So this is the fightback?  

After a desperate two weeks, Gordon Brown attempted to wrest the debate back to his ‘vision’ with a speech on the future of education.  Unsurprisingly (since it was reputedly written by Balls), the speech rejected the Tory/Liberal approach of a more liberalised education system, accusing this of causing:  “a whole generation failed – waiting for the market to work”.

But it’s the Brown/Balls centralising approach that is failing.  Yes, educational spending has soared under Labour, and some clear benefits have resulted – fewer rotting schools, some early increase in literacy, better-paid teachers.  However, improvements have largely stalled. Only 21% of pupils entitled to free school meals achieve 5 good GCSEs including English and Maths, and the UK lags behind many other OECD countries, especially in maths.

The liberal methods that the Prime Minister is at pains to discredit are in fact the only viable way forward after a decade of centralisation.  The only radical method attempted by this government – the Academies programme championed by Blair - introduced choice and competition in to the education sector, albeit in just 90 or so schools. Our recent book on the subject argued for extending this programme.   With this speech, Brown is sadly retreating from one of the few innovations his party has introduced into public service provision, just in order to shore up his support with Neanderthal left-wingers.

With extraordinary cheek, his speech inveighed against the stifling interference of central government.  This lacked any credibility, given how it came from a government that introduces targets for the literacy of under-fives,  and has recently announced 500 developmental milestones.

Brown calls for “maximizing parent power, and improving services for parents that involve them in their child’s education in the years ahead”. But simply allowing parents to complain about underperforming school does not give them any power to determine how these schools should be improved.

Liberal methods are more promising. The pupil premium  (favoured by both of the other parties) will channel more funds to pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, and leave it up to head teachers as to how to spend the resources. It produces a clear incentive to take on pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and provide more money to help those who really need it.

Dismissing “the market” as a solution to educational issues is lazy and misses out on innovations that use market-style incentives. For example, as several studies have shown, pay-incentive schemes for teachers have boosted teacher quality and improved educational attainment.

Fortunately, the other two parties are not easily put off. Michael Gove accused Brown’s schools scheme of being “half-baked” and “overly bureaucratic”, and David Laws further criticised his plans – “the education department is fast running out of money and has also clearly run out of ideas and direction”. But what a pity that a Labour government that took the right steps by introducing Academies and innovative ideas like parent-promoted schools should be backtracking in the end.