Some supporters of state education in Britain accuse selective schools and private schools of creaming off talent which would otherwise remain in the state comprehensive schools to benefit the other children. Parents who choose these alternative schools are accused of selfishness.

The argument has interesting assumptions. In Britain those who pay towards their child's education receive no rebate. They have to pay for the state education they do not use as well as the fee-paying one. They leave more resources in the state system as a result of their choice, which does not seem selfish.

The idea that academically gifted children, if they attended sub-standard state schools, would somehow inspire and motivate the others, is strange. It seems to belong to the fairy tales which social engineers tell each other round the camp-fires. In the real world such children are often bullied and demotivated, and scorned because study lacks any street-cred. Educated with others of their kind, however, they can become high achievers.

More offensive is the notion that bright children are a precious resource, owned by the state, to be shared out equally. Their own hopes and aspirations, and those of their parents, apparently don't count. They are to be treated instead as the mere instruments of an egalitarian state. We know where that leads.

It might be more productive to devise ways in which the choice of a better school can be extended to all parents, without anyone being forced to take the sub-standard, producer-dominated model which is far too prevalent.