Anthony O'Hear: The Riddle of the Voucher, Part Two

By Anthony O'Hear, Professor of Philosophy at Buckingham University, and editor of Philosophy journal.

Back in 1986, Arthur Seldon published an essay entitled ‘The Riddle of the Voucher’. The riddle was to explain why educational vouchers, having seen off all the intellectual and bureaucratic arguments against them the early 1980s, then disappeared from political view. Those who can think back that far will recall that the moral argument in favour of vouchers was that it put control of children’s education where it should belong, in the hands of their parents. They would then be able fulfil their proper role in relation to the up-bringing of their children, a source of both duty and happiness.

This is the situation of parents who send their children to independent schools (and who often make considerable sacrifices to do so), but it is not the case with the 93% of pupils in the state sector, many of whose parents simply could not contemplate independent education. For all the governmental rhetoric of choice, the 93% simply have to go where the state and its bureaucrats see fit, according to its crazily restrictive admissions codes, a situation actually high-lighted by the introduction of ‘free’ schools. For once these are over-subscribed, the rest are left only the option of the very schools the free schools were introduced to avoid.

An independent school which fails to satisfy its customers will close in short order. This is not the case with state schools, whose clientele are not customers so much as suppliants, who have to be grateful for what they get (which, to compound the insult, is actually paid for out of their taxes). Hardly surprising then, that being denied even minimum influence over their children’s education, many parents simply opt out of any interest or responsibility. Hardly surprising that too many state schools, not subject to minimal economic discipline, coast along in complacent mediocrity or worse, the damage compounded by the attempts of successive governments to regulate standards by otiose regulation and ideologically driven inspection.

Seldon’s riddle notwithstanding, things actually got worse after 1986. In 1989 the Conservative (!) government nationalised the curriculum and exams. Twenty three years later, Michael Gove is trying to repair the damage which has resulted from this, but his commendable efforts will last only as long as his government lasts. In any case reform in these areas begs the fundamental question, which is whether the state should dictate educational practice, enforcing its whims on the whole population. Collectivists, maddened by illusions of a general will to which they alone are privy, or intoxicated by their own desire to control, say that it should; but anyone of a conservative disposition, who believes in limited government, in freedom of thought and association, and in Burkean autonomous institutions should shudder at the very idea (let alone at the dismal reality).

Free schools represent a small, but significant step in infiltrating some real parental influence within the state sector. Despite vicious campaigning against them from the collectivist educational establishment, who see what they imply, they are proving unexpectedly popular, even (or perhaps especially) in areas of high deprivation. Emboldened by the chink of light free schools offer, it is time for the Conservative party to re-consider vouchers for its 2015 manifesto – or if that word is politically outlawed, some analogous mechanism which grants to all parents real choice over their children’s education. Put in the proper way, once parents understand how it would benefit them and their children, it ought to be a vote-winner.  

Comments

[Pete]

No comments here, regrettably, as there's no mention of Europe in the title. Its a pity so few are interested in education and freedom, rather than just raging against Europe and Cameron.

Well, I couldn't agree more. Had Mrs T introduced education vouchers in 1985, say, she might come close to meriting the veneration subsequently heaped upon here. She didn't and nor did Major and there is little excuse for it. It's OUR money, we should decide where it is spent. Competition brings standards. You'll have noticed Eton and Westminster and Marlborough are not run by a bunch of Councillors at a shitey LEA. At the very least, make the money parents are forced to spend to avoid the State-controlled comprehensive shite-system tax-deductible.

[Mohammed Amin]

I agree entirely. I have been a fan of education vouchers since I first came across the concept in the early 1980's. I haven't checked but did Milton Friedman mention the idea in "Free to Choose"?

Politically they are a difficult concept to get over. In particular if we are serious about the educational benefits, then vouchers need to be usable in fee paying schools as well so that there is a genuinely mixed economy of totally free voucher only schools, and schools charging varying amounts of supplementary fees on top of the state voucher.

Our socialist opponents would paint this as a government subsidy to rich parents who already send their children to fee paying schools.

Practical politics is likely to require banning top-up fees. Even so, they would dramatically improve the school system. We also need to allow "for profit" schools which take state pupils.

[wycieczki]

This site does not render properly on my iphone 3gs - you may want to try and fix that

[test2]

Doesn't appear like Facebook allows this? anymore.

[info]

what did u say

[razaahsanchinawar]

Your blog provided us with valuable information to work with. Each & every tips of your post are awesome. Thanks a lot for sharing. http://alltechfair.com/

[sabbidash]

Yes I agrre an interesting post.It's incredible to see the new prototipes of ecological cars that we can find on this site. technology

[xcel energy]

wow,damm good post

[fake raybans wholesale online]

Athletes have actually been resorting to chiropractic adjustments for the past several years, but it was only very recently that it has been gaining considerable attention. During the 1996 Olympic Games for instance, the medical teams for the athletes already included chiropractic doctors, who treated athletes during their final preparations weeks before the opening of the games. Aside from being drug free, there are some other benefits of chiropractic to athletes. Chiropractic adjustments can guarantee that the body can keep up with lifestyle and functions of an athlete as competently as possible. Chiropractic can also speed up the recovery of common athlete injury such as lower back pains, ankle sprains, or relocated shoulders. For runners, the most common injury treated by chiropractic methods is the Iliotibial Band Syndrome, which has been proven to respond effectively to chiropractic treatments.

[mMRmFrfU]

mMRmFrfU http://www.Q1NLqgg4S2xq46713UPTX1.com/
mMRmFrfU
[url=http://www.Q1NLqgg4S2xq46713UPTX1.com/]mMRmFrfU[/url]