Report: for-profit schools don’t boost standards
2:38 pm - August 7th 2012
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has today published a report showing no evidence for the claim that for-profit schools boost standards of schools in England.
The report, ‘Not for Profit: the role of the private sector in England’s Schools‘ reviews the international evidence and concludes it does not support the claim that an expansion of for-profit providers will improve standards.
The report also argues that evidence from the OECD demonstrates “more competition-oriented systems tend to produce higher levels of school segregation between children from different backgrounds.”
With so many not-for-profit organisations willing to get involved in running schools in England, the IPPR says there are “no innovation grounds” for allowing for-profit schools.
In response to the IPPR report, Labour MP Karen Buck said that unlike the Tories, Labour does “not want organisations to make a profit from running our schools”.
She said any operating surplus should be invested back into educating children.
Labour supports innovation and reform in our schools system but this report confirms that profit-making schools are not necessary to achieve better results.
IPPR’s report is published in the wake of calls from three centre-right think tanks to allow state schools to be run by profit-making providers.
The argument for private sector funding in schools – supported by center-right think-tank Policy Exchange – say that with capital funding cuts of 60% by 2014/15 budgets will be “heavily restrained”.
The IPPR report suggests that the strongest drivers in school improvement are:
– High quality leadership and teacher,
– School autonomy in areas like curriculum and assessment in a framework of robust accountability
– Measures that systematically reduce class-based inequalities in attainment.
The IPPR report says it’s “much cheaper” for the government to raise the capital funding rather than the private sector to do so at taxpayers expense.
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |  |
Shantel Burns is a News Editor at Liberal Conspiracy, and a publishing and journalism student and current affairs nerd. Blogs at: ramblepolitics.blogspot.co.uk too.
· Other posts by Shantel Burns
Story Filed Under: News ,top
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
The report actually says that “the evidence is mixed” (page 16 of the PDF) as to whether for-profit schools outperform other schools, although it is noted that:
“The strongest claim that could be made on the basis of this evidence is that in these cases the for-profits appear to do better than traditional municipal schools. However, although these studies control for factors like parental education and income, they generally do not control for other unobserved characteristics, such as prior attainment.”
That paragraph alludes to an important point made in the report (page 14 of the PDF) regarding the limitations of the evidence available: most studies are limited by small sample sizes, lack of data on comparative non-test-based outcomes, and lack of data on differences in characteristics between those who attend for-profit schools and those who attend other schools.
Therefore, in my eyes, it seems entirely reasonable to allow for-profit schools in this country so that we can evaluate their performance over time with a whole lot more data. That way, we wouldn’t be constrained by the limitations of previous studies and could come to a statistically robust conclusion.
“The IPPR report says it’s “much cheaper” for the government to raise the capital funding rather than the private sector to do so at taxpayers expense.”
Erm….the private sector raising capital is NOT at the taxpayers expense, if the school is allowed to turn a profit.
I’m also not entirely sure I’m willing to take their “evidence” at face value, given they get a lot of their funding from trade unions directly or indirectly, and other “progressive” sources. The evidence out there suggests that the best schools in the country are almost exclusively independent and for-profit (even if in a lot of those cases the profits are fed directly back into the school).
What is dangerous about such reports is that they are polemics masquerading as research.
This sentence gives you a flavour.
“As with the Chilean case, he found that for-profit schools performed better than local
authority-run schools, but there are important reasons to be cautious about these findings.”
Yeah, right!!!
@ 3 pagar
“What is dangerous about such reports is that they are polemics masquerading as research. ”
Agreed.
“This sentence gives you a flavour.
“As with the Chilean case, he found that for-profit schools performed better than local
authority-run schools, but there are important reasons to be cautious about these findings.”
Yeah, right!!!”
Except that the report (or polemic, if you prefer) went on to say WHY one should be cautious – a fact that you skipped over, presumably in an attempt to falsely portray the authors as disregarding any data they didn’t like.
Don’t complain about biased polemics while writing biased polemics. It lacks grace.
Except that the report (or polemic, if you prefer) went on to say WHY one should be cautious
I can’t even be bothered to go back and find out but I can tell you it will be one of the following.
Difference in quality of pupil intake.
More to life than exam results.
Difficult to measure.
Leaves on the line.
My point was that this report contained no new research or empirical findings. It was a biased rehash job with a polemical spin.
Surely even someone as hostile and argumentative as you can understand this……
” It was a biased rehash job with a polemical spin. ”
This is what think tanks do.
And it is why their reports should generally be considered lesser value than peer reviewed research.
I’ll look forward to reminding you of this next time you approvingly quote something from a think tank.
@ Planeshift
I’ll try not to do so.
However the dangerous bit is when the “polemic” of an IPRR report is turned, as if by magic, into the “fact” advertised by Sunny’s headline.
How many LC followers have had their prejudices confirmed without having had to read the original drivel (or perhaps even the article)?
@ 5 pagar
“My point was that this report contained no new research or empirical findings. It was a biased rehash job with a polemical spin.
Surely even someone as hostile and argumentative as you can understand this……”
Ah. So you react to fair criticism with an insulting straw-man attack, while simultaneously accusing the criticiser of being “hostile and argumentative”. Class.
So you react to fair criticism with an insulting straw-man attack
Ah.
So you don’t argue with my assertion that “this report contained no new research or empirical findings. It was a biased rehash job with a polemical spin.”
You accept that “the authors disregarded any data they didn’t like.” (There are countless other examples of this in the report that I can cite).
Therefore I apologise for calling you argumentative, which was not intended to be insulting………..
“How many LC followers have had their prejudices confirmed without having had to read the original drivel (or perhaps even the article)?”
I think regulars here will know by now that headlines don’t always reflect the content.
@ 9 pagar
“So you don’t argue with my assertion that “this report contained no new research or empirical findings. It was a biased rehash job with a polemical spin.” ”
I haven’t read the report, so I can’t know. But it wouldn’t surprise me. It’s quite blatantly written by an interested party.
“You accept that “the authors disregarded any data they didn’t like.” (There are countless other examples of this in the report that I can cite).”
Cite them, then. That was my point: you’ve implied the above, but only by quote-mining. I’m not saying your conclusions are necessarily wrong, I’m saying that your method of reaching said conclusions – as shown thus far on the thread – are fallacious
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
-
BevR
Report: for-profit schools don’t boost standards | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lVtnLOQY via @libcon
-
BevR
Report: for-profit schools don’t boost standards | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lVtnLOQY via @libcon
-
BevR
Report: for-profit schools don’t boost standards | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lVtnLOQY via @libcon
-
BevR
Report: for-profit schools don’t boost standards | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lVtnLOQY via @libcon
-
Miss Petal
Quite significant that the Labour party have ruled out allowing for-profit schools http://t.co/ploXQflb
-
Miss Petal
Quite significant that the Labour party have ruled out allowing for-profit schools http://t.co/ploXQflb
-
Georgina Lansbury
Quite significant that the Labour party have ruled out allowing for-profit schools http://t.co/ploXQflb
-
Georgina Lansbury
Quite significant that the Labour party have ruled out allowing for-profit schools http://t.co/ploXQflb
-
SheffieldUncut
New report says for-profit schools across England won't boost standards http://t.co/ploXQflb reports @shantel121
-
SheffieldUncut
New report says for-profit schools across England won't boost standards http://t.co/ploXQflb reports @shantel121
-
Lee Hyde
Report: for-profit schools don't boost standards. http://t.co/47kTVYJd /by @shantel121 via @libcon ft @IPPR
-
Lee Hyde
Report: for-profit schools don't boost standards. http://t.co/47kTVYJd /by @shantel121 via @libcon ft @IPPR
-
Lee Hyde
Report: for-profit schools don't boost standards. http://t.co/47kTVYJd #Gove #Education #Academies /by @shantel121 via @libcon ft @IPPR
-
Lee Hyde
Report: for-profit schools don't boost standards. http://t.co/47kTVYJd #Gove #Education #Academies /by @shantel121 via @libcon ft @IPPR
-
Janet Graham
New report says for-profit schools across England won't boost standards http://t.co/ploXQflb reports @shantel121
-
Janet Graham
New report says for-profit schools across England won't boost standards http://t.co/ploXQflb reports @shantel121
-
Christian Wilcox
For-profit schools do not boost standards: http://t.co/dvKCpoJG. #Gove & The #Torys are wrong again. #Croydon #Labour (@GavinBarwellMP)
-
Marco Mapo
Report: for-profit schools don’t boost standads http://t.co/MULLoMm6
-
Morgan Dalton
Report: for-profit schools don’t boost standards http://t.co/Xs6eVzYJ
-
NoTo UKCoalition
They get it wrong on schools too http://t.co/FmfvoxUb
-
Bob Ellard
They get it wrong on schools too http://t.co/FmfvoxUb
-
saramo
Report: for-profit schools don’t boost standards | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hCQ4vutv via @libcon We need FOIA to apply to academies!
-
J.P. Grumpsukthuck
Report: for-profit schools don’t boost standards | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hCQ4vutv via @libcon We need FOIA to apply to academies!
-
saramo
Report: for-profit schools don’t boost standards | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hCQ4vutv via @libcon
-
Natacha Kennedy
Report: for-profit schools don’t boost standards | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/oVlslRE0 via @libcon
-
PESJA Los Angeles
"more competition-oriented systems tend to produce higher levels of school segregation" http://t.co/ghfmSlnB #LAUSD
-
Paul Thomas
"more competition-oriented systems tend to produce higher levels of school segregation" http://t.co/ghfmSlnB #LAUSD
-
Michael Albertson
"more competition-oriented systems tend to produce higher levels of school segregation" http://t.co/ghfmSlnB #LAUSD
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
