You state “the effect of choice seems to always be harmful to some sort of equality; proven in the educational case…” with apparent conviction. What then do you cite to back up such a strong assertion? You mention the comprehensive system in Sweden as evidence of one which delivers great educational equality (but not, I’ll note, “social mobility”); and you cite PISA as having recorded a small rise in educational inequality (but again, I note, no mention of social mobility there, either); but you offer nothing that seems to deliver this conclusive proof that you speak of.

Education is an incredibly complicated subject. Analysis of different systems is fraught with difficulty, because so many variables are at play. It seems premature in the extreme to state so calmly, as you do, that the case of Sweden “debunk the argument that if society is more equal, choice ‘will not matter’”, particularly when educational equality is only one aspect of the overall education debate.

I find the first half of your article offers great insight into the education system, and the structural analysis of reforms from the last 30 years is well-drawn. Where I think you begin to go wrong is in linking choice (or “marketisation”) in education, with centralisation, as two sides of the “neo-liberal” coin.

In reality, centralisation is anathema to choice in education. Rigid government-imposed targets and management, as you have shown so well, leads to a set of perverse incentives for schools, which renders the idea of choice redundant.

Choice in education in Britain is laughable, anyway. It runs counter to the aims of a centralised system, so the government gives us patsies such as SATS and league tables in the hope that we will believe it represents choice. Choice is freedom of action, rather than an entirely arbitrary way of assessing schools, as parents who are fortunate enough to have the resources to escape a State school which is failing their child, and go private, will know all too well. It is hardly surprising that what choice there is has perverse effects in our system, as the real way the government tries to identify failing schools is by micromanaging, which is like trying to keep water in your hands.

So it is centralisation that causes all of the ills you rail against, rather than choice. A truly free to choose educational system would act against the problem of middle class control, that you rightly rail against. A truly free to choose system would be one which granted more power for children to break out of intergenerational poverty — if it was well managed, with extra government support for things such as travel.

And in a truly decentralised system, with schools granted more independence and freedom to cater for their pupils, would *have* to be matched with greater freedom of choice, because there would be no other way of holding it truly accountable. Centralised management doesn’t work, and is anathema to the idea of school decentralisation. Choice is a natural way to identify failing schools and to help schools adapt to the needs of their pupils. Anything the State needs to add should be determined after giving pupils and parents this not merely practical, but also moral, right.

David

But, pace Jock, there is no reason to think that a real free market in education could produce the sort of ‘market solution’ we long for. The key reasons are that good teachers are not primarily interested in getting rich; and extra economic resources at the margin produce very little improvement in education.

The tragedy of all the parents moving ‘to be near a good school’ (and all the other manoeuvres to secure a similar result) is that it probably harms the education of a good many of their kids as well as of those children left in the other schools. If an ordinary child finishes at the bottom of a ‘good’ school, that child is likely to have lower educational achievement than a similar child who finishes towards the top of a less good school. Behind that is the profound effect classmates have on the educational achievements of pupils. Being in a class where a quarter to a half (very roughly) of the pupils’ parents have some higher education will raise the attainment of the others; and also ensure that the kids with educated parents do better than they would as a small minority. But in a school with all highly educated parents, some of their children are likely to do worse than they would in the more mixed group. The children begin to think of themselves as relative failures, and so do worse. Choice, pupil premiums and mixed eductional backgrounds in our schools are the way to go.

And that is the best way to go for the aspiring middle class parent: – work towards little Joan and little Johnny having a choice of schools, all of them with some ‘parents like us’ and none with all ‘parents like us’. Once the graduate parents see that this is in the interests of their kids, they will start making it happen.

Clearly choice is not perfect, and that is why I support measures to enhance choice (such as allowing other people to found schools)

And clearly intergenerational poverty is appalling in Britain, which is why I am proud that our party is committed to a pupil premium, and has said how it will pay for it.

In fact, in the so called “Washington Consensus” that probably most closely defines the ideas of neo-liberalism, education is a key area where the state retains a primary concern. Whilst wishing to do away with “subsidy” and particularly indiscrmiinate subsidy, supply side inputs that lead to more genuine economic mobility and growth remain part of the state’s concern – including education.

However, all that aside, this rection seems typical of what seems to be a prevailing Liberal Democrat way of thinking at the moment – “choice” is what “Thatcher did”; therefore “choice” is bad, and we should resile from it.

It is just nonsense. A cursory look at what you are calling “choice” in education shohws that in fact no such choice was offered. You are correct to say it was a chimera. A chimera of choice. That does not mean choice is bad but that a chimera of choice is bad.

Taking Oxford city as an example, we have, in secondary schools, five state secondaries (including one faith based and one academy) and six main private secondaries. The state secondaries are double the average pupil numbers of the private secondaries (which include the current best academically school in the country of any type – Magdalen College School). And at an average of over 600 pupils even the private school average in Oxford is quite high.

We could have ten state secondaries of the average current private school size, twenty of the more typical Folkschule size in Denmark. And none of them more than half an hour’s journey from any address in the city. That gives a much greater scope for choice – I cannot imagine that young minds are more homogeneous than supermarket beans! Private schools offer choice – not all for example are intended to be hothouses of academic excellence – many make their USP adding value to pupils with particular different skills or particular needs – why should state school pupils not be afforded such opportunities to develop particular talents with particular specialists?

But, and here I probably will upset the “holy of holies” – education is but a side show. An important one peraps, but still a side show. Social and economic mobility is blocked far more by the effects of land rent and interest. It is these key economic systemic problems that need to be addressed *BEFORE* education can hope to make its greatest potential difference. Placing all ones hopes for increasing social mobility on education alone is merely addressing a symptom of this inequitable system, not the inequity itself. And as such it is always going to be far more expensive that dealing with the problems at source.

If the issues were dealt with at source, actually you could afford to return so much money to everyone that they would be able to afford to participate in a real private market in education, offering choice, added value, different outcomes and so on.

As a parent, I think I am best qualified to judge what’s best for my children. Sadly I don’t get the choice under the current system because there is no mechanism in the state system for popular schools to expand and crap schools to contract.

Rather revealing that you view equality as the most important outcome. I and many others support choice because we believe that it offers the best hope of providing a good education. To raise standards of education is the most important goal and focusing on equality is often couterproductive to that aim.

Rolling back centralisation and providing diversity in education is impossible without providing a mechanism that will allocate pupils to the school that suits them best. Choice is the only way to accomplish that.