"school productivity" is a pretty retarded concept - schools are not factories.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

"school productivity" is a pretty retarded concept - schools are not factories.

How else would you gauge financial input to measure successful output? Whilst not factories its still important to exercise cost controls and reduce waste is it not?

Originally Posted by Tete123

How else would you gauge financial input to measure successful output? Whilst not factories its still important to exercise cost controls and reduce waste is it not?

I don't know, some form of review, similar to the way ofsted works? Just because teachers are not getting the same results does not mean resources are being wasted.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

I don't know, some form of review, similar to the way ofsted works? Just because teachers are not getting the same results does not mean resources are being wasted.

You would still be required to quantify results against financial input though - can't keep throwing endless sums aimlessly in the hope to improve education. I believe teachers are not responsible (in most cases) for the failure to achieve results - the system is flawed for one things with the teacher acting as little more than glorified babysitters, curriculum/exam standards are constantly decreasing and some blame must be placed on the parents/kids themselves.

It's clear that all areas of the public sector have massive levels of waste - the Audit Commission have said that the education budget could be reduced by £500 million with no damage to standards so seems there is some room for cost cutting.

I'd like to say i'm surprised but i'm not, the current system rewards only the schools that meet a narrow set of criteria, the emphasis is no longer on education but on attaining a good ofstead report and a good placing in the league tables. The better the placing the better the staff's chances of progression and promotion.

There needs to be a shift back to teaching and a move away from targets and attempts at social engineering.

Jacques, the concept of school productivity, i think is valid given that a everything is judged against a centrally decided target, as in industry, not against the actual quality of the education a child receives

I am not sure the ONS calculation is a good way to measure education. In fact I'm not even sure that value for money should be a primary concern when it comes to education.

Education defined by GCSE results seems far to narrow a conception to me. What about social skills, life skills, creativity etc these are just as valid aspects of education as GCSE results.

I appreciate the need to gather this data on inputs and outputs but I would be concerned if became the sole criteria for assessing education

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

I am not sure the ONS calculation is a good way to measure education. In fact I'm not even sure that value for money should be a primary concern when it comes to education.

Education defined by GCSE results seems far to narrow a conception to me. What about social skills, life skills, creativity etc these are just as valid aspects of education as GCSE results.

I appreciate the need to gather this data on inputs and outputs but I would be concerned if became the sole criteria for assessing education

I wouldn't advocate setting funding purely by the results of the ONS calculation, although I do see the value in quantifying results obtained in relation to funding.

We have spoken about this before and your correct of course, GCSE result are far too narrow to judge the effectiveness of education, but I fear reporting on the aspects you mention would do little to improve the results of the current education system, which in my opinion is deeply flawed.

Whilst in theory I agree that value for money shouldn't be the primary concern in education, we need to ensure that funding is focussed where needed before failure, rather than continuing the policy of allowing one group to fall behind before an injection of funds temporarily improves results.

Originally Posted by Tete123

I wouldn't advocate setting funding purely by the results of the ONS calculation, although I do see the value in quantifying results obtained in relation to funding.

We have spoken about this before and your correct of course, GCSE result are far too narrow to judge the effectiveness of education, but I fear reporting on the aspects you mention would do little to improve the results of the current education system, which in my opinion is deeply flawed.

Whilst in theory I agree that value for money shouldn't be the primary concern in education, we need to ensure that funding is focussed where needed before failure, rather than continuing the policy of allowing one group to fall behind before an injection of funds temporarily improves results.

Good points. Well made. (we need to improve the rep system coz saying this in a post seems like a waste of post)

Originally Posted by Scooby

I'd like to say i'm surprised but i'm not, the current system rewards only the schools that meet a narrow set of criteria, the emphasis is no longer on education but on attaining a good ofstead report and a good placing in the league tables. The better the placing the better the staff's chances of progression and promotion.

There needs to be a shift back to teaching and a move away from targets and attempts at social engineering.

Absolutely agree, although I'm not so sure social engineering is really the most appropriate term. Don't you think that trying to focus on "school productivity" is itself something of a targets based idea, rather than a focus on teaching?

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

Absolutely agree, although I'm not so sure social engineering is really the most appropriate term. Don't you think that trying to focus on "school productivity" is itself something of a targets based idea, rather than a focus on teaching?

'School productivity' merely ascertains the value of results against financial input. It seems to me an indicator of the success/failure of the system as a whole rather than attempting to set strict criteria of what should or should not be obtained. What are the policy makers doing with the results of this? Surely it stands to reason that if we are getting negative value then the system is failing.

Instead of a focus on teachers, who in my experience have had their hands tied by bureaucratic red tape and unnecessary health and safety in regards; inability to discipline (lack of authority) and limited autonomy to deviate from curriculum we should focus on the system in its entirety.

Return to groups based on academic ability, teach and test to provide and ascertain knowledge rather than to attain central dictated targets and make parents, educators and the kids accountable for the successes and failures.