Professor Harry Brighouse has written extensively against ‘educational choice’ reforms in England and Wales and in the USA, and has challenged the status quo of private school provision in England and Wales. This paper explores the extent to which his arguments are applicable to the more radical, but prima facie linked, concept of the ‘privatisation of education’, that is, where funding, provision or regulation of education are progressively moved away from the state to the private sector. The arguments address in (...) particular the issues of autonomy-facilitating education and educational equality, suggesting that Brighouse's arguments that use these concepts are not powerful objections to the case for choice or privatisation. Indeed, it is suggested that there are several arguments in Brighouse's writings, concerning the virtues of efficiency, diversity and innovation, and the power of the ‘mimicking effect’ of parents who are not skilled choosers, that contain the kernel for an argument advanced elsewhere that defends, rather than opposes, the privatisation of education. (shrink)

(1992). The prisoner's dilemma and educational provision: A reply to Ruth Jonathan. British Journal of Educational Studies: Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 118-133.

This essay took one of the “externalities” of education, equality of opportunity, and suggested that the more extensive state intervention argued for by “the left” was not needed for its provision. This was argued by saying that what “the left” wanted from equality of opportunity was not equality as such, but merely “adequate resources” for all. An “adequate” education it was suggested, could be provided without extensive state intervention for the great majority of children. Only for those children who were (...) too poor, or whose parents were too irresponsible, would it be necessary for the state to intervene to ensure the provision of education, and then only to ensure that these children had access to sufficient funds to enable them to share in the educational experiences provided for other children. Several details in this argument need to be worked out in more detail, including the important matter of exactly what an “adequate education” might comprise. However, if these details could be worked out satisfactorily, the argument could serve to challenge the left's anxieties about moves towards a market in educational provision. The argument suggests that such moves need not lead to the sacrifice of those externalities which “the left” holds dear. (shrink)

This paper, which offers a positive assessment of the role of markets in education, is a 'reply' to an earlier contribution to the Journal in which Stewart Ranson argues that markets are intrinsically flawed as a vehicle for improving educational opportunities. The 'reply', among other things, argues that Ranson fails to address the shortcomings of education under democratic control and ignores the educational benefits of authentic markets.

This paper challenges Richard Pring's suggestion that parents using private education may be undermining the desire for social justice and equality, using recent arguments of Adam Swift as a springboard. Swift's position on the banning of private schools, which uses a Rawlsian ‘veil of ignorance’ argument, is explored, and it is suggested that, if equality of opportunity is a major aim, it does not go far enough by permitting parental partiality. If the only alternative is a Platonic state, then this (...) may be acceptable. But a neglected third scenario, drawing on the insights of Adam Smith, shows ‘self‐love’ to be a valuable social virtue, leading to a more favourable resolution of the ‘paradox of the shipwreck’ than that explored by Swift. Pointers are given to evidence from developing countries and a more detailed ‘veil of ignorance’ argument to support this case. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Scenario 1: The World According to Adam Swift Scenario 2: The World According to Plato Scenario 3: The World According to Adam Smith Conclusion: The Three Fs Notes References.

Professor Michael Barber's The Learning Game is a key influence on education policy in England and Wales. This paper focuses on Barber's policy proposals and their theoretical foundations. The paper states the theoretical foundation of the proposals in chaos theory and the working assumption of this paper. It then explores Barber's proposals, for the curriculum, the teaching profession, and the 'individual learning promise'. Finally, alternative mechanisms for arriving at Barber's desired goals consistent with his theoretical framework are sketched out.

James Tooley; Politics, Markets and Schools Politics, Markets and America’s Schools, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 28, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages.

Using the definition of “education as a practice”, the only coherent interpretation of Heslep's central thesis of “Education's moral role” was found to need the notion of a “social institution” of Education. This in turn made sense only by positing a notion such as a Political Proficiency Certificate, with its concomitant drastic government intervention. Heslep himself did not suggest this, presumably because he saw the tension that would appear between such an institution and the voluntary actions of citizens. This tension (...) was then shown to exist even in his notion of the “public interest”, which brought into question his argument of why Education needs to be standardized. This was reinforced by the realisation that, if the “public interest” required votes to be aggregated into a social choice, then it is unlikely to be realised by any current voting system. This suggested it was an unsuitable foundation on which to rest either a theory of democracy or a justification for the need for standardized Education. With that justification brought into question, the need for a “social institution” of Education disappears; without that, as we have said, Heslep's central thesis is without a coherent interpretation. (shrink)

This paper, which offers a positive assessment of the role of markets in education, is a 'reply' to an earlier contribution to the Journal in which Stewart Ranson argues that markets are intrinsically flawed as a vehicle for improving educational opportunities. The 'reply', among other things, argues that Ranson fails to address the shortcomings of education under democratic control and ignores the educational benefits of authentic markets.