I’m struggling a little to see how giving parents to right to decide what is and isn’t necessary education is a step in the right direction. We already have the stupid policy of letting parents opt-out of their children being taught important information about sex and contraception on ‘conscience’ grounds – from what you’re saying you seem to find the fact that schools in the UK are not able to opt out of the national curriculum a bad thing. Wouldn’t changing this give us potential for schools that decide, to pick an obvious one, evolution is a matter of personal conviction and shouldn’t be taught? Or do we pre-select the areas of the curriculum that are unimportant enough to opted in and out of?

Personally I like the idea of schools being one of the few areas in a child’s life where it isn’t possible for parents to be completely in control.

Why not go the whole hog and introduce a voucher scheme? That would meet all your requirements but with more dynamism and flexibility, wouldn’t it? Why cling to artificial limts about how schools can and can’t be created? Is it just the taint of M Friedman that stops you taking your argument to the logical conclusion?

-”We already have the stupid policy of letting parents opt-out of their children being taught important information about sex and contraception on ‘conscience’ grounds.”

Parents also have the right to home school their children and not ever enter a state school. I suppose you think that right is “stupid” too. How very liberal!

-”Wouldn’t changing this give us potential for schools that decide, to pick an obvious one, evolution is a matter of personal conviction and shouldn’t be taught?”

This problem is becoming irrelevant since many state schools are increasingly not even teaching biology anymore. If you want evolution to be taught as a proper scientific theory in school, you need to stop the government from incentivising a dumbed down attitude to science.

The left need to look a little closer at the state education system that has been built using a combination of Thatcherite managerialism and progressive pseudo-academic dogma. The only conclusion to draw is that the only people less qualified than parents to choose school policies are the state. Unfortunately, those are your only two (real) options and the current system hurts lower income families the most. Roll on parent choice and independent teachers.

Parents also have the right to home school their children and not ever enter a state school. I suppose you think that right is “stupid” too. How very liberal!

Yes, being able to cripple your child’s social and educational development is really liberal.

Er, wait.

Or to educate them to a much higher standard than is available in school, while also ensuring they don’t get shanked outside the school gates?

I know several home schooled individuals who do very well for themselves. I wouldn’t want to generalise statistically but I know that home schooling in many cases is advantageous over what is available in mainstream education.

My point really was that what parents want and what’s best for their child do not always correlate – particularly when the parents are religious – and that the state has a duty to do what’s best for the kids, not what the parents want the most.

while also ensuring they don’t get shanked outside the school gates?

Does this really happen a lot around your parts Nick? You’re going to justify parents all over the country using that as an excuse?

“My point really was that what parents want and what’s best for their child do not always correlate ”

That is true, but it is also true that what is best for a child and what the state wants for a child do not always correlate.

“My point really was that what parents want and what’s best for their child do not always correlate – particularly when the parents are religious – and that the state has a duty to do what’s best for the kids, not what the parents want the most.”

And my point is that in practice, the state is usually far worse at making those sort of decisions than even fairly religious parents. In other words, the correlation towards what is best is closer to parental duty than the state’s duty.

There are exceptions at the extreme, of course: a friend of mine worked in a pupil referral unit where one of the boys had been brought up in a strict Somalian Christian household. He had been expelled from mainstream school after assaulting girls who were dressed “provocatively”, as he was under the impression that they were incarnations of the devil trying to tempt him. He wasn’t doing well in the PRU either. His family’s religious upbringing had clearly failed to prepare him for any sort of life in mainstream British society.

But exceptions like that do not justify systematic government regulation, only intervention when substantiated abuse is taking place.

The young ladies in the photo clearly celebrating their exam results because their parents chose to send them to an independent school

Hi guys, sorry for taking so long to reply.

Alex – on the post on my blog, where I outline a charter of freedoms, the last thing article is basically against brainwashing. I was influenced by Stephen Law’s book, War for Children’s Minds, where he argues that schools (of whatever bent) should teach critical thinking and reasoning so that whilst a school corporately professes one belief (i.e. creationism) students are allowed and encouraged to question such beliefs.

Another related point is that independent schools are still required either by law or by their trust deeds to teach certain things. By removing the obligation to teach the National Curriculum, you don’t immediately have an anything goes policy. There are still exams, which pretty much dictate what is taught in years 10 to 13! (Although the curriculum freedom I was suggesting would be a specific percentage of the timetable and be related to the acronym soup of PSHE/SMSC/RS/PE and citizenship.)

John – I’m still dubious about a voucher system. I know that some cities in America have experimented with a lottery for poor parents, which have turned out to be successful. Wherever implemented vouchers do seem to improve educational performance. I’m still giving the voucher scheme a little more thought. What I was trying to do here was come up with a philosophically coherent – and liberal – approach to school freedom.