Sorry, Kevin but how do vouchers increase the choice of the disadvantaged? In our current system, vouchers simply mean that those parents who can afford it will be able to add their own money to the voucher and get private schooling for less than they currently do. Those parents who cannot afford to add money to the voucher will still only have the choice of the nearby public schools. Basically, in its current form, adding vouchers to our weird education system will simply drain the last of the middle class kids from our public, comprehensive schools and leave those parents with little choice now, even less choice.
The only way we can really give all parents choice is to remove choice from schools. In other words, if every school (private or public) has to accept any kid who turns up with a voucher, we've increased choice. Otherwise, I'd say we've decreased it for many, if not most, parents.
There is absolutely nothing new about parents with resources being able to buy a better education for their children. What revolutionised society was compulsory free education for every child regardless of the resources of their parents.
Are we really prepared to be the first democracy to get rid of that idea?

Kevin Donnelly points out that the recent UK White Paper emphasises the importance of parental choice. It must be noted that it is referring to choice beween STATE schools. AS ever choice has to be dependent on there being hard data on which to make those choices, so the first priority is to put in place a sytem that shows the educational value added for each student and hence each school.

In my judgement there is a more important matter that is aired in the Paper. Both in Blair's introduction and in the text itself there are references to the fact that there MUST be grouping of students by subject ability. That is in direct conflict with the mixed ability classes to beloved by the edujibberers. The idea that it is sensible to voluntarily organise Year 8 students for Maths in mixed ability groups is plain lunatic. When the comprehensive schools were first set up in UK they used setting for both Maths and English from entry at age 11 years. The range of attainment was vast, varying from less than 7 years old equivalent to way over 16 years. Of course we did not mix them all up, we were neither lunatic or cruel, we arranged it so that each could be taught at a level relevant to ability. It was only later that the edumorons persuaded schools to go over to mixed ability. High schools in Oz are by definition comprehensives. Until 20 years ago or less they also setted the children especially for Maths. They then fell under the same mixed ability pox that has ruined many comprehensives in UK.

I am delighted to see the recognition in UK that their must be 'more grouping and setting by subject ability'. That alone would not be enough to roll back the diseases that affect our secondary schools, much alse is needed. But it isa good start and a recognition that the education theorists were horribly wrong.

Yes Kevin we all see what parents having input into what childern learn at school does have a look at what is going on in Dover USA.

I'm revisiting James Heckman’s excellent 1999 paper, Policies to foster human capital (NBER WP 7288), which drew on a vast body of US research. Heckman identifies several common misconceptions by makers of education policy –

a failure to recognise that learning is a lifetime affair that starts in infancy long before formal education begins, and that much learning takes place out of schools;
most educational planners and policy makers have a preoccupation with achievement tests and measures of cognitive skill as indicators of success of an educational intervention, ignoring the full array of socially and economically valuable non-cognitive skills and motivation, produced by schools, families and other institutions;
there is a fundamental mistrust of the wisdom of parents to choose wisely if offered choices about their children’s education; and
there is also a failure to acknowledge the benefits of competition, with an emphasis on monopolistic provision of services.

Australian policies need to recognise that parents (and others) make complex decisions on limited information throughout their lives, and are generally best placed to make decisions on their children's schooling. As the UK acknowledges, parental choice means breaking down public sector monopolies of provision and allowing competition between schools in attracting students. Yes, Lyall, more data would be better, but if we wait for more data, such changes will never be made - those controlling the data are those defending the status quo. And, yes, Lyall, streaming produces better outcomes, present policies hold back the more able without helping the less able.

Re Heckman's point on preoccupation with performance tests - cf our Federal Education Minister - tests proposed in Australia may help to raise standards in some areas (with fewer leaving school illiterate and innumerate) and to inform parental choice, but they need to be seen in a wider context. The tests will ignore many social and other skills which are necessary for a successful life and career.

Oops, eyejaw, not Lyall, I'd cross-referenced a note. Go to the back of the class, Faustino!

But, Faustino, the fundamental question remains unanswered. Only some parents can afford choice. How can we give all parents choice within our strange hybrid subsidised private/ subsidised public education system? As I say, we can only give all parents choice by removing choice from schools. Now, I'd be all for that change, particularly as all Australian schools now receive public money. Lets give all parents choice and make all schools public in terms of accepting any kid that wants to attend, rather than just the kids whose parents can afford the fees.
Any other system is not really about parental choice, its about well-resourced parents getting choice and be damned to everyone else.
It's perfectly understandable that parents want to look after their own kids opportunities, but surely it is in the long term interests of society that some group somewhere looks after the interests of all kids, not just the ones lucky enough to have concerned parents with resources?
After all, better off kids getting more has nothing to do with merit, does it? It's all about inherited privilege and that's never turned out well in the long run.