Thank you so much for the links. Had to share excerpts from the chapter on reconciling choice and equity. It is interesting that you think I am speaking in a vacuum and have no idea pedagogy.
The point I have been trying to make for the last couple days is really well made in the OECD white paper you kindly linked - choice is a great force for good, equity is fundamental. Lack of imagination is the limitation.
Pages 168 for ease of reference but copied below.
*In quote: Reconciling choice and equity Many countries are struggling to reconcile their aspirations for greater flexibility and more opportunities for parents to choose their child’s school with the need to ensure quality, equity and coherence in their school systems. While enhanced school autonomy seems a common characteristic of highperforming education systems, these education systems differ substantially in how they regulate autonomy. They often pursue very different approaches when it comes to linking school autonomy to school choice, and to reconciling choice with equity. For example, England and Shanghai both emphasise market mechanisms, but while public policy in England mainly operates on the demand side of markets, seeking to improve schooling by enhancing parents’ choice, in Shanghai, the main emphasis of public policy lies in creating a level playing field at the supply side: providing schools in the most disadvantaged areas with the best educational resources. While Finland and Hong Kong both emphasise local autonomy, in Finland that autonomy is exercised within a strong public school system, while most schools in Hong Kong are managed by independent school governing boards with relatively loose steering mechanisms. Some countries have strengthened choice and equity-related mechanisms at the same time. England, for example, has rapidly increased the number of academies, schools funded directly by the Department for Education and independent of local authority control. At the same time, England has established a pupil premium (see above) that provides schools with additional resources based on the socio-economic composition of their student body. Some countries have also made it possible for private schools to be integrated into the public education system as government dependent schools or as independent schools that receive a certain amount of public funding.
Proponents of school choice defend the right of parents to send their child to the school of their preference – because of quality, pedagogical approaches, religious denomination, affordability or geographic location – regardless of legal restrictions or financial or geographic barriers. The idea is that, given students’ diverse needs and interests, a larger number of options in any one school system should lead to better value by reducing the cost of failure and mismatch. More options should stimulate competition and, in doing so, prompt schools to innovate, experiment with new pedagogies, become more efficient and improve the quality of the learning experience. Proponents argue that the increasing social and cultural diversity of modern societies calls for greater diversification in the education landscape, including allowing non-traditional providers and even commercial companies to enter the market. Critics of school choice argue that, when presented with more options, students from advantaged backgrounds often choose to leave the public system, leading to greater social and cultural segregation in the school system. They are also concerned with over-reliance on theoretical models of rational, price-based economic competition as the basis for the allocation of resources. At the macro level, such segregation can deprive children of opportunities to learn, play and communicate with children from different social, cultural and ethnic backgrounds; that, in turn, threatens social cohesion. To critics, vouchers and voucher-like systems divert public resources to private and sometimes commercial providers, thereby depriving public schools, which tend to serve large populations of disadvantaged students, of the resources they need to maintain the quality of the education they provide. A closer look at the evidence shows that the arguments are not so clear-cut. Consider Hong Kong. This is a system that has a market-driven approach in virtually every field of public service, but it has been able to combine high student performance with a high degree of social equity in the distribution of education opportunities.*
My last word: Think out of the box or it is the kids that suffer.
When someone has studied a topic in such depth and remains rigid - internet arguments will not enable them to open themselves to another perspective. So I'm out. The people get the leader they deserve. Enjoy!!