I had a look at the working version of the NHS paper (I’m unwilling to pay for the final version) and I’m not convinced. Figure 8 seems to show that the significant variation is that ‘outside’ (i.e. non-NHS) wages are markedly higher in London and the South East, and AMI death rates are somewhat above average there (but not as high as in Yorkshire). Of course it’s possible that outside wages is the factor that explains the above-average AMI rates, but it’s by no means the only possibility I can think of.
I had a look in some detail at another of Carol Propper’s working papers on the NHS. From the way she presents her work, it seems that she knows what conclusion she’s looking for before she starts. I’m far from convinced that her analysis is unaffected by this.
Folk who go into teaching tend to make that choice when they leave school. It’s not a job that one can quickly pick up if it seems like the most lucrative thing on offer, nor one that (to my knowledge) people often leave to earn a few extra quid doing something else locally.
So we should not be interested in a correlation between achievement and the wages in that area, but the achievement of teachers relative to the wages in the area they were between, say, the ages of 16 and 20.
To be honest, the idea that there is an inverse corrolation between GCSE results and the prosperity of an area runs contrary to, pretty much, everything that is usually said about such things… and the article only seems to talk about where the impacts of the lowering of grades has come.. and I can thing of a fair few reasons why that might disproportionately hit middle class areas).
The idea of scrapping national pay scales has plenty of merit.. but this seems like a fairly thin bit of fluff put together to justify it by appealing to the middle class.. oh won’t somebody thing of *their* children, etc.
Yes.
I had a look at the working version of the NHS paper (I’m unwilling to pay for the final version) and I’m not convinced. Figure 8 seems to show that the significant variation is that ‘outside’ (i.e. non-NHS) wages are markedly higher in London and the South East, and AMI death rates are somewhat above average there (but not as high as in Yorkshire). Of course it’s possible that outside wages is the factor that explains the above-average AMI rates, but it’s by no means the only possibility I can think of.
I had a look in some detail at another of Carol Propper’s working papers on the NHS. From the way she presents her work, it seems that she knows what conclusion she’s looking for before she starts. I’m far from convinced that her analysis is unaffected by this.
Folk who go into teaching tend to make that choice when they leave school. It’s not a job that one can quickly pick up if it seems like the most lucrative thing on offer, nor one that (to my knowledge) people often leave to earn a few extra quid doing something else locally.
So we should not be interested in a correlation between achievement and the wages in that area, but the achievement of teachers relative to the wages in the area they were between, say, the ages of 16 and 20.
To be honest, the idea that there is an inverse corrolation between GCSE results and the prosperity of an area runs contrary to, pretty much, everything that is usually said about such things… and the article only seems to talk about where the impacts of the lowering of grades has come.. and I can thing of a fair few reasons why that might disproportionately hit middle class areas).
The idea of scrapping national pay scales has plenty of merit.. but this seems like a fairly thin bit of fluff put together to justify it by appealing to the middle class.. oh won’t somebody thing of *their* children, etc.