« Honduran thoughts | Main | A very good two sentences »
The Commanding Heights
Australian bloggers Andrew Norton and Andrew Leigh will debate public education in a series of posts. Judging by Andrew Norton's first missive it will be a good debate.
People are used to the idea of state schools, so they don’t think about how uneasily government-controlled education fits with liberal democracy. If someone said that Australia’s media should be owned by the state, with journalists told by the state what they should say, with media audiences examined to make sure they had absorbed the official line, there would be predictable and justifiable outrage.
Yet public education means essentially that for Australia’s young people. The government owns most schools, employs most teachers, tells them what to teach through state-set curricula, and examines students to make sure they have it right—even kids escaping to private schools can’t avoid these last two aspects of state-run education. And unlike state-owned media, there are severe consequences for ignoring state education....
Hat tip to New Economist.
Addendum: Andrew Leigh's first reply is here.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on December 3, 2007 at 07:05 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
I see the exactly same system in India including the private school blurb. I wonder if British raj would have any thing to do with it...
Posted by: Pankaj Kumar at Dec 3, 2007 11:31:08 AM
I won't claim to contribute to the debate, but I do have a list of topics that I hope they cover.
Posted by: John Barrdear at Dec 3, 2007 11:36:08 AM
This was viewed as a feature, not a bug, by the designers of the public education system here in the states. they were explicitly attempting to take a nation of different nationalities and make them "Americans".
Posted by: mickslam at Dec 3, 2007 1:20:52 PM
The purpose of state run schools is indoctrination, and I don't think anyone tries to deny that anymore, do they?
The arguement that state run schools is to give everyone a good education is easily crushed. Virtually all states provide assistance with food, housing, and clothing, without having state-run monopolies in those areas. There is no reason that the state simply couldn't pay for all students to recieve a private education.
Even if you were worried that the rich could afford better schools than the poor (ignoring the huge disparities in the quality of the current state-run education system, of course), the state could simply require that all private schools charge a single fixed tuition. Say that the government would give everyone an educational voucher for $15,000 a year, and no school would be allowed to charge more than that $15,000 a year.
The arguement about public education is really an arguement about youth-indoctrination. You are either for a centralized government-run youth-indoctrination system, or you are against it. However, term and concept of "youth-indoctrination" has a certain totalitarian Orwellian feel to it, even for the people who support it, so it needs to be veiled in terms like "public education" to make those people more comfortable with the idea.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Dec 3, 2007 2:24:05 PM
I like the above first volley in the debate because it shows an inconsistency.
If you discuss the teaching of creationism in schools, democrats will insist that it not be taught in government funded schools no matter what the parents want on grounds that it is unscientific but I am sure that they would against banning creationism from TV and Radio. That seems a little inconsistent to me. Young minds are considered more subject to indoctrination maybe it is fortunate that this seems not to be true.
Posted by: Floccina at Dec 3, 2007 3:33:47 PM
Rex Rhino--
The purpose of state run schools is indoctrination because the purpose of education is indoctrination. This is true, whether you're attending a private evangelical christian school, Bronx Science, or a Montessori school--"indoctrination" is a pejorative synonym for "education". People who rail against public school "indoctrination", do so because they think all parents should be free to choose how they indoctrinate their children, and this always, in the US, bumps up against establishment of religion--every time abolition of private education comes up in this country, much of the support comes from anti-science, anti-reason, religious zealots who want the state to fund indoctrination into anti-scientific myth.
I fear that the fiscal conservatives would be willing to strike a deal with the religious conservatives in order to dismantle public education. Megan McArdle argues that we should(http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/vouching_for_vouchers.php). This really scares me. Any talk of dismantling private education needs to make very clear how it will not allow public funding of religious organizations--I dont' see nearly enough discussion of this by those who identify themselves as libertarians, to assuage my fears.
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist at Dec 3, 2007 3:39:45 PM
...and what a terrific job the private media is doing. USA Today is a terrific model for education. Fantabulous. Kwality with a captial K.
Anyhoo, I'm underwhelmed by this "gotcha" moment about public v. private media and its baseline for an an argument for privatizing education.
There's indoctrination and indoctrination. I would suspect a fully private system would slide quickly down the slippery slope to McHighschool with your gym class sponsored by Pepsi, and economics classes brought to you by the NAR ("its always a good time to buy or sell real estate!").
Posted by: gondwana at Dec 3, 2007 3:43:27 PM
"Any talk of dismantling private education needs to make very clear how it will not allow public funding of religious organizations"
Do you mean dismantling of public schools? Anyway, even negative income taxes allow public funding of religious organizations. I don't think there's anyway around this if you want both free choice and public funding.
Posted by: josh at Dec 3, 2007 4:25:04 PM
Fearless prediction number 1: the pro government crowd will provide no substantiative arguments as to why public education is a good thing or why it is superior to the private alternative.
Fearless prediction number 2: the pro government crowd will make draconian pronouncements about how privatized schools will be nothing more than creepy, corporatized wastelands.
I will stand back and watch. In the meantime, public schools throughout the nation will continue to pump out kids incapable of learning beyond a very basic level.
Posted by: John Pertz at Dec 3, 2007 5:13:51 PM
I think the public school system above the sixth grade could easily be replaced with private education specialists, web based technology, and standardized third party testing to issue certifications rather than diplomas. Issue vouchers and let the kids study whatever they want - with advice from parents of course. I think that trade schools, arts schools, and apprenticeships would be the big winners, and that the liberal arts would be the big losers.
Posted by: Randy at Dec 3, 2007 5:19:18 PM
Josh--
Yes, I'm sorry, I meant to write "dismantling public education".
John Pertz--
I am predicting that privatized schools without strict protections against public funding of religions will result in privatized schools that are an orthodox religious wasteland. I know that some Catholic schools are quite good, but they already exist. A large part of this drive toward dismantling public education comes from fundamentalist Christians who want to indoctrinate children with a non-secular world view. If self-identifying libertarians want to convince secular non-dogmatic libertarians, they need to address this concern, rather than bitterly deriding their position as unworthy of respect.
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist at Dec 3, 2007 5:32:51 PM
I don't like privatization of education because the majoriy of my portfolio is in my house, and most of
that value derives from the fact that it's located in a good school district that only other rich people
could afford to buy into. If education opportunities were decoupled from school districts, my portolio
will fall by 80% because I'm too cool to buy stocks or bonds, and I don't want that to happen.
Ah, damn! Who slipped me that truth serum????
Posted by: Person at Dec 3, 2007 5:40:38 PM
I believe a particularly effective compromise has been reached elsewhere (particularly India) based on the following model:
(1) There are government run schools as well as private enterprenoural ventures. Competition is ensured but with the government as one player. (remniscent of the US University system?)
(2) The private schools are allowed to solicit a "grant" from the government. This is on a pro-rated per-student basis.
(3) As a precondition to grant eligibility the government subjects schools to a minimum amout of "quality assuarance"
In this system parents woud be free to select schools that fit their flavor of indoctrination so long as it isn't too rabid. ("quality-assuarance")
Posted by: Raul at Dec 3, 2007 5:48:29 PM
"Fearless prediction number 1: the pro government crowd will provide no substantiative arguments as to why public education is a good thing or why it is superior to the private alternative."
Seems a tad smug. Who is the onus on, here, and who gets the benefit of the doubt? What is the substantive argument for privatization again? The purging of "liberal" values from education entirely? I suspect this isn't about quality at all.
"Fearless prediction number 2: the pro government crowd will make draconian pronouncements about how privatized schools will be nothing more than creepy, corporatized wastelands."
It's a valid response to the knee jerk loathing of anything public. It's a concern over curriculum -- if "indoctrination" is inevitable, who sets the agenda"? I'd rather have that process sit within a flawed democratic system that in the hands of for profit enterprise. At least there is some vestige of public accountability, rather than trying to "shop" for an agenda I like (while [draconia alert] students at the local McHigh replace Martin Luther King's birthday with Ayn Rand day).
The draconian pronouncements are simply a rhetorical device meant to highlight what should be the obvious conflict between seeking profits to maximize shareholder return, and delivering education.
Raul perhaps has helped with a moderate position.
Posted by: gondwana at Dec 3, 2007 6:19:46 PM
Why doesn't anyone ever mention that education in most fields and circumstances is in fact completely free, and has been for some time? The purpose of most schooling today is primarily day-care and a means to rate potential employees. I do not believe public education is at all efficient for either of those uses.
I'm a computer engineering student at the University of Florida. I only have to buy textbooks when the professor covers something very idiosyncratic which is only in a specific book. Likewise, going to class is completely optional in most cases as well. I (and the state of Florida) do not pay to learn, I pay to be graded and handed a diploma.
However, I do not believe the current system of "education" will be properly replaced by more efficient mechanisms as long as it is heavily subsidized by both government and charity.
Posted by: G at Dec 3, 2007 7:19:32 PM
If you want to feed hungry, will you nationalize the food industry? Because private industry would mean unequal access to food...?
I don't understand this argument for public schools. If somebody really thinkgs government should help the poor, wouldn't the solution rather be private education with government paying the really poor the tuition?
Posted by: andy at Dec 3, 2007 7:25:51 PM
I'd rather have that process sit within a flawed democratic system that in the hands of for profit enterprise. At least there is some vestige of public accountability, rather than trying to "shop" for an agenda I like (while [draconia alert] students at the local McHigh replace Martin Luther King's birthday with Ayn Rand day).The process would not sit with for-profit enterprises. The process would sit with the parents and children seeking education. They may choose to attend a for-profit school, or they may not. The market process, especially when parenting is concerned, is not biased towards enterprises concerned only with monetary gain; all gains are subjective.
Education is just an investment in oneself. Who is in the best position to judge how to make that investment?
Posted by: G at Dec 3, 2007 7:29:55 PM
Hi
Best wishes。
北京数据恢复中心引进先进设备-常年提供数据恢复|RAID数据恢复|服务器数据恢复等服务
并提供高、中、低压锅炉无缝管、流体无缝管、结构无缝管、化肥专用钢管、石油裂化无缝钢管、
地质钢管、液压支柱钢管
合金钢管|无缝管|无缝钢管
等论文发表资讯/刊物信息，协助客户制定论文发表方案.
xicao loves
loves xicao
娱乐博客
台州网站建设台州网站推广
台州网站优化台州网络公司
台州网站建设台州网站推广
台州网站优化台州网站建设|网站推广|网站优化|google优化|网站优化|搜索引擎优化|网站优化|搜索引擎优化|百度优化|SEO
Posted by: RAID数据恢复 at Dec 3, 2007 8:16:39 PM
Wow... I just read Andrew Leigh's response, and its really quite terrible. He doesn't really justify any of his positions with much rigor. His conclusion sums it up best,
Public education is worth preserving because it helps engender shared knowledge and values;Why is this indoctrination a good thing? How do we know when we've gotten too much "shared knowledge and values"? How does the government determine these things?
...because a public system guarantees access for all children;Why is this a good thing? Wouldn't a better goal to be to guarantee access for all children who can and will benefit from a formal education? Why should we spend money to education the ineducable?
...because its economies of scale will often make the public sector more efficient than the private sector.Why can't the private sector take advantage of economies of scale? Are there anti-trust laws which prevent this? How does the state know how much "scale" is enough?
Posted by: G at Dec 3, 2007 8:34:33 PM
I'm very sympathetic to this argument. However....
When I am in my car, I find that the only talk radio stations worth listening to at all are the local NPR affiliates. Hmmmm.
Posted by: ed at Dec 3, 2007 8:49:59 PM
"The process would sit with the parents and children seeking education."
I dunno. Have you eaten at a fast food restaurant? Did you feel like that process "sat" with you, that it was geared to the most positive nutritional experience for you, or that you were being pused through as quickly as possible so that the restaurant could make its money? Sure you could leave...and go to the next fast food restaurant. How much choice do you really feel you have in the marketplace? Everyone eats fast food, so there are a lot of fast food restaurants. If eveyone chose crap education, you'd see options evaporate pretty quickly.
I think one of the problems here is that we haven't thought about what education is "for". There was a semi-paranoid post on indoctrination above, which is actually close to the mark. Surely there is some aspect of citizenship that is a part of education, not merely skills training for employment. I suppose with this group though, any mention of a public realm in which we live and any sort of obligation we mght have to one another to comport ourselves in a way that advances the common good (not just by leaving eachother alone and choosing better products and services) smacks of hippy liberalism. But surely education IS as much for the public good as much for the good of the education "consumer". I would be very leery of leaving that to for-profit entities. Think of what this nation would look like if students were pushed through a McHighschool, or learned history from Halliburton, or what have you. It boggles the mind. We are the most corporate programmed consumerist nation on earth. Personally, I think that's a limiting thing. It's as much about all of our culture as it is abut the simple purchase of a service.
Posted by: gondwana at Dec 4, 2007 12:45:19 AM
If you want to see education as indoctrination, fine. In that view, a government set curriculum could be seen as a minimum level of indictrination we think all children should receive. Because we know from experience that parents, when left alone, are very well capable of indoctrinating their children with any rubbish available ( yes, there are people who want to see their children become communists, Confusionists, catholics, beauty queens or libertarians). Even worse, many people will not indoctrinate their children at all. McDonalds is cheap, easy and popular.
In a free society, people are allowed to do this. But is it so bad to also have a minimum amount of 'generally acceptable indoctrination', aka education, both for the benefit of the children and of society as a whole? Society works better if people have some shared background, and children's best interest is not 100% the same as their parents' opinion of this. It is not one-or-the-other. Children can get government-set indoctrination, and still get their fair share of parental-chosen indoctrination, or neglect.
I would say the discussion is about two separate issues. The issue of government-determined curricula or curriculum goals, and the issue of government run or funded schools. One can have private schools that are obliged to teach, among everything else they want to teach, a set of government set subjects, and must do this in an honest fashion. One can also have government-run or funded schools that set their own curriculum. Think state universities.
Posted by: GreatZamfir at Dec 4, 2007 5:35:07 AM
G wrote:
Why doesn't anyone ever mention that education in most fields and circumstances is in fact completely free, and has been for some time? The purpose of most schooling today is primarily day-care and a means to rate potential employees. I do not believe public education is at all efficient for either of those uses.
This seems so true to me. Home schoolers that I know are being very inovative and are way ahead of schools in this area.
Posted by: Floccina at Dec 4, 2007 10:41:52 AM
gondwana,
I dunno. Have you eaten at a fast food restaurant? Did you feel like that process "sat" with you, that it was geared to the most positive nutritional experience for you, or that you were being pused through as quickly as possible so that the restaurant could make its money? Sure you could leave...and go to the next fast food restaurant. How much choice do you really feel you have in the marketplace? Everyone eats fast food, so there are a lot of fast food restaurants. If eveyone chose crap education, you'd see options evaporate pretty quickly.Yes, it was my choice to enter that restaurant. No one expects quality filet mignon at McDonalds, and no one expects an MIT education at ITT Technical Institute. A lot of people do choose a crap education. A lot of people don't. A lot of people don't need an education at all. If you believe the majority of people are going to make such poor choices about themselves, how is this majority going to democratically make better choices about other people?
GreatZamfir, the government is not whatever you can imagine it and want it to be. Sure we'd all like it to provide quality education. I'd also like it to provide me with a harem. But who is more likely to make decisions in the best interests of students: The students themselves and their parents, or the state?
Society works better if people have some shared background, and children's best interest is not 100% the same as their parents' opinion of this. It is not one-or-the-other. Children can get government-set indoctrination, and still get their fair share of parental-chosen indoctrination, or neglect.So children don't get any education outside of parents and government schooling? They get a "shared background" from things pretty far removed from parenting and school. Social interaction, for one.
Its all pretty irrelevant anyway. Children are going to learn using the Internet, which will make any indoctrination a lot less effective. Its hard to convince someone of a specific world-view when they've got all the information of the world at their fingertips, and can decide for themselves. Most kids I went to school with detested the crap they fed us, which is easy to do when you have other sources of information. That whole "say no to drugs" indoctrination hasn't exactly been going so well.
Posted by: G at Dec 4, 2007 10:45:38 AM
Gondwana,
Certainly there is value in a bit of indoctrination, but does it take 12 years of "education"? Why not just have everyone who wishes apply for citizenship at age 18? To obtain citizenship one would have to pass a test, but the test would be based on easily available sources, and not require sitting through countless hours of pure boredom.
Posted by: Randy at Dec 4, 2007 11:06:45 AM
