Comments on: The Illusion of Choice ?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:24:43 +0000

In an ideal world, most people would prefer the local school and hospital to be top notch. No one, in these circumstances, really wants to make a choice between which school and hospital you should go to. They could, should and can all be good.

This strikes me as wishful thinking. You describe an ideal world where all local public services would be equally excellent, so that choice would be unnecessary, and then jump to an assertion that this world is achievable. A simple question for you, then:

How?

Because decades of political meddling would seem to suggest that it isn’t really achievable…

The brutal truth about public services is that there is a limit to that which we as society are prepared to fund and make available collectively (the ‘I don’t want to pay for other people’s Viagra/IVF/cosmetic surgery/Kumon Maths’ argument). This necessarily ends up restricting what you can do without implementing some element of choice and competition into the system. There will always be differentiating factors between services, because there will always be variability. It might be so small as the fact that one hospital is a slightly newer building, and just ‘feels healthier’ for that reason, but that’s choice.

What the public really wants (collectively) is local services that are just adequate, not good. And broadly, that’s what we get.

By: Jarndyce

Jarndyce — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:29:40 +0000

Overall, Eddie, I think you’re simplifying the way markets work far too much. After all, if TV were solely state-run, we’d never have got Sky+…

_…the price of houses close to good schools_

… is probably the best argument in favour of education vouchers: that in effect we have markets at work already, just hidden in everything from house prices to the cost of a can of Coke in nice areas around good schools. And they would have one other advantage: I could make damn sure that the religious school round the corner from me, who in their Christian charity exclude my unbaptised daughter from attending, wouldn’t see one penny of “my” tax money.

Overall, though, I think we should be very careful before chucking the notion of a shared civic education in the dustbin. The current system is crap – possibly in its shittyNuLabmiddlewayness the worst system of all – but marketizing would cause further atomization (medrassas in Marylebone, anyone?).

By: EU Serf

EU Serf — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:04:36 +0000

……..Which, in essence, means the middle-class…..

It would mean the same outcome then without a massive distortion in the price of houses close to good schools.

The idea that choice will somehow cease to be an issue once School A catches up with School B is an interesting idea. In a world with one variable and where things stand still maybe.

On the other hand, to bring in real choice, tax payers cash must be available for use in non state schools.

By: David Hadley

David Hadley — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:10:13 +0000

But what happens when school (or hospital or whatever) B is full?
‘Choice’ only benefits those with the nous to get in first, the sharpest elbows, the friends in the right places, the right post code, the loudest voice, the same club or dress-sense and so on.

All those left will have to rely on school (hospital etc) A – until such a time as the fairy godmother of no-longer-failing waves her magic wand and sprinkles her fairy dust over it.

Which, in essence, means the middle-class – who know how to work the system will get what they want, while those left behind will be the ones who could probably benefit the most, but lack the know-how or connections to exploit the system – the underclass in other words.

By: Eddie

Eddie — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:09:19 +0000

I assumed this for the sake of the argument. I don’t believe you can measure schools in variables, hence my quip about the God of League Tables.

However, I feel this is the attitude the Labour government is cultivating. I took their ideas and ran with it.

By: Peter Clay

Peter Clay — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 21:20:19 +0000

You’re assuming that the quality of a school is measurable by a single variable, which can be compared against other schools in a total ordering, and that variable has the same value for all observers. I don’t think either of those are true.

Different children learn in different ways, and benefit from different environments and curricula. Not all of those can be provided in the same school. Therefore, in order for education to better fit the child there must be a variety on offer into which he or she can fit.

Also, the reason why choice works so well in the private sector is that it punishes failing institutions. Sometimes when an institution – school or company – fails, it is the fault of the directors. Sometimes it’s the fault of (some of) the employees. A few bad apples can wreck the working environment of a large number of people. And sometimes, in the most difficult to detect case, it is the fault of the institutional culture, the encrustation of tradition, politics, morale and policy which builds up anywhere and can support or strangle any effort. It’s much easier to disband a broken institution than it is to fix its culture.