Readers will find much to like about this book, these criticisms notwithstanding. Both the historical and ethical overviews will be quite informative to those dipping their toes into choice debates for the first time. Yet there might have been much wider uptake had the authors not limited the analysis to a single country – a parochial feature that regrettably runs through the entire History and Philosophy of Education series. They briefly acknowledge a ‘wider international context’ (MM, p. 122), with Chile and Finland receiving a passing mention. But non-American readers expecting some new insights concerning the ethics of school choice beyond the narrow and highly politicized public charter school debate in the United States will be disappointed. Had both the conceptual and empirical lens been a bit wider, the authors might have avoided the dubious ‘proversus anti-choice’ frame; we also might have been invited to think about other pertinent facets of school choice that are a standard feature of state education systems outside of the United States.

中文翻译：

---

下定决心：对 Ahlberg、Howell、Justice 和 Merry 的回应

尽管有这些批评，但读者会发现很多喜欢这本书的地方。对于那些第一次涉足选择辩论的人来说，历史和伦理概述都将提供大量信息。然而，如果作者不将分析限制在一个国家，那么可能会有更广泛的理解——令人遗憾的是，这是贯穿整个教育史和教育哲学系列的狭隘特征。他们简要地承认了“更广泛的国际背景”（MM，第 122 页），顺便提及了智利和芬兰。但是，期望在美国狭隘且高度政治化的公立特许学校辩论之外对学校选择伦理有一些新见解的非美国读者会感到失望。如果概念和经验镜头都更宽一点，作者可能避免了可疑的“证明反选择”框架；我们也可能被邀请思考学校选择的其他相关方面，这些方面是美国以外州教育系统的标准特征。