[eftpotrm]

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. If you'd found me at 11, or even 14, I was near enough top of the chart on everything bar sports. Plenty of others were in a similar position to me, or would have been equally flat at a different level. Early specialisation forces pupils to close off options before they may realistically be ready to.

I have no problem with the gap per se - I went to a state funded selective school and I'm perfectly happy that that sort of school has a place in the system. I believe I've illustrated though how school choice as implemented in Britain necessarily impoverishes the schools perceived as poorer - through the inefficiencies and excess capacity it requires to operate while giving anything like true choice, school choice gives less popular schools higher per-pupil expenses for worse opportunities and outcomes. Someone's kids have to go there, they're paying the same taxes as everyone else to fund them, but they're getting a rotten deal.

Like I said in my first contribution - I don't think there is a perfect solution and school choice may well be the least worst option. It is not a panacea though, and we should be honest in appraising its failings.

[anamax]

> 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.