Leading article: A courageous stand against social segregation

In recent months we have witnessed some inspiring examples of progressive action by local authorities. Woking council is promoting renewable energy, fitting parking meters with solar panels and fuelling its office with a natural gas power station. Richmond council has taken tough action to counter the proliferation of gas-guzzling vehicles, with the cost of parking the most polluting cars in parts of the borough set to treble. And now Brighton and Hove council has voted to introduce a lottery for admissions to over-subscribed state schools. The new system will come into effect in September 2008.

This is certainly a courageous decision by the council. Any shake-up of secondary education is guaranteed to be hugely divisive. And this is especially true when it comes to admissions. The council's decision has already outraged many in Brighton, with a noisy campaign of opposition mounted. The Labour-run council could easily fall over this. It is also brave of Brighton to implement the scheme unilaterally in a concentrated geographical area. Some parents will be able to opt out of the new system by sending their children to schools under the control of a different authority. A shortfall of pupils will hit the funding of Brighton's schools - and this is likely to rebound on the council, too.

Related articles

• The Big Question: Should schools use lotteries to decide the allocation of places?
• Thousands of schools set to follow Brighton with admission lotteries
• Parents divided by lottery in Brighton's 'golden halo'
• Education class war

But it is worth raising our sights above the local ramifications of this decision to consider what the effect would be if such an admissions system were to be rolled out nationally. Yes, lotteries round the country for over-subscribed schools might prompt a greater number of wealthier parents to send their children to private schools. Yet the prize is worth fighting for: a more equitable state school system after 60 years of endless reforms and tinkering that have only served to widen social divisions in Britain.

This is not about social engineering, as some claim. Ultimately, a lottery system would result in much-improved schools the length and breadth of the country. Those who defend the status quo often seem to believe that a level playing field already exists in the state education system. This could not be more wrong. It is a myth, for instance, that there is less selection in the present system. This week has provided ample evidence of its continued existence. It has emerged that the number of children in grammar schools is now greater than it was when Labour came to power. Meanwhile, a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research on faith schools will demonstrate that they are operating selection by the back door.

There are a whole host of ways in which middle-class parents rig the system in favour of their own children, from rediscovering their faith shortly before applying to a desirable church school, to joining the target school's board of governors. Perhaps the dominant factor in undermining the equity of the comprehensive school system has been the exploitation by wealthy parents of the existing admissions rule that children living near a school should be given priority. Wealthier parents are dominating the best schools by buying houses in the local area. This is not even selection by academic ability; it is selection by parental income and it is a key factor in house-price inflation. The result is growing social segregation between the prosperous, whose children go to the best schools, and the rest, who have to put up with what is left.

Those who object to lotteries argue that their introduction will lead to injustice. To the contrary, it is precisely to minimise the growing influence of injustice in our secondary schools that such radical measures are necessary. Brighton council is to be congratulated for recognising this. Other local councils should learn from its boldness.