As of next year, parents in Nevada can have 90 percent (100 percent for children with special needs and children from low-income families) of the funds that would have been spent on their child in their public school deposited into a restricted-use spending account. That amounts to between $5,100 and $5,700 annually, according to the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Those funds are deposited quarterly onto a debit card, which parents can use to pay for a variety of education-related services and products — things such as private-school tuition, online learning, special-education services and therapies, books, tutors, and dual-enrollment college courses.Notably, families can roll over unused funds from year to year, a feature that makes this approach particularly attractive. It is the only choice model to date that puts downward pressure on prices. Parents consider not only the quality of education service they receive, but the cost, since they can save unused funds for future education expenses.
H/T We note via The Telegraph that David Laws has made his first comments on education.
“Teachers, colleges, careers advisers have a role and a responsibility to aim for the stars and to encourage people to believe they can reach the top in education and employment,”
“That’s not happening as much as it should do at the moment“
We have not read the full piece yet – just the political editor’s spin. Still from what we have read so far, we reckon that David is just saying what a lot of us are thinking.
Its nice to have him back.Tags: David Laws MP, education
The government’s Free Schools policy is widely regarded as a significant innovation; a radical shake-up of state education. The next logical step – permitting for-profit providers to deliver state-funded education – is still hotly contested and is unlikely to emerge in this parliament.
Yet even if profit-making providers were able to deliver state-funded schooling, this would hardly represent a free market in education. For one thing, almost all discussion of voucher schemes and for-profit provision assumes that prices will be capped.
This misses one of the most crucial benefits of allowing markets to operate.education, Schools
Liberal think tank Centre Forum has been busy crunching some numbers, and their findings don’t make happy reading for Labour’s seemingly-doomed leader.
Ed Miliband has made a big socalist play of his alleged plans to force nasty bankers to subsidise cheaper degrees for the bright teenage children of hard-working families.
Yet through its complexities, Miliband’s plan would typically benefit “graduates in their fifties earning £72,500″.
The study says: “Virtually no one in the bottom half of the earnings distribution, and virtually no one under the age of 35, will stand to gain from Labour’s plan.”
The policy of lumping further taxes on the financial sector “will be harmful during a period of economic recovery”.
It also adds: “Given the way that the student loan system works, the majority of the gains are illusory – what government gives on one hand, it takes back on the other.”
Indeed. Taking with one hand to give back (less) with the other. Nice to know someone else has noticed that.
Anyway, it looks like Our Vince is happy with the report:
“I would urge anyone attracted to Labour’s proposals to read this very informative analysis,” Vince said. “It makes clear that the policy only benefits wealthier, older graduates, and it exposes Labour’s claim that they want to help young people as completely false.”
You can read the report BY CLICKING HERE .Tags: Centre Forum, Ed Miliband, Labour, Student fees
For Oxford and Cambridge there is a very simple solution to the issue of political interference in their admissions processes, leave the state system.
The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister’s interventions this week, claiming race and income discrimination on the part of elite universities, are so evidence-free and infantile they barely merit comment.
Suffice to say the spectacle of the Coalition’s leading Oxbridge-educated figures behaving like socialist worker leaflet pushers ranting about social justice, is unlikely to inspire many youngsters that the route to success involves making a thoughtful case based on evidence. Something they teach in elite universities.
Access to selective education should be based on merit, and that’s all there is to it. What merit means should be up to the institution concerned, whether by competitive examination or interviews to root out untrained potential.
If groups are under-represented or failing to compete for places at age 18 is not the fault of the institutions concerned. Nor is it their role to correct it. All that means is denying someone who deserves a place on the grounds of ability, in order to give it someone less able who fills a quota.
That is not ‘fair’.
Nor is there any way of sensibly determining what a fair distribution of opportunity looks like. What ratio of children from Richmond to Barnsley attending Cambridge represents success in the mind of the DPM?
Further the whole thrust of Liberal Democrat education thinking in the last decade has been that early intervention matters far more than late. That is point of the pupil premium. University access codes are in that regard are unlikely to be either effective or good value for money.
But this is a tiresome debate. Politicians are politically motivated, such interference and nudges will continue so long as politicians run universities. The politics in this case concern promoting the absurd tuition fees compromise that is supposed to link price to pro-poor tokenism rather than supply and demand.
The threat made then is ‘do something about this or lose public money’.
Oxford and Cambridge should call their bluff.
The UK’s two best universities should not struggle to thrive in the private sector. Fees would rise, but then so would bursary schemes to offset the impact on those without the means to pay, revenue from venture research, and private sector sponsorship. Alternate private sector loan systems would emerge to facilitate payment, many less expensive than the RPI+3% charges in the government’s pseudo-graduate tax.
Recent Blog Posts
- More #Libdemmery nonsense
- Is it worth putting a tenner on @NormanLamb to win?
- Sock puppets go too far
- Should government regulate marriage?
- Public policy failure
- Farron Vs. Lamb: Another Underwhelming Election
- Full School Choice In Nevada
- Kennedy’s Legacy & The Leadership Election
- Liberalism and the European Union
- RIP Charles Kennedy 1959 – 2015
- Harry:I cant see Tim Farron winning.
- Geoffrey Payne:That's not very nice.
- Angela Harbutt:Thanks for comments. Interesti
- BackingNorman:Hmmm makes you wonder whether
- Jonathan J:Great post Angela! What do you
- Ben:My local council recently repl
- Sara Scarlett:If you think the problem is as
- Frank Little:Of course there should have be
- Alex Chatham:Yes, the UK might be more libe
- Richard Manns:...or the UK might find itself
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009