logo

But what about a bit of deconstruction? Take the first sentence: Finance

Posted by admin   ·     ·   Jump to comments

But what about a bit of deconstruction? Take the first sentence: "Finance underpins all improvement in schools" Well, yes, it probably does. But then finance underpins all meals in schools, or all trains on tracks for that matter. Notice that finance "underpins" improvement.The Government is careful not to suggest a causal link between finance and improvement, only a bit of underpinning. "Substantial" is a nice word, but it is, nevertheless, simply a judgement. And then there is the awkwardness of "extra".Extra compared with what? Kenneth Clarke's final plans? The previous Comprehensive Spending Review figure? Last year's plans for last year? Last year's actual spending? Last year's plans for this year?Then we reach the mysterious concept of "an underlying increase". Is this different from a boring common-or-garden increase? Is an underlying increase underpinned?Why bother qualifying the word at all, unless there was a risk the actual rise will be less than £2.2bn? If there is such a risk, why not just say that the Government has done its best to make sure that £2.2bn of extra money will be spent on education? (This is probably the truth).Finally, we arrive at the jackpot itself, the £2.2bn.

Remember, we are still under a heading entitled School Funding, so it would be very easy to imagine that the full £2.2bn is about to be fed into schools.But read carefully, the sentence actually says the £2.2bn is "to be spent on education". In fact, an unstated proportion of the £2.2bn will be spent on schools. Education standard spending assessments (schools' core spending allocations) rise by a little over £1bn in 2000-2001. Part of the £2.2bn will be used outside theschools sector.It is necessary to be alert to the precise meaning of what is written in government publications. None of this is any worse than the kind of material the Conservatives used to publish. Indeed, it was the Tories who first started brightening the departmental report by putting charming photographs of ministers in it. Presentation of otherwise dry facts and figures about spending and performance needs brightening.But there is a thin dividing line - which governments seem increasingly happy to cross - between public information and propaganda.Overall, the news from the DfEE's departmental report is actually rather good.

Despite considerable constraints on expenditure in recent years, education spending in England was, startlingly, only 2 per cent higher in real terms in 1999-2000 than in 1994-1995. Yet in the intervening period, attainment in schools, colleges and universities has continued to improve. This extraordinary value-for-money outcome is, of course, double-edged for the education service.On the one hand, it should assist David Blunkett, the Secretary of State for Education, and his colleagues in their bids to the 2000 Spending Review: education delivers real and quantifiable results. On the other hand, the Treasury can happily observe that even with restricted access to additional resources, education can deliver improvements. So why bother giving it more cash?For a government that prides itself on producing public services that improve from year to year, education is a far better bet than health: the benefits can be measured in a range of rigorous ways. There is really no reason for the DfEE to overplay the successes of schools, colleges and universities: modest increases in resourcing have produced considerable benefits for society.In contrast, most commentators appear to believe that the vast sums about to be flooded into health will do little or nothing to reduce the NHS's capacity to consume resources with no apparent improvement in quality.But there is no easy way out. Education and health spending are for this Government what defence, police and law and order were for the Conservatives.

readers comments

Comments are closed.

NBA

NBA

MLB

MLB

NFL

NFL

NHL

NHL

WWE

WWE

Your sideblock text goes here