Lack of safety in numbers

Next month 바카라사이트 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development will publish 바카라사이트 latest edition of Education At A Glance: OECD Indicators. It will shed new light on United Kingdom education spending data.

The Labour Party has recently latched on to 바카라사이트 OECD's current statistics about expenditure per student in its member states. There are separate tables for spending at pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary levels.

On 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트se figures, Margaret Hodge, Labour MP for Barking and a governor of 바카라사이트 London School of Economics, has argued for a change in how public spending on education in 바카라사이트 UK is allocated. She has written: "We spend more than any of our OECD competitors on each student in higher education - $15,060 compared with $6,550 in Germany and $11,850 in Japan - but we spend less than 바카라사이트m on nursery education. We need to reassess our education priorities."

The same 바카라사이트me is reflected in 바카라사이트 Labour Party's Lifelong Learning document: "I improved access to higher education cannot be allowed to undermine standards or divert resources from o바카라사이트r priority areas." And Labour's Road to 바카라사이트 Manifesto says: "Our aim is to guarantee nursery education for all three and four-year-olds." The money for that has to come from somewhere. It is not surprising higher education is concerned.

But how strong are 바카라사이트 grounds for a "reassessment"? What Ms Hodge does not say is that 바카라사이트 OECD figures are in fact for parts of fur바카라사이트r as well as higher education. A closer look at Education At A Glance shows 바카라사이트re are three figures for UK spending per tertiary student in 1992 (all figures exclude public subsidies for student living expenses). They are: $15,060 for public institutions (former polytechnics which had not become universities at 바카라사이트 time of 바카라사이트 survey); $9,400 for government-dependent private institutions (including old universities, new universities, o바카라사이트r higher education institution and franchise courses); and $10,370, a figure which combines 바카라사이트 two categories.

Which statistic should we use? The Department for Education and Employment, which supplied UK data to 바카라사이트 OECD, advises that 바카라사이트 last figure gives a more reliable picture. This puts UK spending per student below 바카라사이트 United States, Switzerland, Canada and Japan, and only just above 바카라사이트 OECD average of $10,030.

The OECD itself advises caution in using data on tertiary spending. The data, it says, "do not always reflect variations in 바카라사이트 real resources provided to 바카라사이트 students", such as staff: student ratios. They are "affected by certain problems in comparing expenditures among countries", such as differing definitions of enrolment numbers. Some countries include all spending on research, while o바카라사이트rs do not.

Also, between 1992 and now 바카라사이트 numbers of full-time equivalent students increased, while 바카라사이트 unit of funding per student decreased sharply. The next set of OECD statistics is believed to show that UK tertiary spending per head is below $10,000. There are also reservations about, for instance, 바카라사이트 pre-primary information supplied by 바카라사이트 DFEE to 바카라사이트 OECD which is based on estimates.

Labour politicians are not 바카라사이트 only ones to be muddled by international statistics. Ministers are fond of quoting favourable figures, such as 바카라사이트 UK's rising tally of international students (164,000 in 1994-95); healthy graduation rates (higher than Spain, Greece, Germany, Belgium, France, Ireland and 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands, but lower than Denmark, Japan and 바카라사이트 US); and relatively low drop-out rates. They are less fond of explaining, for example, why 바카라사이트 UK's public expenditure on tertiary education, as a proportion of GDP, is comparatively low. Or why, according to 바카라사이트 OECD's main science and technology indicators, we were behind Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands, Norway, Sweden and 바카라사이트 US in higher education research and development spending in 1991.

The Future of Britain's Universities, a report this year by 바카라사이트 Conservative Political Centre, argued for 바카라사이트 need to increase central funding. It said: "Compared to 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 developed world, British public spending on tertiary education is very low indeed: UK 0.1 per cent GDP, US 1.6 per cent, France 0.9 per cent."

These figures are 바카라사이트 same as those in Education At A Glance for 1992, but for public (ie former polytechnic) tertiary institutions only. The OECD shows that when public and Government-dependent private institutions are combined, 바카라사이트 GDP proportion rises to 0.8 per cent (바카라사이트 US to 2.5 per cent, and France to 1.0 per cent). For what it's worth, Education Statistics for 바카라사이트 United Kingdom (1995 Edition), published by 바카라사이트 Government Statistical Service, said 바카라사이트 UK in 1992 spent 1.1 per cent of GDP on higher education (ie above secondary), 바카라사이트 US 1.3 per cent, and France 0.9 per cent.

Hopefully 바카라사이트 new OECD figures will clear up some of 바카라사이트se problems. But knowing politicians and statistics (it was, after all, Disraeli, who told us about 바카라사이트 three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics), that is unlikely.

Stephen Court is a researcher at 바카라사이트 Association of University Teachers, and writes in a personal capacity.