PROMOTING EDUCATION

PROMOTING EDUCATION

Assumptions

This essay considers how, in a fast changing world, nation-states should organise and fund education. I make the following assumptions: that education in its widest sense (i.e. including technical skills, crafts etc.) is a general good; that each person is entitled to have equal access to state-provided education; that the providers of education may also include private institutions and corporations (whether or not operated for profit and including faith schools); when and where an individual chooses to obtain higher education is a matter for that individual; education is not intended as vocational training and part of the burden of educating the workforce will continue to fall on employers, professional bodies and guilds as it has always done.

Essentially, the idea proffered here is a modified and expanded version of the plethora of voucher schemes, academies and other concepts adopted in various countries. It is designed to be much more flexible and can be applied in almost any country. The scheme outlined here does not consider kindergartens or playschools. Nor does it consider issues of curricula. Although my personal view is that the only prescriptive aspect of education at schools should be limited to native language, one foreign language and mathematics, leaving all other decisions about teaching to the school itself, the contents of any curriculum raises as many political as educational issues and is beyond the scope of this essay.

The Scheme

First, we need to establish what the approximate cost of providing education (primary, secondary and tertiary) is. Governments will know what that cost will be and will also know its composition (made up of day-to-day expenditures and amortized capital costs). For the time being I will leave aside consideration of new school building. There may be significant variations between different urban centres (because, say, of a high number of special needs pupils or differentials in the cost of living) and different types of rural community (more remote ones, say, being more costly to service than ones located near large conurbations). There are also differences in the cost of educating a child at the primary level, say, and the tertiary level. Furthermore, some schools will have their own peculiarities (e.g. being housed in historic buildings requiring special consideration) and some parents might choose to home-school. And, of course, there is always the question of cost inflation. I will return to these nuances later.

Let us say that the annual cost per student works out at 2,500 units in an urban centre and 5,000 units in a rural community. Let us also say that each individual should have at his or her disposal the chance to receive formal full-time education for 18 years (from 5 until the age of 23). Of course, not everyone, indeed, not even a majority of individuals, will probably complete 18 years of education. Some may choose to leave tertiary education to later years and others will choose to leave full-time education early and will not return to it. Nonetheless, I believe 18 years of full-time education should be adopted as the norm. Based on this assumption (and excluding for the moment reference to cost inflation, improvements in technology etc.) the total cost per individual of full-time education over the student’s lifetime will be 45,000 units in an urban centre and 90,000 units in a rural area.

Six months before a child reaches the age of five, the parents are notified that they have available a notional pot of money (45,000 or 90,000 units) which, within certain limitations, they may spend as they wish on purchasing education for their child. If they choose to send the child to a state-funded school, the school will be paid the average cost of education (2,500 or 5,000 units p.a. for urban and rural schools respectively). In addition, the state will give a bonus payment of 20% which will be divided between the parent and the school. Let’s assume the division is an equal one, so that the parents and the school accepting their child will each receive 250 or 500 units annually. This payment will be made at the beginning of the school year.

The parents will be able to use this annual bonus payment to buy books, school uniforms, and other aids. This gives parents in developing countries an incentive to send children to school by relieving at least part of the burden of the costs associated with educating children. In more developed economies, poorer parents will find the lump sum a useful and timely contribution to their costs.

The school will be free to spend the bonus money on equipment, special needs facilities, extra books, sports equipment etc. (but will not be allowed to top-up salaries of permanent teachers). Thus, a school in an urban centre with 1,000 pupils will receive annually 2,500,000 units from the state to meet its day-to-day expenses plus a further 250,000 units to spend on discretionary items. The schools, therefore, will have a considerable incentive to attract students by improving its appeal to parents, students and teachers.

Ideally, the school will be a self-administered trust regulated by the local or central government and national school inspectorate.

If the parents choose to send their child to a private school, and the school accepts the child in accordance with its normal entry procedures, the same bonus payments (as if the chosen school were a state school) will be made to the parents but no bonus payment will be made to the school. The school will, however, receive its standard annual fees up to a specific limit (say, 140% of the cost of sending the child to a state school). This may mean that the total notional pot of lifetime units will get used up more quickly, but that is a choice the parents should be entitled to make. They might decide that it is it better to try to get, what is in their opinion, the best education available for a child at the primary or secondary stage, rather than worry about whether the child will be burdened with debt during the tertiary stage. Of course, one could limit the payment to the private school to the same price paid to a state school; or one could pay the full cost without the 140% limit. I believe, however, that the 140% limit is about the right level (after about 13 years of education, age 5 to 18, the full allowance will be used up).

Once a child reaches the age of 18, decisions about use of the education fund are passed from the parents to the child. S/he need not go straight to university. The fund will be available for use at any time of life, be it driven by a desire to change career or to take a chance to learn more deeply about some new-found interest. As people live longer, more and more are choosing to learn new skills or crafts later in life. I believe this is a trend that should be encouraged, allowing people to study what suits them best at a time when they are ready to study rather than be driven into further education without any clear desire or firm intent for a future career. It also has considerable benefits for universities, bringing a mature attitude and vision to university campuses.

The Details

I deliberately left aside consideration of a number of factors. I will now deal with these. First, new school buildings. Governments (local and central) will from time-to-time determine that, due to changing demographics, a new school is required in a particular locality. In the above scheme, new construction will still be the responsibility of the relevant government. It will build, equip and staff the school. Thereafter, all its running costs will be paid from scheme funds brought to the school by the children attending it. There may be for some scope for schools, particularly new schools, to borrow funds to pay for perceived essentials which the government has not provided. However, I believe such borrowing is not desirable and, if permitted, must be closely regulated.

Secondly, I mentioned variations between different urban centres and different types of rural community. Such variations between the cost of urban education and a rural education or within different urban or rural environments are inevitable. This could be dealt with by zoning a country according to education cost and permitting higher funds for inhabitants in higher-cost districts. However, I believe that the zones should not be overly complex. The zones will apply to the location of the parents (or child), rather than the school. Parents who choose to send a child to a school outside their zone of residence will still get the fund attributable to their zone of residence. The fund will be adjusted on the basis of residence. Thus, the 45,000 unit fund might rise or fall depending on the residence of the parent (or child), residence being determined at the end of a school year (thereby ensuring that the amount available to spend is known in good time before the start of a new school year).

Thirdly, I mentioned differences in the cost of educating a child at different stages of their lives (e.g. primary education tends to cost less than university education). Adjustments to the fund could be made for this over the life of the period of compulsory education. If this happens to be from age 5 to 16, the first 3 years could be paid at a 20% discount, the next 3 years at a 15% and so on. The savings could be added to pay for later years of education (i.e. the total education fund available will remain the same).

Fourthly, I mentioned that some schools will have their own peculiarities (e.g. being housed in historic buildings requiring special consideration). The cost attributable to preserving a nation’s heritage should not be passed to the educational institution concerned. This should continue to be a cost borne by the state.

Fifthly, I alluded to the potential difficulties which might arise if parents choose to home-school. I believe that it would be fair in these circumstances for the parents to receive the bonus as if the child were attending a state-funded school. The education fund would be reduced by the appropriate amount (perhaps at a lesser rate) to take account of an on-going requirement for administration, approving curricula inspection, etc.

Finally, I mentioned inflation. Education costs will normally rise over the lifetime of an individual due to inflation. However, this is easily dealt with by indexing the education fund to an inflation index, such as a consumer prices index. A government could, of course, choose to top up education funds with additional sums at specific levels of education (e.g. primary, secondary etc.).

Conclusion

I recognise that aspects of the scheme are being adopted around the world. However, as far as I am aware, no country has adopted a comprehensive programme of education funding reform along the lines proposed here.

I mentioned at the outset that there are a number of special factors that will need to be taken into account. I have listed a few of them and I have tried to offer some suggestions of how to deal with these. I hope that readers of this essay will post comments not only on the main theme but also on potential difficulties and ways to overcome them. I intend after some months, if sufficient constructive comments have been received, to rewrite this essay taking those comments into account.