25 April 2006
On your marks Q&A
John Copps, author of On your marks; NPC’s new report on young people and education, answers some topical questions on funding and education.
Why does NPC support the idea of private funding in education? Isn’t this the government’s responsibility?
Yes, education is the responsibility of government. But private funding can make an important difference.
There is no doubt that the state system fails some children: there is overwhelming evidence of poor educational attainment for many groups in society. Faced with this, you can do one of two things. You can shrug your shoulders and say it is the government’s problem. Or you can get out your cheque book and do something about it! Wealthy donors are no different from the rest of us in this respect — they just have bigger cheque books, and therefore the ability to do more.
This is not an ideological point. It is a simple pragmatic response that says: ‘Look, this system isn’t working and private money and skills can help children get a better education and improve lives.’
There are many charities working within education that rely on the generosity of donors, large and small. City academies are only one area that can benefit from the support of big donors. On your marks presents donors with a whole range of choices and helps them to take a close look at their options.
Are academies a good investment for donors?
There is very little information from which to make a definitive judgment on academies. Overall they have been successful at raising GCSE results in some of England’s most deprived communities. Around 13% more pupils are achieving five GCSEs grade A* to C compared to the schools that they replaced. But Ofsted gives a mixed review of the academies.
However they perform, there are doubts about the cost effectiveness of academies. For an average academy, the bill is a massive £25m — £2m of which is from the sponsor and £23m is from the government. According to official DfES figures, this is around £8m more expensive than building a conventional school.
All this investment goes on building and furnishing the academy. There are some studies linking capital investment to better school performance but it is hard to see that this justifies the scale of extra investment. Certainly, there is little evidence to show that flashy buildings help pupils. No doubt spending on computing labs and other technical equipment helps, but buildings themselves do not.
In sum, it is not clear that this extra investment is worth it. Academies risk wasting donors’ and taxpayers’ money.
£2m is the price tag for a donor to establish an academy. How else could they spend this money?
Donors can choose to invest in charities, many of whom have proven results and make a real difference to young people’s education. Very often, they offer a greater certainty of return than academies.
With £2m we would recommend spreading their donation between a number of charities, and perhaps a number of areas. For example, for £2m a donor could fund the charity Springboard for Children in South London to provide intensive reading support for 500 primary school pupils, improving their reading and spelling scores by an average of almost one-and-a-half years. The money could also pay for the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice (IPSEA) to support 2,000 parents in the process of securing extra support for their children with special educational needs, unlocking £6m of extra support from the government. Finally, as part of the bargain, donors could fund Kidscape’s assertiveness course for children being bullied, stopping bullying for nearly 3,500 children.
Would you ever advise a donor to fund an academy?
In some circumstances, funding an academy may be the right thing to do. But funding an academy is very risky and many donors don’t have the appetite for such risk.
There are many things a donor can do with their money to help children in education and beyond. It is a pity that the debate about academies has distracted attention from the many effective but less high-profile charities doing great work to help children get a better education. On your marks gives donors and funders an overview of all the options available for funding in the area of education. I hope that for donors the report will be a good starting point for them and will help them make informed decisions on their giving in education.
Should we be concerned about the power of academy sponsors and the lack of accountability?
Sponsors of academies are accountable directly to the DfES. The local education authority gets bypassed in the process, however.
The focus in our report is on the results for children — what will give them the best education. It is not clear that changing the line of accountability hurts this.
Importantly, academies are, like all schools in England, overseen by the schools inspector, Ofsted. And we have seen evidence already that Ofsted will judge academies by the same tough standards it applies elsewhere.
It is important that this criticism should not be used to discourage private giving where it can make a valuable contribution to education.
Will recent media reports of money for honours allegations discourage donors from giving in education?
If this does happen, it would be a pity. As a nation we don’t give as much to charity as we might. And the richest people give the smallest proportion of their wealth. It would be a real shame if the allegations over money for honours discouraged rich people from giving to education.
On the other hand, if it leads some potential donors to stop and think about what is the best way of helping children’s education that would be useful. Donors can help improve education in a number of ways. I would encourage potential donors to read our report and think hard about where they give so as to make as big an impact as possible in improving lives.
Read On your marks.
< back to views index