4 ms·

> I want the local school to be good and for my children to go there That's assuming there's a universal "good" - even if a school meets some general standards

> I want the local school to be good and for my children to go there That's assuming there's a universal "good" - even if a school meets some general standards one school can have a better arts program, the other might be more biased towards sports, etc. I don't see anything wrong with having choice - having a good baseline everywhere is a separate issue.

benj111 7y ago
Well lets go out on a limb and say all schools are good, and specialise in one subject. Which should I send my 5 or 11 year old to? I mean they like football, but they also like drawing, but then neither of those are well known for paying the bills. So I still circle back making sure they get a balanced education. The problem though is that choice is the supposed solution to not having good schools. That may be UK specific though.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  The idea (although rather poorly implemented in the UK state system) is that choice leads to competition, and competition leads to improvement even of those at the bottom (and even for those who don’t really pay attention to the choice/don’t care). It’s a market philosophy of sorts.
  - benj111 7y ago
    I know that's the idea. The result is schools spending a non trivial amount of time jumping through hoops for the benefit of people who are ill equipped to evaluate those schools. On top of that the number of places are fairly static year to year so all schools end up getting filled anyway, but the 'better' schools are filled with the students that arguably least need the benefits, whereas the worst schools are filled with the children of the least able.
    - tomatocracy 7y ago
      Yes. The 'market' mechanism for popular schools to find money and permission to expand while less popular ones are closed or taken over is missing and subject to too much political interference. So it arguably ends up as the worst of both worlds.

benj111 7y ago

Well lets go out on a limb and say all schools are good, and specialise in one subject. Which should I send my 5 or 11 year old to? I mean they like football, but they also like drawing, but then neither of those are well known for paying the bills. So I still circle back making sure they get a balanced education. The problem though is that choice is the supposed solution to not having good schools. That may be UK specific though.

tomatocracy 7y ago
The idea (although rather poorly implemented in the UK state system) is that choice leads to competition, and competition leads to improvement even of those at the bottom (and even for those who don’t really pay attention to the choice/don’t care). It’s a market philosophy of sorts.
- benj111 7y ago
  I know that's the idea. The result is schools spending a non trivial amount of time jumping through hoops for the benefit of people who are ill equipped to evaluate those schools. On top of that the number of places are fairly static year to year so all schools end up getting filled anyway, but the 'better' schools are filled with the students that arguably least need the benefits, whereas the worst schools are filled with the children of the least able.
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    Yes. The 'market' mechanism for popular schools to find money and permission to expand while less popular ones are closed or taken over is missing and subject to too much political interference. So it arguably ends up as the worst of both worlds.