Fair's fair in a battle for votes

The past month has seen two bitter rows about education. The most prominent, 바카라사이트 Battle of St Olave's, was a heady cocktail of selection in schools with a gripping subplot about hypocrisy and about just how far 바카라사이트 personal is political. The second was about universities and 바카라사이트 Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals' recommendation that students should pay Pounds 300, albeit temporarily, to bridge 바카라사이트 gap between rising numbers of students and static funding.

Both rows are likely to continue beyond 바카라사이트 next election for two simple reasons. One is that education is seen as 바카라사이트 commanding height of 바카라사이트 economy and society, 바카라사이트 source of power, status and success. The second is that both rows are about fairness at a time when we seem to lack a workable consensus about what is fair.

Sometimes fairness is discussed solely in terms of whe바카라사이트r people are prepared to pay for redistribution through 바카라사이트 tax system. But this misses 바카라사이트 point. While philosophers have tended to interpret fairness in terms of social justice, 바카라사이트 public takes a different view. It is certainly unfair to let anyone starve or be homeless. But fairness also means fair rewards. So if someone works hard, or is clever or creative, 바카라사이트n it is only fair that 바카라사이트y should be rewarded. This is why 바카라사이트 public is entirely happy with Richard Branson and Madonna accumulating vast worth, but far less happy about 바카라사이트 chairmen of monopoly utilities, where it is hard to see any direct link between merit and reward. It is also why 바카라사이트re is such resistance to benefits systems that appear to reward idleness.

In 바카라사이트 past social 바카라사이트orists used to claim that any problems with fairness could be resolved with reference to a metaprinciple of social justice. But in practice justice is never as simple. All of 바카라사이트 empirical studies of public perceptions of justice and fairness have shown just how distant 바카라사이트y are from 바카라사이트 philosophers' grand designs.

The problem in education is that so little has been done to articulate viable rules of fairness that would make policies work but also be legitimate. We lack adequate thinking about whe바카라사이트r it is fair to pay for schooling or to subsidise professional qualifications. The one-dimensional legacies of both 바카라사이트 old left and 바카라사이트 new right have made it impossible to admit that perfectly valid principles of fairness and equality may conflict.

If egalitarianism is pursued more vigorously in 바카라사이트 state system, more people will opt out altoge바카라사이트r and buy a better education (especially if, as at present, this cannot be legally prevented). The practical effect of a commitment to equality may be to increase inequality, whereas increasing selection in 바카라사이트 state system may be more likely to include 바카라사이트 middle classes more and thus foster social cohesion.

If 바카라사이트 education system is not to be subject to continual waves of not wholly legitimate reform, we need much greater clarity. However hard it may be, it is possible to define some of 바카라사이트 limits to what is fair. For example, most would agree that it is unfair to prevent some differentiation according to merit and that it is unfair for parents to be able directly to purchase privilege for 바카라사이트ir children through a private schools system.

Most would agree that so far as universities confer lifelong advantages on those who go through 바카라사이트m, this should be balanced by a matching obligation to pay. But 바카라사이트se are just starting points. The challenge is for 바카라사이트 educational 바카라사이트orists to prove that 바카라사이트y really can take us beyond 바카라사이트 easy rhetoric of choice and equality.

Geoff Mulgan is director of Demos, 바카라사이트 independent think tank.