Everybody does live near a highschool, but that way you end with bad and good schools because of economic indifferences.
They are doing this (rather than just basing it on location alone) to spread the pain and more importantly give children born into this world the same chances irregardless of the social economic situation of their parents.
Locality still plays an important role, but we are talking high population density neighbourhood. Most will live near at least three schools in an radius of 30m walk (10min bike ride)
Oh yes. I was arguing the (from the eyes of the government) optimal allocation isn't perse the same as maximizing the preferences of the individuals. Which is similar to your argument, except i'm emphasizing its intentional -- not a mistake. From their perspective they can help students that are not as well off, but not if they are concentrated in a single school.
I wasn't giving an opinion on whether any of this was a good (as in moral) idea or not. Although i understand there is an argument to prevent schools from becoming a political, cultural and racial mono-culture, even if a majority of the students would prefer to be at a school with 'just their kind of people'.
They are doing this (rather than just basing it on location alone) to spread the pain and more importantly give children born into this world the same chances irregardless of the social economic situation of their parents.
Locality still plays an important role, but we are talking high population density neighbourhood. Most will live near at least three schools in an radius of 30m walk (10min bike ride)