This essay took one of the “externalities” of education, equality of opportunity, and suggested that the more extensive state intervention argued for by “the left” was not needed for its provision. This was argued by saying that what “the left” wanted from equality of opportunity was not equality as such, but merely “adequate resources” for all. An “adequate” education it was suggested, could be provided without extensive state intervention for the great majority of children. Only for those children who were (...) too poor, or whose parents were too irresponsible, would it be necessary for the state to intervene to ensure the provision of education, and then only to ensure that these children had access to sufficient funds to enable them to share in the educational experiences provided for other children. Several details in this argument need to be worked out in more detail, including the important matter of exactly what an “adequate education” might comprise. However, if these details could be worked out satisfactorily, the argument could serve to challenge the left's anxieties about moves towards a market in educational provision. The argument suggests that such moves need not lead to the sacrifice of those externalities which “the left” holds dear. (shrink)

The work of Amartya Sen and his collaborators on Indian economic development compares three Indian states so as to demonstrate the superior performance of interventionist, left‐wing governments in West Bengal and Kerala compared to the more typical state of Uttar Pradesh. A careful analysis of the evidence, however, shows that Sen et al. ignore the anti‐interventionist implications of their own evidence of corruption in the state of Uttar Pradesh; dramatically overstate the success of leftist governments in West Bengal; and overlook (...) the role of Kerala's culture and its private education system in accounting for its famously high levels of literacy and female independence. (shrink)

This paper challenges Richard Pring's suggestion that parents using private education may be undermining the desire for social justice and equality, using recent arguments of Adam Swift as a springboard. Swift's position on the banning of private schools, which uses a Rawlsian ‘veil of ignorance’ argument, is explored, and it is suggested that, if equality of opportunity is a major aim, it does not go far enough by permitting parental partiality. If the only alternative is a Platonic state, then this (...) may be acceptable. But a neglected third scenario, drawing on the insights of Adam Smith, shows ‘self‐love’ to be a valuable social virtue, leading to a more favourable resolution of the ‘paradox of the shipwreck’ than that explored by Swift. Pointers are given to evidence from developing countries and a more detailed ‘veil of ignorance’ argument to support this case. (shrink)

(1992). The prisoner's dilemma and educational provision: A reply to Ruth Jonathan. British Journal of Educational Studies: Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 118-133.

James Tooley; Politics, Markets and Schools Politics, Markets and America’s Schools, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 28, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages.

(1992). The prisoner's dilemma and educational provision: A reply to Ruth Jonathan. British Journal of Educational Studies: Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 118-133.

This paper, which offers a positive assessment of the role of markets in education, is a 'reply' to an earlier contribution to the Journal in which Stewart Ranson argues that markets are intrinsically flawed as a vehicle for improving educational opportunities. The 'reply', among other things, argues that Ranson fails to address the shortcomings of education under democratic control and ignores the educational benefits of authentic markets.

The early to middle nineteenth century saw a radical change in the nature of the British state, with many activities becoming the responsibility of public authorities. A key figure in this process was the journalist Edwin Chadwick. Anthony Brundage's new biography, England's Prussian Minister, gives a clear and arresting picture of the political processes which led to this growth and of Chadwick's role. However, his account is limited because of his acceptance of the necessity for government growth, which recent research (...) shows to be problematic. (shrink)