Don't prosecute mums and dads for wanting school choice

A council will not now be prosecuting a mum for trying to get her child into a school of her choice.  Good.

It's disgraceful that we have this system of rationing in the first place.  We wouldn't put up with the state rationing jobs or houses, so why do we tolerate them telling us where and how to educate our kids?

It's the local education authorities that should be in the dock for failing to provide a suitable school - not hard working mums and dads.

Rather than use the law against mums and dads, parents need a legal right to control their child's share of local authority funding if they're not happy with what's on offer from the council.

Posted on 3 July 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

Totally agree. When we moved into the Clacton area we were hoping to get our daughter into our local school but there are simply no places. All that is on offer is a failing one which isn't local to us.

We now home educate because we have no choice!

On the subject of home education, I'd like to let you know about an Early Day Motion by Mark Field. It can be found here:

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=38985%0D%0A%09%09%09%09%09%09%09%09&SESSION=899

Hope this is helpful.

Posted on 3 July 2009 09:48 by Shirley Smith

Rumour suggested that the council called off the prosecution as the mother was going to claim that the child's main home was her grandmother's home on the same basis as Jaqui Smith claimed her sister's home was her main home.
Would have been fun!

Posted on 3 July 2009 10:24 by Brian E.

'We wouldn't put up with the state rationing jobs or houses, so why do we tolerate them telling us where and how to educate our kids?'

Simples: because the state doesn't run 'jobs' (although that is decreasingly the case as the client state grows and grows), nor housing (thanks to Right To Buy). But it continues to run education. And it does so as an overt means of social engineering.

You should be campaigning for an end to the state's involvement in education (except for a minimal inspection regime).

Meanwhile, a minor victory for the forces of liberty.

Posted on 3 July 2009 10:51 by Shakassoc

We do ration housing, it is called planning law. Compared to the RPI houses have gone up in price fourfold over the last century which is entirely because of regulation, or at least I have never heard anybody give a credible alternative mechanism.

Come to that minimum wage laws ration jobs, in a more damaging way so does national insurance.

We need to prune government drasticaly in every direction.

Posted on 3 July 2009 11:00 by Neil Ctaig

Douglas don't know where you've been hiding recently, but our government have just announced house rationing ( local people only) and for years as an employer I'm rationed to hit diversity targets on the number of women, ethnic, disabled, transgendered people I can employ. Oh and middle aged white blokes from England can just do one....oh you own the company ok you can stay but you will pay more tax to pay for all of this.

Choice? I've heard stories about it existing but don't really believe it.

Posted on 3 July 2009 11:06 by Paul

It is indeed a disgrace that so many schools are awful.
However, to mistake 4 weeks (of a convenient and temporary marital separation) in a good school's catchment area with 14 years residence (not in a good school's catchment area) is too much for this cynic.

Posted on 3 July 2009 12:31 by Nick S

Absolutely agree with your last sentence. After you get into power you must bring in vouchers that can used to offset private education expense. Nobody should have to pay twice to get a decent secondary education for a child.

Posted on 3 July 2009 14:38 by John Whitehead

I agree with you, Douglas, to an extent. The lack of choice in the system is disgraceful and I am in support of a legal right for parents to control their child's share of LA funding. However, I cannot support people in lying about the length of time they have lived in an area on their child's application form.

Posted on 3 July 2009 14:47 by Matthew Davies

Oh yes, and which of the main parties supports such a view?
The political governing class; the ruling elite class,all seem to agree that the peasantry ought to be satisfied with the bog-standard comprehensive (not of course for the offspring of the ruling elite).
Extraordinarily august personages now resting in the House of Lords have built entire careers conditioning the peasantry to accept that their offspring should be processed in comprehensives in the mame of equality and Gramsci, and now you suggest that they were wrong all along! How absurd!

Posted on 3 July 2009 17:01 by Jacuse

This woman lied and cheated. Do we support such actions?

Posted on 3 July 2009 18:55 by David Harcombe

An excellent rant against the commissariat - http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2009/07/triumphs-of-commissariat.html

But who's going to take them on? Not that apparently nice but dim Mr Lansley (can I say that in a comment on a Tory MP's blog?) or his touchy feely leader. Bring me some men with the mark of Carswell upo them.

Posted on 3 July 2009 19:51 by John Page

The outcome of the 'vote winning ploy' is predictable - it's undeliverable. There are only so many places available in 'good' schools.

Posted on 4 July 2009 12:29 by Jean Baker

Like other contributors to this comments section I have read with interest 'The Plan', in particular the section on State Provision of Education. I'm very impressed with the authors' ideas, but believe that there is a serious omission in that the question of Elective Home Education, and how this would be treated under the 'voucher scheme', is not considered. Perhaps, in the light of the recent 'independent' government Badman review and the associated proposed legislation, it's time for an update on The Plan?

Posted on 4 July 2009 13:00 by Louise Thorn

Make A Comment