Equality of opportunity in an unequal world

As shown in the next section, not one of these conditions is currently met by any national school system, nor is it clear that all four forms of education equality are desirable.

Equality of education

Alan Bennett says that forcing all students to attend state-run schools will create a "level playing field." This claim implies that state schools provide an equal education to all their students, yet state schools are far from equal.

Although all Australian schools teach some version of the National Curriculum, those with superior resources may supplement their teaching with additional subjects, provide more elaborate facilities (swimming pools, sporting grounds) and offer a greater range of extra-curricular activities. The differences among schools are extreme. Rural and remote schools (both private and state-run) may lack basic internet connectivity, while selective metropolitan schools (both private and state-run) offer state-of-the-art computing facilities. Class sizes and teacher qualifications vary widely across public and private schools. When it comes to resources, neither the private nor the public sector can claim their schools are even remotely equal.

Student admission policies also vary. Unlike most public schools, which accept all local students, private schools usually get to choose their students. Critics of private education believe that sharing classes with other selected students confers an advantage on private school students. They often neglect to mention that some state schools are also selective, and their students experience the same benefit.

Student achievement, as measured by standardised tests such as the National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), also differs markedly among schools. Some differences result from exceptional teaching, but much of the variability in performance relates to social status. That is, students from wealthy families perform better on standardised tests than those from disadvantaged families. This relationship holds for both private and state schools.

In summary, it is fair to say that equality is not an objective feature of Australian education. Both private and state schools differ in resources, admissions policies and learning outcomes. Since state schools are not any more equal than private schools, why do critics believe that forcing all students to attend them will produce a level playing field? To answer this question, we must move from objective measures of equality to consider the fourth definition of equality-an abstract ideal and a philosophical construct known as equality of opportunity.

Equality of opportunity

Although critics of private education rarely mention it, parents' right to choose private education is enshrined in international conventions. Various Australian governments have adopted these agreements and promulgated them through the Australian Human Rights Commission. An example is the United Nations' International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which states:

Parties … undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State. (Article 13, Paragraph 3).

It could not be any clearer. The ICESCR, which holds the force of law, confirms that parents and guardians can enrol their children in government-approved private schools if they wish. A more recent agreement (the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) reaffirms "the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions."

The United Nations and the Australian Human Rights Commission are not made up of right-wing reactionaries dedicated to protecting the privileges of the wealthy. Quite the contrary. Yet, both organisations uphold the right of parents to send their children to private schools. Why do critics judge parents as immoral for exercising an internationally recognised legal right? The answer lies in the existence of other rights that critics believe should take precedence.

Rights "inflation" is a well-known problem for policymakers. Once governments start to specify them, rights tend to multiply, get tangled, and even conflict. For example, the ICESCR, which acknowledges the right to private schooling, also guarantees every child the right to an "equal opportunity for education." As critics point out, not everyone has the chance to attend a private school; some families cannot afford the fees. Instead of offering such families scholarships, critics want private schools to close and force all students into the public system. This does nothing to ensure that state schools provide students with a high-quality education; it merely compels everyone to attend them. If equality of opportunity is the goal, then education policy should be based on something more positive than spite. It must guarantee every child an equal right to a high-quality education. The following section discusses what such a guarantee involves.

Equality under a policy: rules for allocation

Carving a lamb roast for a family dinner is not typically considered a moral dilemma. Still, as philosopher Mary Warnock points out, the carver does face an ethical decision-how big a portion should each family member receive? One possibility is to serve everyone an equal share of meat. Equal sharing is the egalitarian ideal; every family member has a right to meat, and each receives the same amount. But children usually eat less than adults. An equal allocation would leave the adults hungry and the children with leftovers or tummy aches. Because family members have different appetites, the server decides to allocate the roast proportionally; adults will receive larger portions than children. Other allocation rules are possible. For example, more significant amounts could go to those who helped prepare the dinner or to those who derive the most pleasure from eating lamb.