A good education

Date: 2/12/11
How far should government interfere in influencing the course choices of students (in particular those studying in a publicly funded system)?

Vocational qualifications were given a big push by the last Labour government, they were intended to provide students with work-related skills and spanned subjects in health, hair and beauty, construction or catering.

Since then, the numbers of children being entered for traditional academic subjects has declined, while the numbers taking vocational qualifications have soared. One concern is that schools might be pushing students into “easier” subjects (e.g. leisure and tourism) to improve theirresults.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8408787.stm

In an effort to reverse this trend the Coalition are stripping vocational subjects from schools league tables and will start measuring schools by the proportion of their pupils achieving at least a C grade in “English Baccalaureate” subjects (English, maths, a science, a foreign language and either history or geography)http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/aug/24/gcse-pupils-must-do-traditional-subjects

Another complication is that, as the Coalition pursues an expansion in charter schools, it stands to lose control over the curriculum in such schools while it continues to fund them.

The questions I would like to discuss are:
-          What arguments might there be for such interference of the government in student’s choices of courses? (e.g. externalities, behavioural constraints…)
-          Even if education is free, can we not trust market forces to ensure students make the best choices considering the effect on their future prospects?
-          If we think there is an argument for interfering, do we think it should be towards encouraging practical/narrow skillsets or promoting a more well-rounded education?
-          Given that systems differ substantially between countries, which countries do we think have got it right?