Paul – Deborah was clear that she valued choice as a process over educational improvement as an outcome.

Darel, that’s correct but merely serves to reinforce my concern. Evidence-based policy might proceed from theory, but theory absent fact is a poor platform for policy making.

The issue of the centrality of choice is a recurring theme and what’s frustrated me in this discussion is the framing of the NZ system as somehow lacking choice. Leaving aside geographical zones for one moment (which is as much a logistical matter as it is an ideological one), in aggregate the NZ system provides significant choice and, equally imporantly, significant information. In this context, as opposed to the Swedish context, then, the threshold for further choice must be high and must require data showing choice will lead to better learner outcomes.

Deb Coddington and others proposing vouchers must be challenged to prove the merit of their specific argument.

Just because an idea might be a good one doesn’t mean you should apply it to everyone because (a) it probably won’t work for some people (b) you might want to test if it works with a smaller group and (c) a large number of people probably don’t want the option at all and will use universal coverage to attack it (choose an education union), thereby buying problems you don’t really need.

Additionally, choice tends to work best at the margins. Roger Kerr once gave me an example I really liked (and I’m sure I’ve told it to you before) that he didn’t choose his supermarket based on the price of breads, but he knew that others did, which kept the supermarkets on their toes because they didn’t want to lose the marginal customers, but also benefitted Roger in keeping his bills down. Similarly, choice in education is likely to be exercised by people at the margins but affect everyone (let’s leave aside the arguments about the impacts of that choice, but deal with the basic concept). So applying something to a small group will probably have impacts across the board anyway.

But anyway, I’m not arguing this post on what I personally believe in but the poltiics and policy issues around it. As I’ve already said, I don’t think the paper (and its percentages) hold up that well as a package, but the underlying ideas have power.

Paul, I think the Minister will ask a taskforce (if she appoints one) to look at some of the themes in the paper. I don’t think she’ll give the paper itself much formal status, thereby avoiding the need to conduct a formal review of it.

Dave – Why is my thinking central? If you believe this is a good idea then what’s the argument for government deciding to limit it to the margins rather than parents deciding that? If you’re right then the vast majority of the 75% in-between will do nothing. If you’re wrong and they want the choice, why shouldn’t they have it? And hell, if Deborah’s right then value resides in the choice process itself even if they do nothing which would be an argument, possibly a bit weak, for expanding the choice to all.

In my Masters I had a hypothesis about right wing people placing value on choice even if they didn’t get their preferred outcome. The context was VSM, CSM. It was a minor by-way in my work. Turns out I was wrong (No one valued choice without the outcome they wanted). In that very narrow context it didn’t have value. But I still think for the right issues Deborah has a point about choice having inherent value.

Her’s was a faith-based view, not fact-based. I’m not in the slightest bit interested in policy-by-divination, not for my kids, not even for yours.

Dave, I’d've thought that the proponents of voucher-based arrangements would hope for a better piece of work. It’ll run a headline or two but it’s not credible as you yourself note. Should the Minister ask for official advice on it’s merits (which you’d hope she would except how on earth do officials do that in these circumstances?) I don’t imagine it’ll be flattering.

Cutting contracts is difficult, but I think it will be easier than having performance-based funding. But I’d expect to see some people paid to work on all the options before anything is implemented.

Paul, I’m not that concerned about the paper itself – it’s a political thinkpiece developed by 6 MPs from different parties outside the normal policy process. It was either going to be (a) brief and meaningless or (b) longer and have some disconnected ideas (obviously we got b). What happens next is what really interests me.

My experience of ITOs is that the TEC preferred gradual funding shifts from poorer performing ITOs, as they defined it, to better performing ITOs.

That’s right however, in doing so officials very sensibly recognised that learner achievement wasn’t itself the best measure of the performance of the ITO. An industry with little history of structured workplace learning or an industry staffed by people with comparatively low levels of skill will never achieve the same qualification completions as, say, the trades.

This report doesn’t even begin to examine these kinds of second-order issues, it merely skims over international systems and quickly knocks up a set of arrangements.

I’ve noted at publicaddress that in a discussion with Deborah Coddington at Stephen Franks blog, she conceded that she didn’t know how vouchers would affect learning outcomes; without a clear answer on this, why would you bother?

I agree with David’s subtle criticism; perhaps this isn’t the best way to develop policy?

I caught John Hattie on this prior to 7pm on Morning Report. He was being very careful to be constructive which is good because people like him need to be involved. So the less his own words make him a political football, the better.

The main point I took from him is his belief that intra-school differences matter the most not inter-school differences. So if you want better education results you need to work on bringing the poorer teachers up to the level of the better teachers at every school, etc.

I like your third point about cutting contracts after a period of non-performance and warnings. But how many Ministers have the will to allow that to happen very much?

My experience of ITOs is that the TEC preferred gradual funding shifts from poorer performing ITOs, as they defined it, to better performing ITOs.

Maybe your experience PTEs gives you more confidence in Ministers not being tempted to save more organisations than they should.

I look at the grief Trevor Mallard got closing schools and I wonder. I don’t have a good memory of Nat Ministers in the 1990s and schools so don’t know if there were any brave ones on this.

I’m genuinely intrigued. So good politics.