School Choice and the Common Good: a reply to Brighouse

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

In my previous article and rejoinder (Walford, 1996a & b) I argued against the view put forward by David Hargreaves (1996) for increased choice and diversity in secondary schooling. First, I argued that his application of a 'cost-benefit' approach to discussions about the desirability of greater choice and diversity is itself highly problematic and ideological. Second, I examined documents on which he based his argument and showed them to be only partially relevant. Third, I traced elements of the social and political context that generated the current interest in increased choice of school and argued that, within this context, his proposals were highly likely to lead to greater inequity between the experiences of children. Finally, I outlined and defended my own proposals for reform that David Hargreaves had attacked in his paper. My discussion of the various government policies that have attempted to increase choice and diversity was designed to provide a context in which the likely practical consequences of David Hargreaves's proposals could be understood. I sought to show that, the 'now widespread (i.e. common-sensical) view that choice is desirable' did not simply appear from nowhere, but had to be generated by government and that, in practice, various policies that invoked 'choice and diversity' have led to increased selection and inequality of provision. I argued that there is actually very little demand for true diversity. Choice is not 'naturally' paired with diversity, but with selection and inequity of provision. While there are some parents who desire schools that serve their own particular religious beliefs, in general there is little demand for curriculum specialisms or schools supporting particular religious or moral philosophies. There is growing research evidence that, where such curriculum specialisms are being introduced by schools, they are acting as selection mechanisms for high academic ability and middle-class children. In particular, the development of specialisms such as dance or music indirectly discriminates against working-class children, and allows schools a greater chance to select 'appropriate' children.