that resources get to the chalk face rather than being used to  sustain a bloated  bureaucracy,  still even now, exhibiting  a fierce sense of entitlement.

EDUCATION QUANGOS-BARBECUE OR BONFIRE?

EDUCATION QUANGOS

Cut backs are inevitable. But will it be more barbecue than bonfire?

Comment

There are now at least 790 quangos in the UK. Some estimates suggest there could actually be more than 1,100 unelected organisations in our country paid for by the taxpayer to carry out aspects of government policy. There are over 80 related to education and training alone.

Official figures show that the quangos we know about accounted for over £34 billion of public spending, and received a twelve percent increase in funding. Although the number of quangos has decreased in the last 10 years, those that are left spend more.  There are now some big questions that need to be asked about the education quangocracy.

First just how accountable are these Quangos against the backdrop of haemorrhaging trust in our government and quasi government institutions. Secondly, do they provide good value for money for taxpayers and indeed can they be afforded in the light of the debt crisis. Thirdly are they effective -do they make a difference to the lives of learners and improve outcomes. The fact that we have to ask these questions, for which there are no quick  and obvious answers ,  backed by evidence, speaks volumes about their   lack of accountability and transparency and indeed  the lax regulatory environment within which they have been allowed to  operate.  Many, of course, are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, though heavily reliant on grant funding, so have less exacting public disclosure requirements than Government Departments, although carrying out tasks for the Government.

David Laws when he was the Liberal Democrats education spokesman said: “The rise of education quangos has been incredibly expensive and there’s little evidence to suggest they have raised standards. At a time when public finances are being squeezed, we must ask if these quangos are necessary. When infant class sizes are rising and schools need more money to support struggling pupils, we need to be looking at ways to divert more money to the front line rather than to bureaucrats.”  Laws is now Chief Secretary at the Treasury. His job – to identify waste, deliver efficiencies and to pressure Ministers to make cuts in Departmental budgets.

Quangos chiefs more comfortable in measuring inputs than outputs, will be sweating.

The Tories in opposition pledged to cut quangos. David Cameron in a speech in London on Quangos in 2009 pledged to review all quangos to see if they were really necessary.  He instructed the Shadow Cabinet to review every independent public body that sat within their portfolio. For each one, they were to ask key questions:

Does this organisation need to exist? If its functions are necessary, which of them should be carried out in a directly accountable way within the department?

And which, if any, should be carried out independently, at arm’s length from political influence? If there really is a need for an independent quango, how can we make sure it is as small as possible, operating with maximum efficiency, frugality and respect for taxpayers’ money?  He added the general observation, that “We need to reduce the number, size, scope and influence of quangos”. Presumably the results of this informal review will be made available over the coming weeks.

One additional question that should be asked is how these Quangos impact on the education market, given that they are not competitively neutral?

The new education secretary, Michael Gove, said every effort had to be “directed to identifying waste and unnecessary bureaucracy” to “concentrate resources where they are needed: in the classroom”. David Willets wants to significantly rationalise the system of publicly-funded improvement organisations (ie Quangos). He told last years AOC conference “The UK Commission for Employment and Skills has recommended all improvement organisations should be merged into one body. We are looking at that proposal very carefully.” The Commission in its report to ”Towards Ambition 2020: skills, jobs, growth”   said that there are at least 30 too many Government-funded bodies. And with each having its own different rules and requirements, they have made the UK training system too complex and cluttered. The solution put forward in Section 7 of the 35-page document includes the merger into one body of all quality improvement agencies that have overlapping responsibilities “including Becta, the Learning and Skills Improvement Service, Standards Verification UK and the non-SSC elements of Lifelong Learning UK”. The report says this should be followed immediately by a 50 per cent cut in their collective budgets and a progressive transfer of “the remaining quality improvement and workforce development funding to providers within three years to create sector accountability and better value for money”.  The coalition has promised action to cut quangos in the skills sector.

Private sector companies in the education sector will tell you  that Quangos cross subsidise and can conceal the real costs of their bids when competing for contracts, so giving them a competitive advantage, while selling themselves on the back of implicit government guarantees and  backed by guaranteed income streams from long term government contracts, many of which are not put out to open tender. This affects both the domestic and foreign markets increasing the costs and risks of participating in the markets.  The SSAT, for example, which gets most of its income through different streams from the taxpayer, is busy competing against private UK companies abroad for contracts.  Indeed when Quangos   compete abroad for contracts they receive more support from UK officials than private companies.  True. Try pitching for education contracts that the British Council is interested in and see  just how much the local embassy helps you, or indeed the British Council ( though the BC will tell you they promote UK education abroad-part of its justification for getting public money )

It would be worth senior quango managers revisiting the Nolan principles. Two in particular spring to mind. On openness – ‘Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands’. And on Accountability - ‘Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.’  If they can demonstrate that they are essential for regulation or   add value to learners in the classroom or elsewhere, then fine but in the latter case market test them.  Of those that are left make them all subject to greater real transparency and accountability.

And the time has surely come for a proper audit of quangos, rather than some informal process, and for those that can demonstrate that they fulfil an essential purpose and deliver public value to be held more rigorously accountable, with the rest abolished.  Ironically a regulator might be needed to control the activities of quangos in the market or a ban introduced on quangos from competing in the market for specified services unless they can demonstrate unequivocally that they are competitively neutral and do not cross subsidise . They should all be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.   Academy schools will be subject to FOIA, or that was the intention of the last Government (by September 2011) but not the Quango that supports them, the SSAT.  What sense does that make?

All quangos should publish their yearly results on the web, in searchable formats, against clear performance benchmarks. (no it doesn’t happen at the moment)  And be held regularly accountable to Parliament, through Select Committees hearings.  (again this only happens with a handful of quangos)  Over to the coalition Government on this.  Action on quangos ticks all the reform boxes. Accountability, transparency, productivity, value for money, cost savings and effectiveness.  What we literally can’t afford is some cosmetic exercise that fails to secure value for money for us taxpayers.