As with all government spending, the money currently poured into encouraging enterprise activity in the UK is up for review. Last week Dragons’ Den panellist Peter Jones gave an interview to the Daily Telegraph claiming that most money spent by Enterprise UK—the key promoter of enterprise initiatives in the UK—is wasted. The organisation is, he said, “throwing good money after bad”. So far, so typical of the age of austerity, where quango bashing is a favourite sport.
But things get a little murkier when one considers that Jones is also chairman of Enterprise UK. His intention in demanding the termination of schemes such as Make Your Mark seems to be greater focus on weaving enterprise education into the formal school curriculum. More effort—and money—should be put into initiatives such as the National Enterprise Academy (NEA). In case you don’t know, the NEA was an initiative started by Peter Jones.
Jones is an exceptional entrepreneur who has devoted a great deal of time and money to his work with the NEA. It’s a great initiative and if it were to be included in the formal curriculum it would doubtless provide a boost for enterprise education. But there are some dangers in placing too much emphasis on the formal education system. First, the troublemakers and the least engaged children often make the best entrepreneurs. The kids who hate being told what to do, who are no good at sitting in classrooms, are the ones who grow up to despise the idea of sitting in offices and working for somebody else.
These outsiders and loners, who disrespect and disrupt traditional ways of doing things, are the people we need to enter new markets and disrupt existing business models. Reaching these disengaged youngsters is hard and requires activities outside of the education system.
Second, it’s worth remembering that there are potential entrepreneurs right across society, in all age groups and walks of life. While there’s a tempting logic to see investing in the young, who have more wealth-creating years ahead of them, as a better deal in terms of straight return on investment, the success rates of start-ups don’t reflect this. Take Will King, founder of King of Shaves, as an example. He launched his business when he did because he had no other option. But he hadn’t gone through school planning on being an entrepreneur. He’d been employed and been made redundant. His story is typical of many entrepreneurs right across the age spectrum.
There is an argument to say it makes more sense to support slightly older, committed would-be entrepreneurs than to invest energy teaching children who aren’t that interested in enterprise. Many of them have no desire to start anything and will always be employees.
A third and final question mark hangs over the government's appetite for bringing this sort of activity into the classroom. All the signs are that the current education secretary favours the classical rather than the practical. He appears—rightly or wrongly—to want schools to teach languages, maths and English rather than balance sheets and business plans.
Whatever the outcome of the spending review, we will see a drop in government funding for enterprise initiatives. And we will have to rely more than ever on the philanthropy of entrepreneurs such as Jones and his ex-dragon colleague Doug Richard. But let’s not forget that we need to encourage all would-be entrepreneurs, not just those who get on well at school.