School vouchers are something I really think Lib Dems should be advocating, and it's a shame that the Tories seem to be more open to the idea. The school voucher system has been in use in the Netherlands for over 90 years already, and it seems it hasn't hurt anybody, but it has increased choice a lote.

It's also worth noting we already have an implicit voucher system in this country, in the respect that the funding of schools is based on money following the pupils, based on need. The 'choice' on how those vouchers are spent tends to be delegated to LEAs.

The point of contention in the voucher debate then is whether those 'vouchers' should become explicit and be controlled by parents. It is unclear to me why liberals should argue that centralising power in the hands of the LEA is a superior system to devolving it to parents. Particularly when we consider that vouchers are often used as a way of empowering the lower-income parents who are most often let down by the public-school system.

Lib Dem policy at the moment also implies a sort of voucher system as pupils would go to different schools when they chose a course in said school. funding would follow the pupil. I agree that the debate probably is in part alot more to do with the use of the term "school voucher" rather than the principals itself. I think though there is a greater debate about whether or not theese are "top upable". Which of course would give children of the rich a immediate advantage and damage the idea of equal esteem in state funded education.

I'm not sure why allowing vouchers to be topped up would give the children of the rich an advantage. Fees at top end private schools are high because of all the fripperies that are deemed necessary for rich kids (shooting lessons, stabling for Francesca's pony and so on). These have nothing to do with educational outcomes which are, after all, the object of the exercise.

As has been pointed out, liberals are not meant to oppose people spending money on what they like. If Francesca's parents want to send her to a school where everyone has a pony, why should a liberal seek to prevent them. I can see why a socialist would do this, but a liberal?

I have nothing against parents sending their children to a private school and paying the fee. I dont think though that they should be able to claim some of that fee out of tax payers money.The money you pay in tax for education is meant to go into building a education system that is equal for all.

Why should they not get some tax money for it?
They pay taxes (probably more than most others), should the not benefit?

Do you support the Labour government's scrapping of the Assisted Place scheme under which people who had much to benefit from an education the state sector cannot provide got government help to get a better education at private schools?

An ideological opposition to the private sector hinders social mobility, it hinders the opportunities for the poorest making them only available to the rich.

I dont have a "ideological opposition" to the private sector and i have no idea on what grounds you assert that.

They do benefit from also having the garuntee of a free education should they fall on hard times.

In the Netherlands the majority of the schools are private. Many of the private schools are based on some religious denomination, and many are not. Many non-religious, and some religious schools use some alternative pedagogy, like Montessori, Dalton or Jenaplan. Parents can choose to which school they send their children, and then use the school vouchers to pay for the school.

The vouchers are funded with taxes, and as the taxation is proportional, the rich of course pays more for education than the poor. But naturally the children of the rich are just as entitled to get the education for which their parents have already paid for as the children of the poor. The voucher covers only the normal education. If the parents want that their children can attend riding lesson or something similar, they'll have to arrange their children to those courses by themselves, and pay for them separately.

I don't see what is the problem, if such courses would be arranged for extra charge in the same school which provides also normal education, paid with the school vouchers, as long as the vouchers don't cover the shooting lessons or stabling of the ponies.