Sunday
(0)Loony-left Labour backbenchers will no doubt be overjoyed that the Office of Fair Trading is investigating Britain's top private schools. The idea that private schools could get punitive fines will make the saliva drip from their statist mouths. Yet fines, if issued, would be worse for parents than the alleged crime.
The crime is that the top private schools run a cartel which conspires to raise the price of tuition. But since there is more demand for places as these schools than supply, meaning the price is below the market-clearing price, the allegation is quite obvious nonsense. As last week's Economist pointed out:
Some of them think they could raise their fees by 50% and still fill all their places with the children of the super-rich. Headteachers don't want to do that because it would weaken their claim to charitable status and limit their ability to select the cleverest children and thus get the best results. So if they have been colluding, it may be to keep the fees down, not up.
But even if private schools have been colluding to raise prices, a fine would not be justified. Private schools are non-profit distributing charities, and if they have more money, they employ more teachers and build better sports facilities. How does taking a school's cash and giving it to HM Treasury benefit the parents?
I am not disposed to think that the OFT is peopled by fair-minded and judicious individuals free of party political baggage. Perhaps I am cynical. Time will tell, as this issue unwinds. All I can say, as a parent of a child at a south coast prep school, is that I do not feel cheated or abused by the fee level. One of the potential senior schools for our daughter to progress to is Roedean, current day pupil termly fee £3,600. If she obtains an award that figure will reduce by up to 50%. The state sector costs something like £2,300, for God's sake.
I am entirely with Alex on this one.
Posted by Guessedworker at July 13, 2003 08:05 PM
Good post, Alex. All I would add is that if we want to see more people sending their kids to public school, as I certainly do, then we should also make time for criticism of any cartels which might make this more difficult. Competition in schooling, as elsewhere, is vital if the consumer is to get a good deal
Posted by Peter Cuthbertson at July 13, 2003 09:30 PM
I assume no-one in the Office of Fair Trading considers state schools a form of unfair competition for privately-owned schools?
If the state was active in other industries enabling certain outlets to give their product or service away at no cost to users, in competition with existing businesses who live by charging users for that product or service - this would logically be viewed as unfair practice.
Posted by mark at July 13, 2003 10:01 PM
You're right, of course, Alex. Mark, your analysis and comparison of the system to other industries is spot on and I agree completely.
Socialists can't stand to think that they may not have complete control over all educational institutions because they know that if they are not able to exercise almost complete control over children's learning that children are more likely to grow-up to be dangerous "free thinking" individuals who do not insist that the state thinks for them and subsequently the key role of the state becomes defunct.
Posted by Stephen Hodgson at July 13, 2003 11:38 PM
Pace Stephen Hodgson, Alan Rusbridger went to my (extremely expensive) public school, and look what happened to him...
Posted by David Gillies at July 14, 2003 09:17 PM
