By David Williams
3 December 2009
Productivity in state-funded education has remained static during Labour’s period in government, an official study has found.
Data published by the Office for National Statistics on December 1 showed that the sector’s productivity fell after 2000, despite early gains during Labour’s first term.
The study defines productivity as ‘outputs’ – such as the number of pupils taught – divided by ‘inputs’, which include energy consumption, equipment and the number of people working in education.
Outputs and inputs both rose by 33% from 1996 to 2008. However, much of the improvement in results can be attributed to a quality adjustment calculation that hinges on rising GCSE grades. With that measure removed, outputs increased by only 4.6%.
ONS analysis shows that the early rise in productivity was driven by an increase in the school-age population coupled with relatively modest growth in investment.
However, since 2000, a fall in the school-age population has coincided with increased spending on teaching assistants and computer equipment.
The Conservatives have said that Labour has failed to provide value for money in education. Shadow schools minister Nick Gibb pledged to end bureaucracy and ‘fortnightly initiatives’.
But the government criticised the ONS for taking too narrow a view of the role of education. Schools minister Vernon Coaker said the survey ignored factors such as the social impact of good schools. ‘If productivity was the main goal then we could simply double class sizes to double the amount of teaching done by one person, but clearly that would have a devastating impact on education,’ he said.
3 December 2009
Productivity in state-funded education has remained static during Labour’s period in government, an official study has found.
Data published by the Office for National Statistics on December 1 showed that the sector’s productivity fell after 2000, despite early gains during Labour’s first term.
The study defines productivity as ‘outputs’ – such as the number of pupils taught – divided by ‘inputs’, which include energy consumption, equipment and the number of people working in education.
Outputs and inputs both rose by 33% from 1996 to 2008. However, much of the improvement in results can be attributed to a quality adjustment calculation that hinges on rising GCSE grades. With that measure removed, outputs increased by only 4.6%.
ONS analysis shows that the early rise in productivity was driven by an increase in the school-age population coupled with relatively modest growth in investment.
However, since 2000, a fall in the school-age population has coincided with increased spending on teaching assistants and computer equipment.
The Conservatives have said that Labour has failed to provide value for money in education. Shadow schools minister Nick Gibb pledged to end bureaucracy and ‘fortnightly initiatives’.
But the government criticised the ONS for taking too narrow a view of the role of education. Schools minister Vernon Coaker said the survey ignored factors such as the social impact of good schools. ‘If productivity was the main goal then we could simply double class sizes to double the amount of teaching done by one person, but clearly that would have a devastating impact on education,’ he said.
