The education system gets what it pays for - statistics 1995-2007

Good post, and I pretty much agree.

I think part of the problem is some parents see education is something that should be acheived by dumping their children off at school, and it's done. I certainly don't think this is the case, and parents need to have a more active role in their childs education, and I think there should be classes for parents to learn how to support their children, especially in the early years.

At school I learnt to absorb information. At home I learnt to think.

If we were to consider only the data highlighted in yellow, we can see that there has been an overall increase in spending per pupil. This correlates to an increase to just over 10% in the proportion of those who achieve 5A*-C including English and Mathematics.

This is just the basic overall picture of these two data sets, but is this the truth?

I will focus my attention on what this means for the state (maintained) education system in England and conclude on how spending cuts in the Department of Education are not as bad as the mass media makes it out to be.

Of course, every parent wants their child to be educated, right? However, it doesn't take that much effort nowadays to get 5A*-C inc. English and Maths considering grade inflation and how exam papers have been made easier. (If you disagree with this, then please compare course content nowadays from before). It makes me wonder, that just under a 30% increase in spending for pupil has still resulted in a poor system that does not help the majority of those educated through 11 years of compulsory education. After all, despite increase in spending, it still shows that more than 1 in 2 fail to achieve basic qualifications.

One might argue that an increase of spending did not affect the pass rate, in other words a third (or more) variable(s) affected the rise in the pass rates. This is certainly true: an apparent culture of teaching to the test, student doing certain qualification to hit that precious target, schools entering students for GCSE Maths with more than one exam board... The list goes on.

Here's the real deal, an increase in spending does not improve education standards in this country. We could even go to the extent that it does not cause an increase in the pass rates. The state education system should be there to help everyone, not under 1 in 2.

Despite education cuts, would it really matter if the GCSE pass rate (5A*-C inc. Maths and English) goes up and down by a few percentage points? Is this what our education system is based on - pathetic numbers as opposed to truly educating Britain's children?

11 years of compulsory education, and according to other statistics found in Table 1, it seems there are still individuals who receive no passes altogether. Completely shocking.

I could go on further and indeed I will, however, I would like to hear your opinions on this.

True, I don't believe parents stay an active role in their children's education. In fact, some allowing their children to play truant which is quite disgraceful. Unfortunately, some kids do not have parental support and I do not believe it is the school's responsibility to do so. The first (and arguably) only responsibility the school has is to teach the curriculum. Learning to form your opinions and accepting discipline should have been learnt from home.

Evidently, despite increases in spending and even if spending per pupil were to increase, it does not change the fact that educational inequality starts from birth. Really, government spending is irrelevant in a child's education practically and what matters most is what a child is exposed to at home. This is one of many factors why still to this day there are teenagers leaving school without learning to read. If they do not have books at home, how will they learn to practice and develop this skill? Alas, it continues until they "drop out".

The previous government has in fact raised the age of the ability to leave school from 16 to 18 (well 17, then 18 but you get the message) which will take place in 2015. This is not addressing the root problems of educational inequality and I bet it will have a negligible effect on 16 year olds getting the education/training or not (however it will do wonderful things to the young adult unemployment record, which is simply a juggling of statistics).

Of course, there will always be educational inequality, but increased spending and the like will do nothing to help reduce the effects and therefore futile. Until we get the basics right, we will still have this problem and certain people will still be under the illusion that increased spending = better education. It certainly does not. In fact in 2006, Gordon Brown stated that he wished to increase state spending on pupils to the same level as private school children. There may be certain disparities between my statistics and the one I have found in the article, but one should be aware that the data that I have taken is the DCSF and there is a possible chance of the manipulation of statistics in the article. The point still stands though, it is simply not viable for the government to increase spending per pupil to the level of private school kids. We should also be aware that even if spending per pupil were at the level of fees comparable to the top public schools, does this mean every child educated in the state schools sector gets the same education as a public school child?

Essentially someone has to lose, for others to win, sort of what I'm saying crudely i guess.

Okay, there's a lot to be said on this, and the manner in which you've handled it does not really do such a complex topic justice. I need to run now, but in essence:

-You need to establish statistical causality between the variables that you've outlined.

-You haven't mentioned the most significant factor in a child's education, which is their home. Extra spending and educational capital /does/ have an effect, but changes in a family's socio-economic status will have a much more potent effect.

-Related to the above two points, you need to look at changes in the extra-education variables and see how they've evolved over time.

-What cuts, in particular, are you referring to? EMA, free books, what?

Okay, really need to go, but these are some starting points where you cna refine your analysis.

The main cost of education is staff salaries; teachers but also caretakers, school secretaries, local government bureaucrats and dinner ladies.

Throughout the period you are considering local authority pay has risen at a rate substantially higher than price inflation.

In part that is due to Blair/Brown's client state but it is also driven by pressure in the outside world. If dinner ladies would earn more working on Tesco's checkouts, one has to pay dinner ladies more.

The reference to "real terms" in your statistics is related to prices not wages. Education is an activity where it very difficult to reduce the cost base by improving productivity. The only real ways of improving productivity are by withdrawing from an activity (sack the dinner ladies) or increasing class sizes.

It follows that the cost of education in real terms must rise simply to pay staff of the same calibre to do the same job. In other words much of the additional money doesn't improve education. It is merely needed in order to stand still.

I hope this is on-topic: I'd like to add that quality of education depends not only on how much money is thrown at a particular child, but also on teaching quality, which appears to vary vastly between a typical private school and typical state school. How engaged classmates are also impacts on a child's learning, class-size, school environment/ space etc.
It would take a MASSIVE amount of capital to increase ALL of those stats to private school levels, much more than just equal spending, which is why it is doubtful to happen.
I do find it worrying that so few get at least 5 A*-C GCSEs though, that clearly needs to be looked at from a different angle than just "more money" because that doesn't appear to be having the desired effective results.

Does this mean that simply throwing money into increasingly gigantic bureaucracy doesn't result in better outcomes for students? OMG someone tell New Labour.

increasing spending does not do anything!

Between 95 and 07, there has been a 42% increase in spending per pupil; there has been a:

38% increase in 5+ A*-C grades
32% increase in 5+ A*-C grades inc. English and mathematics
6% increase in 5+ A*-G grades
5% increase in 5+ A*-G grades inc. English and Mathematics
7% increase in any passes

Really?

You got that from two tables?

Impressive.

That's the point - is it actually improving educational standards. The only thing it has done (if anything) is upped the percentage points.

In addition, there's still the fact that, still, more than 1 in 2 fail to achieve 5A*-C inc. Maths and English.

MORE than 1 in 2. You think this is acceptable?

It makes the "increases" worthless really.

You are actually proving my point - the education gets gets what it pays for. We pay for more a higher 5A*-C percentage rate, and thus it shows.

Does that mean education, in itself, is improving? No.

Yeah, by increasing the percentage rate by a few numbers. One could argue that teaching to the test, low grade boundaries, multiple retakes etc have a more of an effect than increased spending.