March 2, 2009
School Lotteries and Social Justice
I submitted this article to the Guardian’s Comment is Free website, but they ran with another (very good) article instead. I guess I’m arguing the same thing, but with a more complex intellectual underpinning.
*************
School Lotteries and Social Justice
Last year the introduction of random-name lotteries to allocate school places was lambasted by some Brighton parents, who claimed a right to choose which school they sent their children to. At present, 25 local authorities in the UK allocate school places by pulling names randomly from a hat. The rest allow school placements to be determined by catchment areas, meaning enrolment is dependent upon locality of residence. Critics of the name-from-hat approach call it a “lottery”, and say they favour parents’ right to “choose” schools for their children.
On Sunday Ed Balls backed parents “choosing” and said name-from-hat lotteries should be a “last resort”. But this dichotomy between “choice” and “lottery” is false. The alternative is between two different lotteries; one based on selecting names at random, the other on birth.
Random-name lottery allocation is a well-known kind of lottery: it’s the same sort you can watch on BBC1 next Saturday night, albeit with better odds. Yet those local authorities rejecting random-name lotteries in favour of catchment area approaches are simply employing a more subtle but equally arbitrary lottery. For under catchment system approaches, the children of middle class parents who can relocate to expensive neighbourhoods inside the catchments of good schools have simply been winners in the lottery of birth.
It’s no fairer for school places to be allocated on the basis of random name-drawing than on a child’s parents’ wealth. Having one’s name pulled out of a hat is as arbitrary as being born to parents who are wealthy. The difference is, when allocating school places by pulling names out of a hat this prevents rich children monopolising the best schools. As a child’s schooling will drastically affect their life prospects, it seems doubly unfair that wealthy offspring should dominate good schools. On the other hand, opting for the false category of “choice” by using catchment area selection entrenches and perpetuates inequality.
On Sunday, Ed Balls showed no comprehension of this basic truth. He stated that random-name lotteries should be used only as a “last resort”, adding that most parents would see allocating places in terms random lottery as “pretty unfair and very destabilising for their children”. But what about the unfairness poor parents face in having to send their kids to the worst schools? Surely that’s a little destabilising for their children?
Balls makes the point that random lottery is “never going to feel fully fair to parents when they can’t get their child into their first-choice school”. He’s right about that. But he doesn’t realise that parents’ disappointment is precisely why they shouldn’t make policy on the issue. Parents are too involved, too emotionally invested to make such decisions. That job rightfully falls to the State, which should be emotionally disinterested and able to consider all children impartially, without the future of a particular loved offspring at stake. What could be more impartial than drawing names randomly?
Viewing things this way, the State should realise that the dichotomy between “choice” and “lottery” is false. If poor children are not to be destined for bad schools because they are poor, random name lotteries are necessary. Not as a “last resort”, but as universal policy. And that’s without pointing out that random-name lotteries will lead to many pro-active middle class parents suddenly having a vested interest in helping to improve weak schools, and that this will help raise standards considerably.
In truth, Balls’ response typifies New Labour’s decade in power. Rather than taking a stand for the poor – for the children of the poor – Balls retreats to the safe-ground of caving to the most vocal side. Unsurprisingly that turns out to be the middle class parents with a vested interest in catchment systems. Rather than explaining why random lotteries are essential for social justice and standing up for them, Balls takes the path of least resistance and sells out the poor. But then, did you expect anything else?
Peter said,
March 2, 2009 at 11:59 pm
What annoyed me was this
“Schools Secretary Ed Balls has asked the chief schools adjudicator to look at how widely random selection is used and whether it is fair to children”
- It’s a random lottery! Provided that each child has the same number of “balls” in the hypothetical lottery machine, it’s by definition fair. Silly Ed Balls.
On lotteries and fairness, you might be interested in Ben Saunders’ DPhil thesis. He discusses an idea called lottery voting. I think it can function as a response to worries about democracy not taking account of persistent minorities (such as the worries Peter Jones raises in “Political Equality and Majority Rule”, one of my favourite papers).
In summary, lotteries are cool *and* interesting.
Grace said,
March 3, 2009 at 8:20 am
I think a concern is that allocating school places by lottery is unfair not in the sense of some children having more chance of getting in to the best school than others but in the sense that extra stresses will be placed on children -there will be whole primary classes who were in the catchement area (so previously knew exactly what school they were going to and with which of their friends) who will instead have to wait nervously for weeks for the result of a lottery. Perhaps it’s an unfair disruption? (I do overall think it’s a good idea though.)
Rob said,
March 3, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Colour me sceptical that the concern is that extra stresses will be placed on children: I think the concern is likely either that people won’t get their kids into the best school that their various forms of capital can leverage for them or a status quo bias. However, that’s not to say that there couldn’t be a legitimate concern. It’s not just that it’ll initially be disruptive, but that there are actually good reasons for having children go to local schools: they’re easier to travel to, their pupils are more likely to share similar socio-cultural backgrounds, their pupils can form friendships with the fellows more easily since they live closer by, the parents of pupils can also form friendships more easily for the same reason, and probably all kinds of other reasons. Now, none of those seem likely to be indefeasible reasons, but they are reasons in favour of local schools. A lottery may be justified, but it’s not justified just because the alternative is at root similarly random: there are things to be said in favour of distribution of places at a school geographically.
Paul said,
March 3, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Geography is certainly important, and to be considered.
But normally I think social justice trumps geographic convenience.
Oh, and why is it a good thing to have children only going to school with peers from the same socio-economic background?