This article was originally published on 1st September 2009. I thought it might be interesting to re-read it in the current UK context.

The Centre for Policy Studies is a conservative (note the small ‘c’) think tank. It has published a document called School Quangos: a blueprint for abolition and reform, in which the authors look at each of the education-related non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in the UK and argue that they should either be radically changed or abolished altogether.

Should we take it seriously?

I think it is always useful to scrutinise the work, and the value for money, of these kinds of organisations. However, this report is spoilt for me by its obvious partisanship. This is evidenced in a single sentence: 

Independent [i.e. fee-paying] schools should not be subject to inspection.

If the authors really were as concerned about value for money as the document suggests, this sentence would not have appeared. If parents are being asked to pay for their child’s education they have every right to expect the school to be held accountable, and I don’t see why that should not be the case for independent schools as well as state-funded schools. 

The report does not look at technology specifically, but it seems to me that one of the key issues is not whether the organisations provide value for money according to some narrow criteria, but whether they do so when the wider social costs and benefits are taken into account. 

For example, if you take the myguide website, I do not see how its setting up and running can be cost-effective, in ordinary accounting terms, considering that its resources are completely free for people to use at the point of consumption. However, if its instructions on how to spot internet scams prevents some people from losing money, and helps to reduce identity theft, then it probably is cost-effective. 

The value of NDPBs is that they are able to take a wider view than an organisation that has to always balance the books in a narrow way. However, I do think the principle of scrutinising them is a good one, if only from the point of view of Milton Friedman’s (the economist, and no relation) rubric. He asserted that when people buy goods and services, they have one or both of two main motivations: to maximise value for money, and to minimise expenditure. However, your incentive to do either depends on whose money you are spending, and on whom you are spending it. Thus we obtain this table: 

 

 

Whose money?	Spent on whom?	Incentive to minimise spending?	Incentive to maximise value for money?
Your own	Yourself	Yes	Yes
Your own	Someone else	Yes	No (“It’s the thought that counts”)
Someone else’s	Yourself	No	Yes
Someone else’s	Someone else	No	No

 

Looked at like that, nobody in public service has any incentive to spend taxpayers’ money on a third party (schools, teachers etc) in a way that guarantees value for money or which minimises expenditure. Personally, I think it’s a bit of a cynical viewpoint, but Friedman does have a point. Surely, though, the answer is not to simply abolish public sector organisations but to ensure that they are accountable – which, indeed, they are. 

I suspect that the publishers do not actually want too much of a debate. Otherwise, why publish the report in August, when a lot of people in education are on vacation? Still, it’s always good to debate these sorts of issues, and by producing a report containing statistics ‘proving’ that lots of educational organisations are not giving value for money, the Centre for Policy Studies has perhaps provided the valuable service of getting people to think about such matters.  

 

Don't forget to contribute to the National Curriculum Consultation -- deadline: 14th April 2011.