Joe, Take an objective view for a moment - the left have set the terms of the debate on education and social provision more or less unchecked since the war. During this time, Britain's educational performance has declined by all international standards regardless of which party has been in power. The answer is obviously not to do more of the same thing - it clearly is not working.

It is time for the left to move out of the way and let the whole system be opened up to new providers coming in, and (shock horror!) giving the parents what they want.
Trust the people, not the system.

and HJHJ added,

Joe,

In Germany you have a constitutional right to choose an independent school and have the state handing over same the funding as for the state sector.

In France, similar arrangements apply. In Sweden they have introduced freedom for practically anyone to set up a new school and to have the funding follow the pupil.

All these factors keep state schools on their toes, albeit perhaps not to a sufficient extent, but still better than here.

The problem here is that the government not only funds the schools, it insists on running them on a monopoly basis. When the government hugely increased funding a couple of years ago, did it get through to pupils? No - over three quarters of it went into teachers salaries and pension plans and higher national insurance - a clear case of producer interest.

There is a debate to be had about whether schools should be state funded (James Bartholomew believes other arrangements would be better) but social justice is not furthered by having a monopoly supplier and giving the disadvantaged no choice. If you really had the interests of the poorest and most disadvantaged at heart you would want to make sure that they had the same choice as the richest - they're just as capable of making such choices, they presently just lack the opportunity.

The original posting was:

The facts on social mobility are depressing. As the middle classes expanded after the war, there was considerable movement. But since the early 60s academic surveys tell us that mobility has declined. Studies show that for people in their 30s, the social class of their parents matters more than it did in the past.

Who said that?

Ruth Kelly in an article in today's Guardian.

Does she therefore conclude that state education, far from having improved social mobility, has damaged it and should be abandoned. Of course not, she concludes that she is capable of making changes that will reverse the course of the past 50 years and make state education a success.