As for funding. It should cost about the same as now. The funding comes entirely from the pupils. If a school can’t attract pupils, be it state or private, it will go bust, just like any other business or charitable concern. Protecting state schools from competition will just undermine the whole concept of a market, just as state handouts to businesses causes poor decision making and propagates failure.

I’m beginning to think you don’t understand this idea of competition and markets. Markets adapt to demand, unlike the state.
What we have in education is a great example of government failure, and as with nearly all government failure it is not possible to fix with more government and its very costly.

I have no problem with the idea of schools being much more free from state control on how and what they teach than they are now, nor with schools set up by private groups with their own agenda. On these grounds, for example, I have defended the existence of state financed faith schools, not a popular position in the party given the growing opposition to them that there seems to be amongst party members.

The most famous is probably GEMS who want the chance to run top quality schools for the same amount of money as a low quality school run by the state receives. Of course, this is a private profit-making company, so presumably we’ll get complaints against the profit motive by same. The same is true of Kunskappskolan which is a company which runs schools for the Swedish state - and is a result of the Swedes opting for a voucher system.

It’s almost impossible nowadays to start a school as there’s no cofunding from govt and local councils will almost always veto planning or operating applications because they have an interest in seeing the state-run schools keep their monopoly. That keeps out any non-profits who lack the serious funding and influence needed to jump our system of restriction on availability of education.

Its not a case of government saying to business or religious groups - here’s a franchise you can run, its a case of saying to everyone, hey, set up a school of any size or style or speciality you like.

1) People do not have choice now, unless they’re middle class and move to an area where schools are available.
The limited choice you have is between schools which all teach the same curriculum, in the same way, with most things dictated from central government.

2) The problem with more applicants is solved by letting people set up schools easily. Currently what happens is central government comes along and says we will turn this into an academy with this set of restrictions. No wonder people aren’t falling over themselves to provide it.

3) The existing private sector will be brought into the equation, more people from less advantaged backgrounds will be able to attend them. Contrary to what people seem to believe, most private schools want to educate children who they can help, they are just tied to mostly rich people’s children due to limited scholarships and now no assisted place scheme.

4) People set up companies with no promise of return. People invest. I am sure some people will create schools to try and make a profit in the future (nothing wrong with that, if their education isn’t what is wanted then they won’t get any pupils and will fail). Charities and others could also band together.
If you want to help parents set up schools, then the state could help.

5) Schools needn’t be large. You could have lots of small schools, two teachers in a house with a handful of children. That may occur, it may not.

6) The biggest difference will be that schools are not obliged to follow a national curriculum and teach in the way central government says. That is a major improvement over the current system. Minimum standards could be set, although as a liberal I have no problem with religious schools (so long as hatred is not being preached), parents who send their children to them will give them the same at home anyway.

So, in my proposed voucher system - schools are easy to set up. Schools can teach differently. Schools respond to parental and pupil demand, there is real choice, between distinct alternatives, not between schools with minor differences.

Under the current system there’s limited choice between nearly identikit schools with policies dictated by central government. The choice is even less for the poor, which leads to even worse standards. Setting up real new schools is incredibly difficult, limited for the most part to government granted permission to business. The opportunity for parents to set up schools is there, but its very difficult to persuade the LEA to take them seriously. I only know of one case where it has actually been successfully done (and that was due to a massive shortage of spaces in the borough’s schools).

You do not seem to get the key point which is that the ethos, size, style, location and focus of the school will be totally freed up from state interference enabling the market to work fully, giving space for experimentation and trials to see what works. It does this in such a way that the poorest are included.

Its not a case of the government just saying you can choose between these schools, its the government saying you can choose between any school, you can set one up yourself if you can find two teachers, you can teach at home or you can do anything else which you can think of. People are brilliant and will come up with completely unthought of solutions if they are allowed to.

The problem is what to do if there are more applicants than places in the school - or more people handing in vouchers than the school is willing to giver places to, if you like. What then happens? Raise top-up fees until all but the richest applicants drop out? Or select by ability? Or select by poshness of parents’ accents?

If you intend that vouchers may be used to fund any new schools that any group of parents may choose to have constructed, yes, but vouchers to the value of the cost of educating at an existing school are not going to provide the capital to build a new school. In addition, the running costs of the existing schools won’t decline by the number of pupils lost to the new schools, so you are in effect promising to take a whole lot more taxpayers’ money and put it into these new schools while maintaining the existing schools. I thought you were a tax cutter not a tax increaser.

“Letting in” suggests there are other providers out there who could do better with the same deal that a community school gets. Where are they?

The problem you highlight is that it is too difficult to create new schools, let other providers in and that would be solved. Its true we could make it easier for new state schools to start up.

I don’t see how you can have real parental choice without letting them choose outside the state sector though. Explain how this works? Otherwise you end up with the situation you have in Sheffield - state directed pseudo-choice.

You have to differentiate between real choice between different options, in a competitive market where suppliers can respond to demand and the pseudo-choice given by current systems where you have a fixed supply of schools dictated by government.

New Labour has done a great disservice to liberalism in this respect. Its sullied the reputation of choice by providing false choice, just like Thatcher sullied privatisation and free markets with her ideology.

We have a “choice agenda” in Sheffield meaning that schools are closed and merged and reopened under new providers. But rolls are full, so we still don’t have any choice.

Part of the problem I suppose is that independent providers are not interested unless they get favourable terms compared to community schools, and unless they are confident they won’t have to compete hard for pupils.

This - that independent providers can’t do better with a level playing field - does seem to suggest that many community schools are doing quite a good job with what they have.

So I suggest: real parental choice between schools first; then look at different kinds of provider to see if some can systematically do more with less and attract more pupils.

And this still won’t address issues of peer groups, middle class clustering and so on.