Adam Smith Institute

According to the excellent Cato Institute blog, school choice is becoming a politically non-partisan issue in the US. I am not sure this is yet the case, but it definitely should be. It is certainly looking to be true over here – shown by the fact that the David Cameron's Conservative opposition are making school choice one the central pillars of their bid to win the next election. And it is hard to see him losing many votes on the issue.

Really, it should be no surprise that offering school choice is a non-partisan issue. The education of one’s children is one of the most crucial decisions a parent can make for their child. School choice means that the parent who believes in a classical school education, the parent who believes in more modern methods, and the parent who believes in home schooling are all on the same side of the issue. School choice requires competition between schools, of course, a fact that does not escapes many politicians, journalists and parents. But people seem to realize that more schools and more competition is a very good thing.

In Australia, the Labor leader Kevin Rudd is getting behind a few modest reforms that the previous Liberal-led John Howard government failed to get past the Labor state governments and teachers unions. We have seen in this country how Labour’s policy of establishing city academies has allowed those schools to innovate and tailor tuition to their pupils' needs. The growing demand from parents to send their children to them is the key indication of success.

At the ASI we have been at the forefront of this much needed revolution (see our education section). Next task – healthcare?

Discussion of school reform usually focuses on parental choice, and how the competitive pressures that creates can drive up standards. Less discussed, but equally important, is that the supply of schools has to be liberated too – something that features heavily in Michael Gove's Tory education plans. There's no point allowing people to choose a school if new providers can't enter the market easily to meet demand.

Even once you've introduced choice and freed up supply, there are some other aspects of reform that shouldn't be ignored. First of all, there's not much point in being able to choose from a wide-range of schools if they all have to follow the same government rules. In theory, the Tories 'New Academies' would (like Labour's 'City Academies') have no more curriculum requirements than independent schools. That is definitely a good thing – freedom from the national curriculum gives teachers the freedom to tailor tuition to their pupils, not Whitehall regulations and standardised tests. Care will just have to be taken to ensure that these schools' 'funding agreements' do not become too prescriptive.

Then there's the teachers. Schools should be able contract with them individually, setting pay and conditions as they see fit – that will allow them to attract the best people and get the most out of them. And contrary to what the unions seem to think (they are deeply opposed to such reforms), schools exist for the benefit of their pupils, not their staff.

Another important point is that the government's TeachFirst scheme (where high-quality graduates go straight into teaching after an intensive course, without having to go to a teacher training college) should be expanded. Lord Adonis, the Labour schools' minister, has said that he wants this to become the main route into the teaching profession. He is right – the scheme attracts more and better graduates, and prevents trainee teachers being indoctrinated by a left-wing educational establishment.

A recent headline in The Australian that caught my eye said, "Free market no place for unis". Apparently, a lobby group called Innovative Research Universities is worried about the role of public sector institutions and has demanded protection for public institutions because it claims private competition will be harmful to education.

Competition is a key aspect to providing quality, low-cost services to consumers. It makes the providers more efficient, forcing them to provide what is demanded and keeping costs down. But IRU says that competition will cause student fees to rise. And that just doesn’t make any sense.
The IRU also fears "greater homogenisation" because all institutions will focus on courses that are in high demand. But there isn't really a problem with institutions focusing on what is in demand, because what is in demand in terms of education is a reflection of what the economy demands in terms of its labour needs. After the introduction of computers to the workplace, the market demanded workers with knowledge about programming, development, design, etc and those courses became demanded in university and so universities provided them.

Finally the IRU is worried of "market failure". Well, yes, there are market failures, but they're usually better than the government failures that replace them. Too often government steps in 'to help' and distorts the messages about supply and demand, leading to false pricing and inefficiency. Education will always be a highly demanded good and if allowed to operate without excessive regulations should be just fine.

If IRU believes, as they say, that universities "are critically important" then they should start lobbying for goals that aren’t detrimental to the quality of education.