Schools treating parents as customers

[Erina]

I dare say there are a few teachers on this forum (specifically secondary level and perhaps sixth form) best placed to provide realistic feedback on my proposal.

The idea being that whilst the public understand that education (for minors) is not free; specifically with fee paying schools in the private sector, that the same applies to the public arena. I could be wrong, as Free School and Academies (basically chicken and egg) address this to a point, but not on the relationship with the parents, as the local authority still behaves as the proxy, if only for the financing.

With the understanding that the pupil is the product and the school is the factory, the parent then becomes the customer, were it not for the proxy between them. This of course only works in a free market environment, of which barriers still exist i.e. catchment areas (excluding grammas schools and private).

Were parents given access to the budget directly (in token form, not cash) for their child, they could then dictate to the school how that money would be spent. With STEM subjects non-negotiable, schools would become more specialised, of which would stretch the child father, emulating the success found in the private sector i.e. each subject would be a Kickstarter campaign, if you will.

A subject like History will require a teacher, classroom space, materials and likely excursions. All of this would have to be budgeted for. However, not every parent believes this important to their child, so not all of them will have their child attend. The obvious result will be a more dedicated group of focused children, in an environment that works to further them in that field of interest. It happens today, as children specialise, but everybody needs to pay, which drains resources from elsewhere.

The difference in this system is that the school can only spend the money (aside from admin and maintenance) with the agreement of the customer/investor i.e. the parents.

[exchemist]

35 minutes ago, Erina said:

I dare say there are a few teachers on this forum (specifically secondary level and perhaps sixth form) best placed to provide realistic feedback on my proposal.

The idea being that whilst the public understand that education (for minors) is not free; specifically with fee paying schools in the private sector, that the same applies to the public arena. I could be wrong, as Free School and Academies (basically chicken and egg) address this to a point, but not on the relationship with the parents, as the local authority still behaves as the proxy, if only for the financing.

With the understanding that the pupil is the product and the school is the factory, the parent then becomes the customer, were it not for the proxy between them. This of course only works in a free market environment, of which barriers still exist i.e. catchment areas (excluding grammas schools and private).

Were parents given access to the budget directly (in token form, not cash) for their child, they could then dictate to the school how that money would be spent. With STEM subjects non-negotiable, schools would become more specialised, of which would stretch the child father, emulating the success found in the private sector i.e. each subject would be a Kickstarter campaign, if you will.

A subject like History will require a teacher, classroom space, materials and likely excursions. All of this would have to be budgeted for. However, not every parent believes this important to their child, so not all of them will have their child attend. The obvious result will be a more dedicated group of focused children, in an environment that works to further them in that field of interest. It happens today, as children specialise, but everybody needs to pay, which drains resources from elsewhere.

The difference in this system is that the school can only spend the money (aside from admin and maintenance) with the agreement of the customer/investor i.e. the parents.

I'm not a fan of this idea. My mother taught English at A-level for many years in the UK state system and one of her perennial challenges was parents that had limited ideas about what was good for their children. She fought for years with parents who didn't want their daughters to go to university, or who wanted them to study something that led to an obvious job, rather than the subjects they enjoyed.  If the parents choose what subjects to fund for their children, you would risk removing the ladder that lets children climb to reach their academic potential. Even in the UK private sector the school sets out the curriculum and the parents go along with it.  

[Phi for All]

I personally would NOT want the average parent weighing in on public education, or at least more than they're able to via representative government. Many of those parents want to drain the public coffers by removing their tax contributions to spend on private schools. Public education is supposed to be taking something that everyone benefits from and investing in it via non-profit processes to reduce costs, provide a tangible benefit to citizens, and provide a standardized curriculum to make sure we all start on the same page.

Giving every parent the right of refusal for the knowledge their children receive from public education seems almost criminal to me. I see a LOT of potential for abuse by treating children as products and their parents as customers. How about we treat the children as young humans who need to be exposed to accumulated human knowledge, and less like some kind of profit potential? We're talking about PUBLIC schooling, where the focus should be on teaching rather than making a profit. The school isn't a factory, the students aren't the product, the parents aren't the customers. Public schooling is a contract between you, your child, and the government, who have promised to provide an education that allows people to participate in their own societies at the level they choose. 

[Erina]

@exchemist: Although secondary level, unto its natural conclusion, obviously leads to potential tertiary, my focus is strictly on secondary. My personal views on tertiary level education is that it is now at the point of being recognised as having lost its value, so discouragement is probably a wiser option for many as only the top ten to fifteen per cent should really be eligible.

I could have done better to illustrate my original position that the state system could copy the more successful elements from the private sector, not to wholeheartedly emulate them. These entities have an entrance exam and so can expect a certain level of academic performance from their intake, of which the comprehensive system sought to abolish and is thus weighed down by it.

My view is that fee paying schools in the private sector are generally specialist, that is what the customer (parents) are paying for, if they fit. It's give and take. So, why not reflect this in the state system where ninety three per cent of the market is. Some schools would be more disciplinarian e.g. Gordonstoun, others more florid in the arts e.g. Steiner Schools.

Along with parental input, as they know their own genetics, they too will understand the behaviour displayed in their own children, should be able to work with the school to best give the child what they need. The present matter of studying an expensive course at tertiary level, with no hope of paying that loan back, is only building up trouble later on. This has to stop. It is ultimately unfair on the child, if you want to take it down that road.

Surely academic potential can be sought in private time, at the desire of those in pursuit of it ?

 

@Phi for All: You being by introducing the concept of an "average parent" (to which I take no exception) and that their decision not necessarily the wisest. Fine. I accept that. However, such schools I propose would not be the default, as Free Schools clearly show today. In fact, the concept of crowdsourcing to create an environment under that banner is just the kind that would likely push to that extreme.

Is it not symptomatic of the general approach of comprehensives that parents seem to lean toward a more desirable fit in a more restrictive environment ? That the experiment from the early seventies has not outshone the system that predated it. The argument of parents using public funds is nonsensical as that money is theirs, only up front, but will obviously be paid off through general taxation.

The problem in education today is that everybody is considered the same, which is absurd. All children have different abilities and will only ever possess them, respectfully. Once understood, then a system streamlining that talent is where the real gains can be had, as society is not so rigid and would not work if anybody but Grammar material could succeed.

The language I use is often a sticking point, where emotional arguments seem to run wild. However, the child is the product and the school the factory, nothing will change that. The words maybe, but nothing of substance. The issue of abuse comes down to the misallocation of resources in a such a large system. In the UK the average child is worth £5,500 to a school in the public sector, topped up by an extra £1,000 by the local authority, if such funds exist. So there is no matching the private sector with that sum, which means that more must be done with less, ergo some things need to be cut.

The parent being the customer and the guardian of the adolescent, is trusted in all matters, yet not the education their child receives. This, by contrast is farmed out to a stranger, whom is somewhat familiar will dozens of other children. How can a teacher know more than the parent ? Forget not that such a school would have been created by the parents, selecting the teachers and therefore the more pro-active in society, not the default.

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, Erina said:

@Phi for All: You being by introducing the concept of an "average parent" (to which I take no exception) and that their decision not necessarily the wisest. Fine. I accept that. However, such schools I propose would not be the default, as Free Schools clearly show today. In fact, the concept of crowdsourcing to create an environment under that banner is just the kind that would likely push to that extreme.

In the US, we don't have Free Schools. Public schooling is paid for through taxes, and private schools charge tuition. I wish we were like the French in this regard, and required private schools to teach to the national standard. The wealthy and the less than wealthy all go to the same schools, which lessens the disparity among them socially.

21 minutes ago, Erina said:

Is it not symptomatic of the general approach of comprehensives that parents seem to lean toward a more desirable fit in a more restrictive environment ? That the experiment from the early seventies has not outshone the system that predated it. The argument of parents using public funds is nonsensical as that money is theirs, only up front, but will obviously be paid off through general taxation.

But that money is NOT theirs. It represents taxes they paid to provide education for the PUBLIC, not just for their children. That's the way public funding works. It belongs to the People, not individual persons. To remove funding from the public for personal use should be a crime.

21 minutes ago, Erina said:

The problem in education today is that everybody is considered the same, which is absurd. All children have different abilities and will only ever possess them, respectfully. Once understood, then a system streamlining that talent is where the real gains can be had, as society is not so rigid and would not work if anybody but Grammar material could succeed.

Everyone should be considered the same as far as the knowledge taught in public education is concerned, but we can use many tools to reach individuals in the way that's best for them. That's one way to combat the stupid decisions many parents inflict on their children. It doesn't really matter if I'm not great at maths; my school should be trying to help me understand them to the best of my abilities (because I'm going to need to add up all the money I make succeeding with my fantastic Grammar). 

I definitely agree that over-standardization can stifle talent. Education needs to evolve along with the population. 

21 minutes ago, Erina said:

The language I use is often a sticking point, where emotional arguments seem to run wild. However, the child is the product and the school the factory, nothing will change that. The words maybe, but nothing of substance. The issue of abuse comes down to the misallocation of resources in a such a large system. In the UK the average child is worth £5,500 to a school in the public sector, topped up by an extra £1,000 by the local authority, if such funds exist. So there is no matching the private sector with that sum, which means that more must be done with less, ergo some things need to be cut.

I still disagree with your product/factory analogy, so claiming "nothing will change that" seems to mean you and I won't be able to discuss that part. Sorry to hear that.

Disagreement about allocation of resources is to be expected in any system. I'm not sure I understand your argument about what the average child is worth to public schooling in the UK. Are you saying private schools are more expensive, or less?

21 minutes ago, Erina said:

The parent being the customer and the guardian of the adolescent, is trusted in all matters, yet not the education their child receives. This, by contrast is farmed out to a stranger, whom is somewhat familiar will dozens of other children. How can a teacher know more than the parent ? Forget not that such a school would have been created by the parents, selecting the teachers and therefore the more pro-active in society, not the default.

Actually, I think it's been disastrous in the US to educate people the way we do, and then let them have and raise small children based on such an education. Parents often have very few points of knowledgeable contact until the children enter school around 4-5 years old, relying on their own parents and relatives who were also poorly educated to help this new little person navigate through their formative years.

I think (and fervently hope) teachers know more than most parents. I think most parents are too close to the situation and usually have unresolved issues they inflict on their kids. And to add on top of that a highly capitalistic approach to education that takes focus off learning in favor of profit? Sorry, historically bad for all.

[Erina]

The term "Free School" is not as it sounds. It means that it is free from central control i.e. it has a lot of autonomy. This is also known as Academy Status, however the two slightly differ in that Free Schools are created by parents, but an Academy is simply an existing school that has converted, but both to the same ends i.e. autonomy. All schools must be funded and of course those too are from tax funds.

French with money have the same options as any other family with the means to go private. The key is autonomy, that is what the parents are paying for. It is true that there is less of a love affair in France than in the UK (that could be said in most countries), but the whole world fights for places in the UK schools in the private sector, that should say something.

You are incorrect to assume that the money paid out to each child is not ultimately the money that the family will, or has already, paid in. Education is seen as a "right", unlike other tax funded services, every living being uses this service and so it is essentially the families money in advance. It is one of the few uses of public money that there is no quibble about. If the parents wish to use that money to pay toward fees in the private sector then it should be clear that the money is already theirs, either on loan or already paid. However, the schools would likely only raise their prices.

You are wedded to this notion that public funding is something etherial. It is not. The money in the public purse is very much a singular effort, respectively. That money is paid for by the present living souls, or deferred to those not yet born. However, that money is infinitely wasted in many other ways, of which I would beg you to focus your attention, rather than parents looking to give their child a better chance, should they be capable of making that money work for them.

However, that is not my point. Although I do support it. My question was to place those funds in the hands of the parents (customer), thus cutting out the middle man (government) for those in the state sector. Thus giving the parents the power over their child and the curriculum that the school would subject them to i.e. a Free School/Academy. The parents would then avoid certain practices and subjects of which they felt were a waste of time, focusing on what the job's market needed, ensuring their child would have a financially secure future.

You touch on the matter of financial discipline. As I understand it in the North Americas (Canada as well) teach time and money management skills, which we in the UK do not emphasise, to our great loss. Such skills are important to learn, but they are not mathematics, they are necessary. I would like to know your idea of where maths begins and ends; for why does a sixteen year old boy need know trigonometry ?

I myself do not know it now, by memory. However, I can locate that information, or a tool that will speed that up, to get what I need. That skill is surely worth more ?

Were a child to be placed into a business school, with a leaning toward architecture, they would learn the cost of materials, storage, logistics... teaching like this, surely leaves more of an impression, because it is necessary.

A lot of children from moneyed families will subconsciously learn from their parents how their business works (if their parents are self made and not the offspring of lawyers or doctors plugging into a system). This segway's into the idea of putting children to work early, but this would only be rubbished as a return to the Dickensian Days. However, those that learn a trade early have a clear advantage, even more so if it's muilti-diclinary i.e. self made.

Everybody is not the same, but opposites do mesh well. An environment of likeminded souls may be too boring for secondary age groups (but not later on, when specialising). So the schools would do well to mesh business and the arts, if possible. But, there are those that thrive and it will rub many the wrong way as they inevitably leave others in the durst as early developers, but that's what Grammar does and not one new one has been built for decades, as the UK rots.

My focus on the finances is where they lay at present, the average child's value to a state school is as I report above. It's just the budget available. Private fees have a ratio of about 5:1, allowing them smaller class sizes. It's just the money side of things, to give a perspective. However, the money would be in the hands of the parents, with STEM taking a chunk, the remainder would then be pooled with other like minded parents for classes they would like to peruse, cutting out what they don't like that normal schools force the child to endure e.g. Cello lessons, typically after school, currently cost money on top. But what if those lessons were during the day and taken from the normal amount, instead forgoing religious education lessons.

Yes, parents can do great harm to the biggest investment in their life. But who decides that ? You will not find many relinquishing control of their newborn to government, given how badly it runs affairs of state. However, this is the case with private nannies and indeed prep-school (pre-primary/primary), that do a wonderful job, at a cost.

My concerns wholly revolve around the available finances, that being £5,000-£6,500, at secondary level. In that light, I do take a broad view of all, but not assume that to mean they are of the same ability. Realistically, such a system is easier to introduce, it requires no change to a parents relationship to government until that point and only voluntarily, should they be the kind of family to push for that (pushy parents). They system you wish to maintain would not change in totality, only allow for the initial few that would demand that change and find themselves halfway closer to the dream of the private sector, only at an affordable rate.

I believe that would force the artificially high fees found in the private sector down, with true competition.

Edited April 10, 2023 by Erina

[iNow]

Whether or not this idea makes the system better depends entirely on how narrowly you define “better” and which metrics you arbitrarily choose to measure it. 

[CharonY]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Whether or not this idea makes the system better depends entirely on how narrowly you define “better” and which metrics you arbitrarily choose to measure it. 

Parents often want that their child specifically rises above the pack. The metric does not really matter, nor the goal to have more educated folks.

[StringJunky]

Just now, CharonY said:

Parents often want that their child specifically rises above the pack. The metric does not really matter, nor the goal to have more educated folks.

"Ooh, look at my little Johnny, he's the only one marching in step."

[CharonY]

Also, with folks directly paying for education (as we can see in university system of a number of countries) there is a stronger incentive for things like grade inflation and student retention. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Also, with folks directly paying for education (as we can see in university system of a number of countries) there is a stronger incentive for things like grade inflation and student retention. 

Here in Iowa, the Governor just signed legislation redirecting tax dollars to private schools. They inflate their grades by refusing to accept students with learning challenges or who require special assistance. They can also reject students who don’t meet their academic standards which also allows them to claim better results than public schools who can do neither of those things (and who now have lower revenues here). 

[OldChemE]

The parent is not the customer.  The Student is the customer.  The whole purpose of education is to better a person's life, and that person is the student.

[Erina]

@iNow: Fee paying schools in the private sector don't always guarantee the desired outcome, but do the resources. This system is ripe for being challenged, as ninety three per cent are shut out of it. With a determined group of able minded teachers, parents and pupils, having adopted the best workable practices of the private sector for a sustainable price, that system can outmode the private sector.

Unengaged parents will produce in kind and that makes for a messy working environment for the teachers, so a new school created by parents (or an existing one taken over by them) determined to set the right kind of environment for their children will be agreeable to both.

With parents holding the purse strings, true negotiations on salary and budgetary agreements can be worked out down to the smallest detail, satisfying both parties and instilling a sense of immediate responsibility.

Observing how teachers behave with parents when they critique their child, I found to be in stark contrast to how teachers behave when confronting government i.e. their current paymaster. The power to strike, which prevents children from learning, is one of the problems this system can address, by challenging this train of thought at its true source of funding - the parents.

With STEM subjects non-negotiable, subjects funded would come to form the school's identity, this then maximising the resources available, with a teaching staff dedicated to that end the parents would know what they were paying for.

Allowing for better working and learning conditions would highlight the failings of the existing one-size-fits-all approach of the present comprehensive system, which will leave less room for excuses as other parents demand action, or leave for schools that offer them the same kind of granular control, possibly even taking over the failing school.

 

@CharonY: Let's call it what it is, cheating. Yes, the private sector needs to maintain its reputation and will cheat to do so. But, it works. Why, because the alternative is too abhorrent.

 

Following on from iNow's relevant comment in relation to CharonY's, selective entry requirements is a method that works and one of which the system I propose would adopt. Why would any parent subject their child unto an environment that they were not best suited to, it just will not work for either party and would not be accepted anyway.

The notion that everybody is the same has always been a nonsense. The challenges facing the West to keep up with the East is going to be a reckoning as we cannot fulfil our needs alone and that need not happen if we just be more honest with ourselves: the present system holds children back.

On top of which, grades only matter in the world of academia, where most do not belong. I don't think that anybody needs to educated on this point, but more avenues need to be made with genuine apprenticeships for children, or a stronger emphasis on self-employment, otherwise children will continue drift and fail.

 

@OldChemE: Does the child (Student) pay ? The idea of freedom is falling apart in the West, everybody can see that. Parents are not perfect but as the child's guardian they legally are responsible for the child's well being, so that is non negotiable. Yes, the child can choose what to specify in, but if one parent is an illustrator and the other a gardener, then the child is unlikely to be a mathematician or lawyer (depending on the genetics inherited from their Grandparents).

 

I must confess, this is not the first time I have advanced this idea in the company of active or retired teachers and am fully prepared for the usual behaviour. But, being a forum focused on STEM subject matter, I am hopeful of constructive criticism.

[studiot]

19 hours ago, Erina said:

which we in the UK do not emphasise, to our great loss.

What qualifies you to speak 'for the UK' on the matter of education ?

Apart from mixing up the words 'private' and 'public' in relation to education, where these wods have special meanings, there are 4 separate education systems extant in the UK, and you have singularly failed to take this into account.

19 hours ago, Erina said:

for why does a sixteen year old boy need know trigonometry ?

I studied trigonometry well before I was 16 and I can safely report that I have needed it pretty well every year of my working life.

19 hours ago, Erina said:

My concerns wholly revolve around the available finances, that being £5,000-£6,500, at secondary level.

Please establish this as fact before you start preaching about economics.

What exactly do you think this sum covers ?

[Erina]

@studiot: It took long enough for someone to pick up on that. I confidently draw a link between time and the cost management skills as the private sector lives and dies by it. All funding for public services comes from the productive part of the economy, so the circle is complete.

Public does indeed have an odd definition in the realms of education, but everybody else seems to be able to keep up.

I am glad that trigonometry served you well, it sounds like you benefitted from retaining that information. However, what do you when find yourself at a loss ?

The sums quoted are the UK average. All funding is drawn from that, aside from direct funding from central government. However, as far as the parents are concerned, this would be the sum of which they could rely upon to plan out the course of their child's education.

I would like to seek thoughts on all teachers being placed on an index, like a stock market.

This of course would place an emphasis on performance.

However, it would not rely on top grade students. As I have already mentioned, such imperatives are only for tertiary level education and most will not fit.

Targets would be based on something more tangible; such as apprenticeship retention.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Erina said:

 It took long enough for someone to pick up on that.

Shorter posts focused on relevant points would go a long way to being better understood and potentially more convincing. 

Fundamentally though, I believe your idea is rather wrongheaded, however your posts are so needlessly long that I can’t really be certain. 

6 hours ago, Erina said:

I would like to seek thoughts on all teachers being placed on an index, like a stock market.

This of course would place an emphasis on performance.

Already happens via remote learning and online learning channels similar to Khan Academy. The best instructors can reach many thousands of students across the globe. Just recall that different students will react differently to these teachers and there’s no one size fits all. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by iNow

[npts2020]

10 hours ago, Erina said:

I confidently draw a link between time and the cost management skills as the private sector lives and dies by it. All funding for public services comes from the productive part of the economy, so the circle is complete.

Unless that private sector is contracting with the government, check out health care spending and defense contracting in the US. Also, how is the USPS funded? Or is mail delivery not a public service?

[studiot]

16 hours ago, Erina said:

However, what do you when find yourself at a loss ?

I don't understand this can you rephrase please ?

16 hours ago, Erina said:

The sums quoted are the UK average. All funding is drawn from that, aside from direct funding from central government. However, as far as the parents are concerned, this would be the sum of which they could rely upon to plan out the course of their child's education.

I asked for reference to your source of this alleged data and also most importantly what it refers to.

These days it costs millions to build a new school or even refurbish an old one.

So are you just referring to the day to day running costs ?

Does this include government initiatives to equip/re-equip a school with IT equipment, which happen periodically ?

What about all the grant for sports facilities 

and so on ?

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by studiot

[Erina]

Point taken.

Presently teachers go to extra lengths to not only organise, but participate, in extra curricular after school lessons in music. These classes are populated by those willing to work and pay for that privilege. This system is what I am trying to replicate and scale for daytime classes.

Let's start with the indexing system of which we are both familiar with and how that could be made robust enough to produce reliable data.

How to choose the right teacher for a subject depends on what the outcome of the class needs to offer the pupil. If the pupil is seeking tertiary level entry then they will lean toward heavy academia, otherwise teaching will be more practical focused e.g. how polar molecules interact with what would be considered "dirt" i.e. water removing encrusted salt on a spoon, that is really useful to know and understanding that will be all the science that child is ever able to mentally retain and regurgitate when needed:

So, how to find a suitable teacher ?

A teacher will take on a set number of pupils with a set budget for a set outcome that they believe they can achieve. That could be to take "D" grade students up to a "C", or a "pass", or skills in understanding how to teach the scientific method and understand a problem in order to solve it e.g. cleaning something.

Like clocking in at work, pupils attendance is recorded at the beginning of a class by submitting a biometric fingerprint. This data is of course time coded and requires no participation from the teacher. If a pupil logs in late or not at all then this would show up and the parent would know their money is being wasted and behaviour would be swiftly be corrected.

At the end of the term the teacher will accurately and automatically be placed on an index with the cost per pupil, for a set period of teaching hours, with their original grade and the average (or total) number of pupils passing grade or ability.

So, when another school is searching for similar conditions, they can be sure the data is unadulterated and therefore bid for their skills.

In effect the teachers would become self employed and able to command a price they can prove they are worth in an indexing system diverse enough to entertain all abilities.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Erina

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Erina said:

So, how to find a suitable teacher ?

I think you're taking an educational process that flourishes in a non-profit model, and you're forcing it to perform as if it were a private, for profit business. Breaking everything down to a bottom-line cost per pupil means more profit without guaranteeing better teaching outcomes. 

Some things don't work well as privately owned entities. Education shouldn't be decided by stockholders who care more about money. I also think medicine for profit is a big mistake. Healthcare and profits are very often at odds with each other. Privatizing education is a big mistake, imo.

[iNow]

It runs into similar problems as private medical insurance. The focus becomes on increased margins and profits regardless of patient outcomes. Surely, this approach would do the same… squeezing costs at the expense of pupil preparation and readiness to contribute in a modern economy. 

It’s small minded. Missing forest for trees. Seems simple on paper, but is more of a preconceived conclusion in search of cherry picked supporting evidence instead of evidence in support of more effective outcomes. 

[CharonY]

Also, in education the desired outcome is not well defined and sometimes contradictory (high grades vs education vs developing skillsets vs developing interests, universality vs elite, etc.). Focus on grades has in many ways resulted in training for tests and grade inflation and folks seem to get stuck on the lower levels of Bloom's taxonomy.

[Erina]

@studiot: I meant that even though you know trig inside out, what about the skills you've yet to master, how do you cope ? It's about getting the tools and knowledge that you need, when you need it and how best to apply it to the problem at hand. Not learn by rote. To teach how to scavenge and apply equations and researching skills are what I am most interested in.

The financial side is crucial obviously, but I wanted to distill it down to something simple that could be understood. So the average figure in the hands of those not used to such lose cash would not be squandered.

Budgeting would be a crowdsourced effort as with these sums one-on-one teaching is too expensive, so the parents would not be left to make unnecessary mistakes. Above I have outlined the indexing system, which would dictate costs as teachers could negotiate their fee and overall budget for a set period with specific goals.

@CharonY: I did counter this by clearly categorising pupils into those seeking tertiary level entry and those not.

@Phi for All: The state sector is by no means flourishing compared to those variants found in the fee paying sector, otherwise nobody would pay the prices they charge.

The issue is, is it not, that teachers right now are protesting for greater pay, why then does the subject not come down to the bottom line ?

With an index based on ability a teacher can confidently negotiate better pay directly with those paying i.e. the parents (customers).

Shareholder's chief aims are to get a return on their investment, but that is a purely financial arrangement, so the similarity ends there. The return on investment is a product fit for the jobs market in this instance.

The sums involved would only differ if a child's parents had the means to increase it, which already exists today. The shareholder's I suppose (for a five year period anyway) would be the parents. They would not dictated, but work with the school to create an identity, a culture, of which clearly works well in the private sector e.g. Eton has a culture not found in Gordonstoun, but they two can co-exist as they serve different markets.

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, Erina said:

Budgeting would be a crowdsourced effort

Forgive me, but I'm not willing to allow our children's education to rely on gofundme

49 minutes ago, Erina said:

they two can co-exist as they serve different markets

This isn't a true market. "Shoppers" of education can't just move to different states. They have jobs, and families, and other things making the "shop around" concept you're relying upon a complete distraction. 

"Don't like your education? Just move to Finland!" It's not something which either scales (there are 50 MILLION students enrolled in US public schools) nor is it an accessible option to most (who on average have less than $1000 available to use even in dire emergencies).

This is some Ayn Rand level of unrealistic fantasy silliness being shown here. 

[Erina]

iNow: I can't forgive your ignorance. The existing system works on this basis, only not by consent. The school being a Free School is by its very nature created at the behest of the parents, so the system would be in place by default. Like minded parents would then discuss which subjects (outside of STEM) had enough interest in being funded. This would then dictate the culture of the school, as not everything could be funded, decisions would have to be made as to what kind of school it would be.

The system I propose would be at the state level in your case, as it is roughly comparable to the size of the UK or any other European country, within reason.