[jen20]

I've never heard much debate in the US on this, but in the UK it was very much the left that eliminated selective education in most of the country, and it's a political third rail to talk about it for any mainstream political party today (other than, no doubt, Reform - even a stopped clock is right twice a day, I suppose).

[jhallenworld]

This seems to refer to separate advanced schools vs. advanced classes that most in the US would be familiar with.

One analog in my area (Boston) is perhaps METCO, where ambitious students in impoverished districts can be bussed to wealthier suburban schools. It's fairly benign compared with the infamous forced bussing of the 1970s- a judge forced lower class black and white parts of the city to bus students to each other's schools in order to eliminate segregation- it caused riots. Sure there was racism, but the main complaint was that rich suburban towns were not included.

Another ongoing debate is over "charter schools"- where public funds are used for private schools that can be selective about their students. There are good arguments both for and against them. One against is that they can be for-profit even though they are not supposed to be. For example, they often pay rent to somebody- this never happens as far as I know for public schools.

[jen20]

Yes, the original policy in the UK was for separate schools rather than advanced classes - the equivalent policy for advanced classes was (is?) known as "streaming". I don't know of any charter schools which are for-profit (funding state students attendance at fee-paying schools was eliminated at some point in the 90s I believe also), but the nearest equivalent would be a "free school" which must be a non-profit.