Learning the hard way
There are three main ways of allocating school places so as to make covert social selection impossible: by lottery, by ‘banding’ or on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. In a lottery system, places are allocated randomly by ballot. In a ‘banding’ system, children are divided by ability, with an equal number of children admitted from each ability band. Both systems are deemed to be ‘fair’ as they are almost impossible for parents and schools to influence. Whether liberals should be satisfied with this definition of fairness is moot, however. An ideal admissions system is not one that is hostile, or even indifferent to parent initiative. Rather, it is one that rewards parent initiative, but, crucially, which rewards the initiative of poor parents every bit as much as rich parents. For this reason, all school places, including academies, should be awarded on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. Under such a system, applications would open on a certain day and parents would be free to put their child’s name down for any school of their choice, regardless of where they live. Applications should open two years before the child is eligible to attend the school and parents could register online, by phone or in person. This is the system used in Sweden, in parts of Canada and in American Charter schools. In each case, it is the most active parents who are most likely to secure a place in a successful and popular school, although interestingly, not all such parents are part of the affluent middle classes as is often assumed. In Sweden, for example, the system has worked to the advantage of immigrant groups seeking to escape the deprivation in their community. This system will enable parents of children with learning difficulties to much more easily access schools best suited to their needs, rather than being trapped in low quality schools. While no system is perfect in every respect, this system distinguishes itself from the current admissions system by benefiting good parents, rather than rich parents. Critics might also argue that the abolition of selection reduces the ability of schools to develop specialisms. However, a nonselective admissions policy does not mean schools cannot define 28