The research Shonga refers to was conducted by Professor Barry McGaw. He confirmed what was already strongly attested in the literature on school outcomes, that the major factors correlated with student success are the eduction level of the mother and the wealth of the parents (in that order). But he went further, claiming that the figures show that the differences between student performance from different schools are explained entirely by these two factors.

That does not mean that schools make no difference. It might be, for instance, that well-educated parents choose schools more successfully, that they have more choice than others (being congregated for the most part in cities), or that they have more influence on schools and on how their children are treated. It does mean that claims about independent principals are likely to be nonsense.

There has been a long debate and a substantial literature about schools and choice. A good start for those not wanting to re-invent square wheels would be Education and the Marketplace, a collection edited by David Bridges and Terence McLaughlin, both distinguished researchers.

There was a lengthy study of VCE results in Victoria which showed that major differences are brought about by individual teachers. Schools would typically have a period of some years in which the results would be excellent in a particular subject—history for example. Then the standard would drop. The pattern was repeated across subjects and in many schools. The explanation was that during the period of success, an excellent teacher taught the students in their final year or two years. When the teacher left, the standard dropped.

Arguments for the voucher system suppose that parents will have a choice of schools. Only those who live in big cities, and can afford the time and cost of ferrying their children across the metropolitan area will have real choice. Poor parents and those whose time is short because of their working conditions will not. If students are withdrawn from a school being seen as under-performing, the remainder will be left with residualised schools.

There are arguments concerning the capacity of parents to choose schools. Typically, parents only learn about the purposes of education and its complexities in the course of their children’s schooling. They are likely to be deceived by charlatans, as parents are at present by the nonsense claims made by the principals of some private schools about the values they alone teach--or indeed by the views about the worth of private schools which McGaw attacks. Many parents may limit their children’s options, for lack of knowledge or from prejudice, as they used to in the days when we had technical high schools and “domestic science” high schools. There is a need to protect the students from their parents.

The principle of caveat emptor in inapplicable. It is not the parents who will have to suffer the results of bad choices.

Some evidence will have to be required of schools, for parents to be able to choose. Whatever test is used, it will lead to teachers teaching to the test in order to safeguard their jobs, to the detriment of the education the children are given. There is a good deal of experience in the UK of this problem, where the existence of league tables leads teachers to concentrate on students of marginal performance, giving far less time to poor ones and better ones.

Decisions about school curricula have major impact on the kind of society we have and the kind of people who live in it. Such decisions are thus political. They should be made in the most democratic way possible. But parents are only a section of society. They should not have all the influence

Thanks for the comments. I agree that parental background matters, however I would arguie that if parents engage in choice they will begin to become more aware of opportunities for their kids.

Differntial vouchers empowering the less well off would give parents and students a stake in their education. There is also a wide capacity for parents to invest sums left after school is bought in a wider education toolkit, especially if public schooling is chosen.

Also there is a clear political element to this policy and I think if done with differential vouchers it would be potentially very very popular. In the best sense of the word - this is genuine "devolution".

Also I agree it is best limited to urban areas where a market can exist.

I think opponents are also missing the potential micro-economic reforms that would come of a system where schools competed hard for resources, were able to innovate, and improve.

Cheers again,
Corin

Advocates of vouchers, (especially when they are differential and means tested) claim that their introduction will result in equity. This cannot be the case whilst schools continue to charge fees, unless the voucher allows even the poorest students to access the schools of their choice, including those that charge the highest fees.
Does anyone believe that governments would be prepared to administer a sliding scale differential voucher system based on existing school fees? If this happened, surely students would make multiple applications to enrol in schools, in their order of preference, and there would still remain a selection process, administered by the schools themselves. Does anyone believe that high fee charging schools would lower their fees if a voucher system was introduced? Or believe that schools would not continue to select the most "desirable" students?
My thinking is that a government funded voucher would simply "top up" parents own financial contribution and that many schools would still be out of the financial reach of many families.
The only way a voucher system could be equitable, is when school fees are prohibited, and governments provide all children with a financial entitlement that does not require any parental top up. I can't see this happening, so let's not kid ourselves on the equity issue!

The problem advocates of school vouchers consistently fail to address is that education, unlike most goods and services on offer in the market place, is both an experience good and a positional good.

The former means that the quality, or otherwise, of the education one has consumed does not become apparent until after it has been completed. This means that one is not in a position to exercise informed choice in the education market until it is too late.

Crucially however, education is consumed only in part for the skills and abilities it provides. What matters most to many consumers is the relative advantage conferred by succeeding where others have failed. Thus consumers of education will continue to seek success at the expense of others, a problem that a free market in education will merely exacerbate.

Dave S: What strange things to say. We don’t know if the school we chose was a good one until after the years we spent there, so therefore we should not even be allowed back our own taxes (as vouchers) to try for something better? This implies that state schools are equal to the average private school. Source? This also implies there are no well established private schools with reputations for good (highly paid) teachers, deep pocket resources and high level academic results.
You’ve got me stumped on “consumers of education will continue to seek success at the expense of others.” Admittedly I don’t actually know what you mean, but how could one student suffer because the parents of another bother to use their voucher to go looking for a better school even if it might mean topping up the fees with a few bucks of their own?