UK’s charity commission will not automatically block the sale of the College of Law — a deal expected to create a model for the purchase of universities in whole or part by for-profit private operators. Montagu Private Equity is said to have entered a “period of exclusivity” in talks to buy the not-for-profit institution, with the price tag being discussed for all its assets — including property and degree-awarding powers — thought to be around £135 million (Rs.1,080 crore).
A newcomer to education whose current investments include Biffa waste management, Montagu is said to have outbid Pearson Education which was also keen to secure degree-awarding powers.
Like many traditional universities, the College of Law is a charity with a Royal Charter, and there has been some debate about whether the Charity Commission could block the sale. However, a commission spokeswoman says it would not have to “formally approve or give legal permission for the sale of the charity’s business” although she confirmed that funds from any sale “would need to be applied for charitable purposes”.
Under the model being discussed, the College of Law would set up a company to control its assets and degree-awarding powers, then sell all the shares in that company to the private buyer. The charity trustees would then establish a fund with the proceeds, retaining the charitable status and the Royal Charter. This fund would support the study of law through bursaries and scholarships for students in a range of institutions, thus meeting charitable objectives.
Matt Robb, senior principal at consulting firm the Parthenon Group, says there are “lots of people following this very closely in the private sector”, adding that “private investors would love to invest in a traditional university”.
According to Robb, the new for-profit-owned College of Law could even “rebrand itself completely” and create a separate body specialising in professional education under the same degree-awarding powers. In that event, the college would see London universities active in professional education as “targets” for competition.
Meanwhile, in a separate development, the private education firm INTO is launching a £100 million (Rs.800 crore) worldwide investment fund for universities aimed at bridging the gap left by falling public funding. The fund could possibly support widening participation in the UK. INTO’s fund is part of the company’s drive to reduce its reliance on pre-degree pathway courses for overseas students, a market hit by the government’s clampdown on visas.
Andrew Colin, INTO’s founder and owner, says the fund is aimed at four areas, including helping universities to establish overseas campuses and aiding widening participation by allowing the firm’s facilities (currently used by overseas students) to be used by UK students to prepare for higher education.
The firm’s approach appears to have enlisted the support of former Labour education secretary, Charles Clarke, who in a foreword to INTO’s plans says: “expansion of educational opportunity across the world will only take place sufficiently quickly if private and public resources are brought together in partnership”.
Smaller classes not necessarily better
When parents look for a school for their child, those offering small classes are most appealing. Yet a few academic studies have found that class size makes hardly any difference to how well children perform in exams. Indeed, international comparisons suggest that Britain could benefit from having larger classes.
Ever since 2000 when the OECD, a rich nations’ think-tank, first evaluated how well 15-year-olds in different countries were able to apply what they had learned at school, Britain has been sliding down the PISA rankings. The problem is not that its teenagers are doing much worse than in the past, rather that their rivals are doing better. While Britain’s performance stagnates, East Asian school children surge ahead. In 2000, the gap between British and South Korean teenagers was negligible; by 2009, it was yawning.
Pouring more money into the British system has failed to perk up its youngsters, although spending per pupil doubled in real terms during Labour’s 13 years in power. The countries that have overtaken Britain have spent less money per pupil but invested it better, ensuring that students receive high-quality teaching even if their classrooms are crowded.
Countries in which children are taught in large classes tend to limit the hours that teachers spend in the classroom, says Ben Jensen of the Grattan Institute, a think-tank in Melbourne, Australia. Children attend school for the same length of time but, in Shanghai and South Korea, teachers spend only 10-15 hours per week at the chalkface in front of classes of 35-40 students. In America, Australia and Britain, teachers usually spend 20-30 hours in the classroom teaching classes of 20-25 pupils.
In east Asian countries, teachers have much more time to prepare lessons, mark classwork and reflect on how best to improve children’s learning. This enables them to narrow the range of achievement even within large classes, according to a study by Jensen published on February 16. It also liberates teachers to do research and continually develop and evaluate new teaching methods, and keep tabs on other teachers’ performances.
Andreas Schleicher of OECD argues that countries seeking to boost pupils’ attainments should put their best teachers in front of much bigger classes. They can use technology to deliver personalised lessons and get timely feedback on whether a pupil has grasped a concept or is struggling. Students misbehave when they are not engaged in learning, he says, and not because they are in a big class.
Michael Gove, the education secretary, likes learning from countries with outstanding school systems. If he manages to persuade parents that big classes can help their offspring, he may be able to use the present fiscal crisis to trigger reforms that could help Britain’s youngsters regain their international standing of yore.
(Excerpted and adapted from The Economist & Times Higher Education)