07 September 2007
Education unions have poured scorn on statistics that suggest publicly funded schools are not delivering good value for the money invested in them.
An Office for National Statistics study, published on September 4, estimated that school productivity increased by 2.1% a year between 1996 and 1999 but fell by an average of 0.7% a year from 1999, despite massive increases in investment.
The ONS calculated productivity by dividing output measures, taking account of pupil numbers and exam results, by inputs – the amount spent on education. The analysis forms part of a new programme of work by the ONS, which aims to measure public sector outputs in ways that take account of quality change.
National statistician Karen Dunnell said the report represented a major step forward in the measurement of education productivity. 'We will continue to develop further improvements to the estimates, drawing on the knowledge of a wide range of experts,' she said.
But Martin Ward, deputy general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, dismissed the study as 'complete nonsense'. 'One might ask why the Office for National Statistics is wasting its time by putting out such misleading statements,' he told Public Finance.
Ward said the ONS's concept of productivity relied too heavily on exam results and failed to take into account the wider benefits of education that cannot be measured.
'As citizens, we've learnt an awful lot in the education service that has nothing to do with passing our maths exam. If you ask parents, they say that what they want for their children is that they should be happy, that they should be well socialised, that they should be good, balanced grown-ups in due course,' he said.
Martin Johnson, deputy general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, echoed many of Ward's sentiments, labelling the report as 'simplistic economics'.
He added: 'Much of the increase in education spending has been on staff, which was vital to avoid a crisis in the number of teachers. It is simply not realistic to expect a precise correlation between spending and pupil achievement as measured by tests.
'It does not recognise the relative difficulty of raising the achievement of the pupils who are doing least well, many of whom have multiple and complex problems.'
The ONS acknowledged that the apparent drop in productivity could reflect falling pupil numbers, an expansion in school support staff and the impact of the workload reform package implemented in 2003 and intended to reduce teachers' workloads.
Schools minister Jim Knight said: 'It must be remembered that productivity doesn't take account of improving the life chances of every child – such as increased funding for special education needs and the 7,000 extended schools now in operation. You could actually increase productivity by increasing the number of children in a class, for example.'
PFsep2007
