I worry about comments that people, especially parents, cannot, or by implication, possibly do not, make sound informed choices, and that someone else, like government should make those choices for them. This denies the quality of the education system that most people attend, that of State / public Schools. If education in Schools cannot support its students to prepare for life by being able to research and find the information they want, in an information age, and ask the questions necessary, to make informed decisions, what is its purpose? To suggest that most parents are not responsible is nonsense. To suggest most parents should be judged by the actions of a few is also nonsense. There ought to be, and probably generally is, a partnership and joint decision-making between parents and their student children in making choices about the Schools that most suit their principles, values, personal convictions and educational requirements.

An analysis of the Schools' marketing relative to their reality and their claims, might lead to the conclusion that fair trade practices of accurate advertising by companies, as administered by the ACCC, ought to also include education and schools. The recent publication in Queensland of league tables of schools and their relative students' acheivements of OP scores clearly revealed the disparity in outcomes even between State Schools, run by the same government department, staffed and resourced according to that same government department's policies. Publishing this comparative chart encourages people to make choices between the differentiated State schools (even though, by itself, it is a flawed basis for making decisions about what is suitable education).

If vouchers are the only popular sign on the horizon that empower people to make real choices in education, then it ought to be supported. Without bureaucratic support though, any new system such vouchers, like other educational innovations over the years, is likely to fail, because it would be outside their current comfort zone, that does not link accountability to parents' and students' satisfaction with the educational outcomes. It might also lead to politics being taken out of the curriculum.

Regards, Derek Sheppard

So DaveS is this Economics 101 theory? People are therefore robots, and once having made a decision are on the conveyor belt, and can't and don't constantly view or connect with the world around them, until it is too late, and they're already manufactured into the little parts of the big economic machine they've been programmed for?

This sort of theorising makes little sense.

It gives no credit to the intelligence, abilities and decision making power of people, or the changes and adjustments they make constantly.

People want to succeed, but their measures of success will be different and will not necessarily match yours which relates their success to the failure of others.

Your statement completely underestimates the capacity of parents and young people. It suggests that education, in itself, in schools, is disempowering, and leads to disempowerment. Perhaps this is so according to your experiences, but not according to mine - but then, I made informed choices with my children, which they're all benefitting from.

Claiming individuals' choices as always being at the expense of others, also exercising their free will, is a narrow, and I would suggest politically influenced, view of the world.

Regards, Derek Sheppard

Derek,

The use of ACCC oversight is a very worthwhile addition and one that is timely. It is something I should have dealt with in the article but did not have the forsight to consider: great stuff.

Cheers,
Corin

I read with interest the direct responses to my posting. One admits to not being able to understand my reasoning and the other presumes to have deduced underlying political motives .... and all from such a brief posting :-)

It is abundantly clear that judging the quality of education is intensely complex, however much governments might wish to reduce it to league tables. To recognise this is not to denigrate anyone's ability to make a choice of school. It is also clear that information upon which judgments may be made is asymmetrically distributed, as is the ability to act upon judgements of relative school ‘quality.’ The Chelsea Tractor brigade may have the time and money to ferry their kids across London to the school of choice but this option is not open to those only able to walk their kids to the neighbourhood school. I imagine the situation is worse in isolated communities in outback Australia.

As for the meaning my contention that education is a positional good consider the following. There is a limited number of places to read e.g. Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford. This results in entry becoming a zero-sum game, if one of my students is offered a place, it means someone else will not be. Further evidence may be seen in the recent demands by UK universities for prospective candidates for law, medicine and history to take additional entrance tests because there are ‘too many’ students getting top grades in the British A level exams.

What truly empowers parents is an education system that ensures all neighbourhood schools are sufficiently resourced to enable them to maximise the potential in all our children.

As for having a politically influenced view of the world, does not Derek simply mean he thinks I have a different perspective to his own? I'm sure I do!

I wonder just what the motives of voucher proponents really are. Those who make no pretence that they are doing anything other than seeking to give their own children a better chance than the next person, are at least being honest.

Dave S

Can anyone reading this thread understand what David S is getting at? I believe he is against vouchers but I’m still trying to figure out why?

So far I’ve got that choosing a good school is not always easy. Yes, I’ll agree to that. Also some parents in outer areas won’t have such a plethora of choice. Yes also agreed, but considering vouchers mean that students can go off to private schools or STAY at the local government one, what on earth is his point?

Also something about students will have to study harder to get into Oxford or the higher level courses at most universities (how come the Arts subject History is in there with the tougher courses?) I don’t see how vouchers would lead to tougher entrance exams and even if it did, why is that a problem? Isn’t it a good thing for the educational health of the nation that is should be hard to get into specialised schools rather than just being able to walk in? Conversely, if there are increasing numbers who would be competent and prepared to study medicine and law then why not invest more resources into the schools to allow more students? Surely the nation will benefit from more doctors and lawyers. (well at least the former)

Anyone alleging to comprehend Dave’s reasoning please post soonest

Corin,
I have constantly wondered why education has been coralled off from other industry reforms. For instance, despite the agreement of all the State and Federal Ministers to the Adelaide Declaration of Nationals Goals in Schools for the 21st century, there doesn't appear to be reports on the States' attainment of the goals. Curriculum is the prime focus of most Ministers, but there are another 17 goals that are as worthy, but seem to get far less attention. What's the point of setting goals, if there aren't benchmarks and consequences for non-achievement? Isn't that where the Ministers are taking Schools and Students? Where is their adherence to the same principles? Why aren't the National Goals reflected in Federal and State legislation? If they were, at least it might provide foundation educational objectives that cross parochial State borders.

Further, the States maintain continuing conflicts of interest. Politics interferes in their view of education, and who, in their opinion, ought to be delivering it. Choice in education and Schools is simply and obviously a freedom that ought to be a high objective of democratic life. Labor governments are biased in favour of State or public Schools. The States reacted with a raft of new legislation and inquiries into private Schools following the introduction of the SES funding model by the Federal government. The new legislation has limited parents' right to choose, and by imposing added restrictions on private Schools, made it far more difficult for new innovative models of education to emerge, when we need them most. It seems the States believe that they have developed the best model of education in their State / public Schools, and are seeking to superimpose this model on private schools. Obviously, however, people believe otherwise and continue to move their children into private Schools that accord more with their principles, values and personal convictions. The conclusion must be drawn that parents are prepared to spend more of their money (in addition to the taxes they already pay) to assure the education that they perceive is best for their children.

Regards, Derek Sheppard