> Your example of 10/400 v 10/100 implies early specialisation if that's to be a realistic scenario, which I confess I'm not a great fan of. Young kids have in

> Your example of 10/400 v 10/100 implies early specialisation if that's to be a realistic scenario, which I confess I'm not a great fan of. Young kids have interests. They change over time, but they have interests. > Early specialisation forces pupils to close off options before they may realistically be ready to. You assume too much. > I believe I've illustrated though how school choice as implemented in Britain necessarily impoverishes the schools perceived as poorer Actually, you've proposed a mechanism. Even if we assume that things always work that way (and they don't), there should be nothing keeping kids at those poorer schools, so what's the problem? > Someone's kids have to go there Why? If no one wants to go there, why keep it open? > It is not a panacea though, Strawman. > we should be honest in appraising its failings. We should apply that to all schemes.