Bananas Republics

Me again,

Have realised I need to post more regularly to keep you guys interested, and the last post was missing three things - Bridget Jones style update on weight-loss; blunt, under-researched political comment (the stable of most blogs...); and an update on the invasion.

So first, this week - Pints - 3; Wine - 7 (glasses!); Cupcakes (3); weight loss - currently 1.5 pounds! If I can push through today without doing something stupid (like drinking lots of sponsored pints at the diabetes fundraiser I'm going to tonight... ), I could be on to drop below 170 for the first weigh-in of my 30's - woo-hoo!!

Next, comment.

Bill "I didn't inhale and neither did she" Clinton was interviewed this week, and described a grand conspiracy against, originally, him and now Obama by the Republican right. Luckily he thinks they are shooting themselves in the foot. By just putting negative spanners in the works, he thinks they will alienate themselves to the electorate.

Sounds pretty common-sensical. But where would these guys have got the idea that this sort of tactic might work with a modern electorate?

How about the Tories in the UK?

Let's be honest, they've produced practically nothing over the past decade or so, but by sitting back and scoring negative political points, and occasionally dropping policy ideas nicked from other European states, they've managed to hoodwink the nation into thinking they are a better alternative - rather than highlighting the true case that the country is where it is because they have provided a completely ineffectual opposition.

By voting in the Tories we're effectively giving power to Harry Enfield's "I don't think you really wanted to do that" character - and is that what you want? Cos that's what'll happen...

Example. One of the nicked policies is Sweden's policy for school's, which the Economist gets fairly gooey about this week (yes, it's not just The Sun).

In Sweden, a voucher system operates, allowing parent's to choose which school the government will pay for the education of their child at - generally a public one or a for-profit free school. This creates what the Economist loves - a market with true competition in which good schools receive more money so their is an incentive for success, and the 'invisible hand' can operate.

Sounds great doesn't it? Needless to say there are lots of problems with it...

First, the Tories aren't mirroring the Swedish model in full. Very importantly, they aren't allowing schools to operate for-profit, which immediately lessens the incentive. In an article of April 23rd entitled OUT OF THE WINDOW, the Economist slammed Labour's education reforms on the basis that they simply mimicked the actions of markets without real consequences. Apparently the Tories plans to mimic markets without providing real rewards is not as bad though...

I'm not an economist, but I would suggest watching this space...

Secondly, and much more importantly, why are we trying to apply market principles to education at all - especially given the devastating failure of application in their own arena? Why have they become a metanarrative - analogous to fundamentalist religion - which explains everything in every arena?

The answer to that is pretty simple - because they hide the complexity of taking each situation on its own merit, dealing with its individual nuances - fiscal, logistical, moral etc..

The difference between subsequence and consequence is therefore a key one when considering the spread of market force doctrines. Yes, Sweden's schools improved after the introduction of a 'market' policy - but did they improve as a direct consequence, or simply subsequently because of 'side effects'? (Here's where it all gets poorly researched)

Well, the first thing to consider is that Sweden's 'market' doesn't really operate as a free market. There are, in fact, elements to it which look positively socialist. First, everyone is mandated the same amount of money to spend via their voucher. That is certainly not how investing usually works (intelligent investors can affect the market more by virtue of their having, in an efficient market, more capital) and isn't even how other market-driven sectors of education work (for example tertiary education in the US). Second, where does this money come from? Taxation - and taxation at a much more onerous level than in the UK. Sweden's mean personal income tax is near 50%, as opposed to just under 35% in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg). By taxing individuals more, the government makes them less able to operate as players in a free market, as it takes more of their capital to put into a collective pot. Money that, for example, could have been used to pay for private schooling.

Next, we have to consider what this 'market' has actually come to look like. Apparently only 10% of students are enrolled in the new independent schools. So the government still educates 90% of children. Apparently we're supposed to believe that those 90% are being better served as their schools have upped their game due to competition in the market.

However, given that it is well known within education that smaller class sizes improve attainment, isn't it equally likely that the expansion of provision has led to more optimal class sizes, and that that has led to the overall improvement - not the response to competition? Is it in fact even competition if teachers are teaching less students, and therefore getting less money but doing less work in a better environment?

So the introduction of market forces in Swedish education was followed by an improvement in educational attainment, but could it not be a 'side-effect' of centrally funded equal expansion of provision leading to smaller class sizes?

If so, there's only one way to equally expand provision in the UK - raise taxes to Swedish levels. Can't see the Tories proposing that one...

Right, done with the ill-informed rant. Next up - invasion plans. I'm not getting anywhere on my own so have decided to join forces with an overwhelming existing contingent... British actors!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/sep/30/american-tv-invaded-british-actors
I have been cast in a Christmas production (so sadly not coming back) and booked a voiceover gig. Yay!

Got to get off to the latter now, so...

DD Out