Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To be seriously worried about Gove wanting Academies to be profit making

31 replies

lostinpants · 30/05/2012 08:19

Article from Guardian....

*Michael Gove open-minded over state schools being run for profit

Education secretary hints at Leveson inquiry that policy would be allowable in second term of Tory-led government

The education secretary has given his clearest indication yet that a future Conservative government would let state schools be run for profit.

Giving evidence to the Leveson inquiry into phone hacking, Michael Gove was asked whether he hoped free schools would be able to make profits in a Tory second term.*

All the Academy chains must be just itching to get their hands on more schools now. Is this what we want? AIBU to think that school should NOT be profit making?

OP posts:

Original poster

lostinpants · 30/05/2012 08:20

Sorry article was supposed to be in bold!

OP posts:

Birdsgottafly · 30/05/2012 08:26

The conservative's want everything privatised, nothing new there.

It's whether they dress it up enough for enough people to fall for it.

The 'care' industry shouldn't have been as privatised as it was, but it makes lots of money for exsisting business people, who by coinsidence are Tory voters/supporters.

Thatchers friends and family made a fourtune during her time in government, what with all the 'social reforms', the country didn't save any money and standards were not raised, but that wasn't really the aim.

GrahamTribe · 30/05/2012 08:27

If something makes a profit it has to be successful. Let's just put it this way - if we marketed, say, London's state schools tomorrow just how many do you think would still be in business this time next year?

I'm not saying give the concept an automatic green light but in view of what a bloody disaster many state schools are at present it's not something to reject out of hand either.

CailinDana · 30/05/2012 08:31

How would they make profit? By being fee paying?

Birdsgottafly · 30/05/2012 08:31

And yes i know that this exsists in Sweden, but we don't have Sweden's welfare system.

They have had family friendly polices a lot longer than the UK and we are not at a stage in the UK were certain policies can be cherry picked and others ignored.

noblegiraffe · 30/05/2012 08:31

I'm a bit confused as to how a state-funded school could make a profit without either selling the children to advertisers or selling the use of state-funded facilities.

hackmum · 30/05/2012 08:32

If something makes a profit it has to be successful.

And if it's not successful, then it doesn't make a profit, it makes a loss. And closes down. Like Woolworth's, say. How does that represent an improvement, exactly?

Birdsgottafly · 30/05/2012 08:34

I am having problems linking the article, but it is in the Education section of the Guardian.

The evidence isn't there that thiswould be a solution. Taken from the article,

"A forthcoming report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, a centre-left thinktank, has found that across the world, for-profit education companies have at best a mixed record.

The IPPR's study ? Not for Profit: The role of the private sector in England's schools ? says there have only been large-scale experiments of for-profits running schools in Sweden, Chile and some US states. In Michigan and Florida, studies show that for-profits did not run schools any better than not-for-profit providers did. In Sweden and Chile, not-for-profit firms ran schools better than for-profit ones.

"There is no evidence that you need for-profit companies to introduce innovation into education," said the report's author, Rick Muir."

CogitoErgoSometimes · 30/05/2012 08:37

YABU. All schools run on a budget. If they can meet the standards, provide excellent service, pay good wages to staff and still have a bit left over then that's technically a profit. If it is then ploughed back into buildings, equipment, additional services and other things that can enhance the experience of pupils, I don't see the problem. If the school was run on a shoestring providing a poor service and low standards simply to generate profit for shareholders then it wouldn't get many subscribers and it would fail.

cory · 30/05/2012 08:37

I cannot find many Swedes with a kind word to say for the new school system. The problems being excactly what backmum touched on: if a school makes a loss it is closed down suddenly which means pupils without a place and other schools (who have already lost out on funding due to over-competition) suddenly having to accommodate them.

Sweden atm survives educationally on having an extremely well educated parent generation who can support their children no matter what becasue they were educated under a different system: in other words, the educational reformers are getting a free ride on the backs of their predecessors. This is not going to last forever, the country is slipping down the leagues already.

Birdsgottafly · 30/05/2012 08:40

"I'm a bit confused as to how a state-funded school could make a profit"

Schools get funding from various sources, the EU being one, so the money doesn't 'just' come from the government. At present many IT suites are sponsered by private companies. The companies are paid for what they supply and the maintainance.

I suppose the 'for profit' schools would look for finance from various sources, then decide what tospend, thus giving them a profit.

If something makes a profit it has to be successful.

In theory, but it is how 'success' is defined and if there is any penalty impossed if the schoool isn't a success.

Children's education shouldn't be a part of social experiments.

MsKittyFane · 30/05/2012 08:41

Many new build schools are already 'run for profit' in that the local authority doesn't own the building and they are just tenants paying rent to a private company.

GrahamTribe · 30/05/2012 08:49

"And if it's not successful, then it doesn't make a profit, it makes a loss. And closes down. Like Woolworth's, say. How does that represent an improvement, exactly?"

hackmum, that happens now, anyway. A state school which fails to imptove after (usually far too long) a period of time will be closed down. Frankly, if a school's that bad closing it down is a great improvement.

I don't know how it works in all cases but I was privvy to a tip-off from my MP (shhhh!) that the school near me (thankfully not my DC's!) was due for closure having twice been on SM so I followed the issue with interest. In that case the school - a juniors - literally shut and after a time the nearby infants' school was turned into a primary, using the building left vacant by the defunct school and headed up by the HT of the infants school. The staff at the dreadful junior school had lost their jobs of course (fortunately someone was able to warn them that this was happening before they received official notice of it ) and new staff brought in.

That was about 8 or 9 years ago. The school is vastly improved (a friend is a TA there so I still get to hear of it). It's still got problems, many of which are put down (by staff, before anyone jumps on me!) to having a high number of traveller DC and a high number of DC from working class families, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was.

So, there's an example of how closure has resulted in improvement.

Aside from that, there's nothing like a bit of financial pressure to encourage people to work harder to be successful. ATM, and imho, as the example above showed me very clearly, there isn't enough of an incentive for anyone to puull their finger out. That school had twice been on special measures and still was allowed to remain open, screwing up kids' education, rife with bullying.

GrahamTribe · 30/05/2012 08:52

Birds, come on! The "Grauniad"? A centre left think-tank? Well, there's a surprise! Your hardly going to get an unbiased opinion on education from that rag newspaper, are you?! :)

cory · 30/05/2012 08:54

GrahamTribe Wed 30-May-12 08:49:51
"And if it's not successful, then it doesn't make a profit, it makes a loss. And closes down. Like Woolworth's, say. How does that represent an improvement, exactly?"

"hackmum, that happens now, anyway. A state school which fails to imptove after (usually far too long) a period of time will be closed down. Frankly, if a school's that bad closing it down is a great improvement."

Yes, but that is different from a school closing down suddenly because the people running it decide they aren't making enough of a profit. Sudden closures do cause havoc with children's education; this is what the Swedes are finding now. It has nothing to do with academic standards; schools open up on a whim, like clothes stores in the High Street, and then close just as suddenly when it turns out there werent enough takers or the profit margins were too small. But the pupils are left stranded.

Sarcalogos · 30/05/2012 08:54

Gove is dangerous.

If I hear the phrase it 'works in sweeden' come out of that mans mouth again I swear I will spontaneously combust.

He has no evidence for how it works, why it works, if it really works and why that success would transfer to the Uk. I know. I asked him. He stuttered a bit and then said the immortal words 'I don't know, but there are people who do'.

Right. That's ok then. Tosser.

cory · 30/05/2012 08:57

The difference between a school and a clothes store is that nobody comes to any harm when shops come and go, because people who buy summer dresses do not rely on stable provision. Education does.

numbertaker · 30/05/2012 08:59

The whole of society is 'run for profit'. Your kids are put into schools so they can learn (well thats the plan, so they can work and pay tax....for the profit of the country.

A definition of slavery is :a condition of having to work very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation:

sounds like working in the UK to me, you work they take it and spend it on rubbish/bankers/etc.

So running schools for profit to churn out a 'profitable human resource'. You won't get strikes anyhow.

Its all about the £££$$$$.

Birdsgottafly · 30/05/2012 09:00

It isn't working in Sweden, though and all of the studies carried out in the US show that they don't work there, either.

It will need years to put the safeguards inplace and hopefully by then we will have a change in government, anyway.

Otherwise we will have a education fiasco akin to the start of 'Care in the Community', when private companies took over the provision of care services.

Spero · 30/05/2012 09:00

I agree with hackmum. I do not think schools and hospitals should be run to make a profit.they should be run efficiently and well but that is an entirely different matter. If profit becomes your goal there is a risk that 'pile them high and sell them cheap' becomes your guiding philosophy.

Children don't fit well into the 'market'. What about the children who won't help their school make a profit? Who will want them? Where will they go?

Every school should be a good enough school. The purpose of a school should be to educate it's pupils. If it makes money on top of that, that's nice but it really worries me if the desire to make a profit is elevated above the school's basic purpose.

LadyWidmerpool · 30/05/2012 09:02

If there's a second term of Tory government then God help us all, and I'm an atheist [helpful]

Birdsgottafly · 30/05/2012 09:03

We have had to backtrack over how much prison work is given to private companies because of the mishandling of services. so now we hand our most vulnerable children over instead?

handbagCrab · 30/05/2012 09:05

It's bollocks!

I can't believe people think its ok that money that is currently spent on the children of this country will be siphoned off to shareholders as making a profit is the be all and end all.

When has spending less money on something in order for the surplus to be given to someone else ever resulted in improvement?

Schools spend all their money just keeping going. To make a profit they would need to pay staff less or use unqualified staff who automatically are cheaper, spend less on equipment and buildings, take less pupils with additional needs so the school doesn't have to provide TAs.

If schools are failing, why are they failing? I doubt it's because they are not being run like tesco is.

hackmum · 30/05/2012 09:05

Cory made my point for me - closing a school down because it's failing academically is not at all the same thing as closing a school down because it's losing money.

Obviously some academies will have greater costs than others - e.g. some will have to spend more on SEN or EAL services. A nice easy way of making sure you don't make a loss is to not take any of those tricky SEN or EAL kids. Academies aren't allowed to do that at the moment, but I wonder for how long.

GrahamTribe · 30/05/2012 09:35

"Cory made my point for me - closing a school down because it's failing academically is not at all the same thing as closing a school down because it's losing money."

Yes, that's a very fair point too. As Birds said, there would need to be an enormous amount of safeguards. And as I said, I'm not giving the theory a personal thumbs up but neither am I rejecting it out of hand. It really would depend on so many things.

I'm just musing here - if we were to take away the charitable status which most independents have, thereby allowing them to make a profit, would we see mass closures or would we see those which are successful and desirable (which may possibly be the majority) continue to thrive?

Flip

1 2