I’m not arguing against a market system with money given to parents, I just don’t see the purpose on giving it to those who already have market access.

“So if working class kids underperform as lots of studies suggest how are we going to find the evidence that they are bright in order to carry out a fair scheme?”

Surely, the answer is to give school vouchers to parents whether or not their children are bright. I am sure that it is the less bright kids that will benefit most from being in a stimulating environment, rather than a stultifying one. “Assisted places” should not only be available to the already gifted, but to all those who want or need assistance.

Titner,

The inefficiencies you refer to are deadweight costs, and there is a limit to them equal to the size of the voucher offered times the number of children being privately educated. Also, it is not true that all private schools cost more than state schools, and the market would be far more diverse if everybody were able to participate, rather than at present where only the rich will be able/willing to forego the thousands they are already obliged to pay to the state.

Nick Clegg is talking about giving more money to the poorest kids (”Pupil Premium” he calls it). However, even if the vouchers were equal it would give poor parents choice, and as I have argued elsewhere, even if most parents don’t exercise choice, the competition it injects into the market improves all schools and so benefits even those who do not take advantage of it.

If we want to improve the standards of education then its groups like that we need to target. This is especially so since their parents would not be able to “top up” their vouchers, which is seen as one of the advantages of the system. So giving them a larger voucher entitlement means their education is affected more by their parents educated choice on what is best for their children and less on their ability to pay.

It maintains the strengths of a market driving standards while ensuring more equitable access to the market for all children.

I’m not sure that what you say follows.
Given choice, schools catering for those who need more help would probably arise.

In the case of identifiable problems - disabilities or learning or behavioural problems which do require special attention then I have no problem with extra funding for such pupils, I do think its wrong to link it to poverty though (that sounds too much like saying you’re poor because you’re thick…)

I suppose the problem then is making sure opportunity is there for claiming and that bureaucracy doesn’t inflate costs.
Perhaps given that, a pupil premium may be a better idea.

It certainly would not be a point to make me oppose a scheme (unless it was ridiculous amounts and distorts the market a lot - not something I can imagine the LibDems advocating).

I guess I am essentially saying that the pupil premium concept should carry on to vouchers also!

Well, I’d say extend it fully, give every child the money to choose their own school.
Today, the cost of education in the state sector is on par with the average cost of the private sector, even if a school costed more, scholarship endowments would go far further and far more would be able to afford the extra.

Martin:
My old school seems to have developed a relationship with Christs Hospital - my head master is now head there, and the deputy head has just become the new head of my school…

Nich:
On 1 - that may be a factor, although quite a few still fail.
2 - why can’t this be the case for all children though?

It is unfair that parents who send their children to private school also have to pay taxes for the state sector - imagine how many poorer parents would have the means if they didn’t have to pay their taxes for education…

The fundamental point however is that the system is flawed, not because of the existence of private schools, but because the state sector is inflexible and does not offer opportunities which many require.

This is despite the best efforts of many many teachers, who are hamstringed by the system (in some areas there has been some progress recently, but it still cannot offer what could be offered).

1) Parental expectations “I’m not sending you to private school for you to fail”, as opposed to the small % of parents who care little for getting their kids to school in the first place in the public sector.

2) Class sizes, which aare much smaller in private schools, which makes a hell of a differene to what a teacher can do.

Simple as that.

I heard a headteacher of a private school this morning on the radio bemoaning that parents who struggle to send their children to private school “have to pay taxes so that middel class children can go to grammar schools !”

Well excuse me Mr Headmaster, but I think the children who go to grammar schools might end up cutting the grass at his school or turn up to put the fires out at his school, so I do tire of the “porr hard done by” attitude of some people who “choose” to send their kids to private schools.

I’m not against sending people to private schools, but the assisted places scheme was a clear faliure in achieving its goals. A much better system would have to be worked out, its not good enough just saying “extend it!” because the original inefficencies of spending would remain.