POLITICS PART 8: EDUCATION
This is a brief overview, intended to get the reader started down the road of applying the liberty philosophy to education. For more in-depth examination of education, refer to:
Murray Rothbard's Education: Free and Compulsory, or
Education and the State, by E.G. West
If there's one area that has performed worse than government roads, yet is defended even more staunchly, it's state-run education. While most have no problem agreeing with criticisms like, "our education system is broken", the accepted solutions are limited to tinkering with how the state should run it. Suggesting that it's the the compulsory nature of government schools and their virtual monopoly that are the problem is bordering on heresy and thrown out of any "sensible" debate. The conflict with state-run schools and the non-aggression principle should be immediate and obvious, but this is surely an exception where we must put aside rigid principles for the greater good. After all, everyone knows that without the government running schools, only the wealthy could afford any sort of schooling, and the rest would be illiterate and impoverished, right?
Murray Rothbard's Education: Free and Compulsory, or
Education and the State, by E.G. West
If there's one area that has performed worse than government roads, yet is defended even more staunchly, it's state-run education. While most have no problem agreeing with criticisms like, "our education system is broken", the accepted solutions are limited to tinkering with how the state should run it. Suggesting that it's the the compulsory nature of government schools and their virtual monopoly that are the problem is bordering on heresy and thrown out of any "sensible" debate. The conflict with state-run schools and the non-aggression principle should be immediate and obvious, but this is surely an exception where we must put aside rigid principles for the greater good. After all, everyone knows that without the government running schools, only the wealthy could afford any sort of schooling, and the rest would be illiterate and impoverished, right?
A BRIEF HISTORY OF STATE-RUN EDUCATION
As with roads, most would be surprised to learn the history of voluntary and compulsory education. In ancient Greece, Athens eventually instituted a voluntary system and was the world's beacon of academic thought for millennia (leaving aside the fact that some, like Plato, desired a state-run institution along with his "Philosopher Kings"!). Sparta, meanwhile, had a compulsory, state-run system, and took their kids and educated them in barracks to instill state obedience. This yielded a legendary military, but also a totalitarian society that contributed little to the world or to liberty. It wasn't until after the Middle Ages, where the first modern movement for state education came about. Martin Luther and John Calvin were both leaders in bringing about compulsory education in Europe, although the reasons were less than noble. Both used state schools to indoctrinate children into becoming good Lutherans and Calvinists, and brutally persecuted those who strayed from these teachings. The Calvinists were huge influences on the Puritans, who settled parts of New England, and carried with them similar ideas about education.
As with roads, most would be surprised to learn the history of voluntary and compulsory education. In ancient Greece, Athens eventually instituted a voluntary system and was the world's beacon of academic thought for millennia (leaving aside the fact that some, like Plato, desired a state-run institution along with his "Philosopher Kings"!). Sparta, meanwhile, had a compulsory, state-run system, and took their kids and educated them in barracks to instill state obedience. This yielded a legendary military, but also a totalitarian society that contributed little to the world or to liberty. It wasn't until after the Middle Ages, where the first modern movement for state education came about. Martin Luther and John Calvin were both leaders in bringing about compulsory education in Europe, although the reasons were less than noble. Both used state schools to indoctrinate children into becoming good Lutherans and Calvinists, and brutally persecuted those who strayed from these teachings. The Calvinists were huge influences on the Puritans, who settled parts of New England, and carried with them similar ideas about education.
This was the initial motivation behind the foundation of government schools, and unsurprisingly it was Prussia, perhaps the most notoriously despotic State in Europe, that instituted the first national education system in the 17th century. One wouldn't be remiss to question if the motives were to benefit the children! Freer nations like France and England, meanwhile, resisted such measures at first. French education remained free, with the exception of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods, until the latter part of the 19th century. As an example of early French state-run education, take the Napoleonic Imperial Catechism which was to be memorized and recited by children. Some excerpts:
Q. What are the duties of Christians towards the princes who govern them, and what, in particular, are our duties towards Napoleon I, our Emperor?
A. Christians owe to the princes who govern them, and we, in particular owe to Napoleon I, our Emperor, love, respect, obedience, loyalty, military service and the taxes ordered for the preservation and defence of the Empire and his throne: we also owe him fervent prayers for his safety and for the spiritual and temporal prosperity of the state.
Q. What ought one to think of those who are lacking in their duty towards our Emperor?
A. According to the Apostle Saint Paul they would be resisting the order established by God himself, and rendering themselves worthy of eternal damnation.
Britain, which was the most literate, prosperous and free nation in the world during the 19th century, had a completely free and private education system until 1830, and a mostly free one until 1870. Ironically, they spent a larger percentage of money on educating their kids during the free period that under government control. E.G. West found 1% of national income was spent in 1833, while in 1920 (long after public schools had taken over) it had fallen to 0.7%. Historian R.K. Webb estimated that in late 1830's 2/3s to 3/4s of England's working class was literate, a striking number considering how relatively poor the world was. Furthermore, there was a substantial rate of education growth, meaning educational opportunities continued to get better, not worse. By 1880, when compulsion was finally used by the state, an astonishing 95% of 15 year olds were literate. Clearly, a voluntary, private education system in a society that values liberty is not a disaster, or only available to the wealthy, far from it!
As classical liberalism (similar to modern libertarianism) faded and gave way to the "progressive" era, the entirety of Europe and America adopted a compulsory, state-run education system. In the case of Britain, public schools were first intended to "fill the gaps", to help the poor, but soon they took over almost entirely. America had a tradition of locally run public schools, but that also has eroded as the states and Federal government adopted more controls and oversight. Ostensibly, the reasoning behind the state-run system was to provide a good education to every child, but it seldom works out this way. A trip to most poor inner city schools will show a product that is little more than a day care, and a poor one at that. Besides basic physical needs and securing rights, education is perhaps the most valuable thing for children, as well as adults. In our study of ethics, we saw it's our ability to use reason that is our primary virtue and means of survival. The primary purpose of education is to develop one's ability to harness this virtue in order to pursue life properly as a human being. A good education prepares a child to become independent and able to take on the world as an adult.
HAMPERING VIRTUE
State-run education invariably tends toward the opposite. Instead of instilling independence, it breeds conformity and obedience. The structure can't deal with each kid as an individual, so it tends to cater to the lower denominators in the classroom. While public schools might have varying successes in teaching kids facts and knowledge (a Japanese or Korean school might excel, for instance), it's generally poor at giving students the most important aspects of education- the ability to trust one's own reason and unleash critical and creative thinking skills. Innovative teaching styles are seldom tried, and course content is often watered down due to its public nature. The content and syllabuses are determined by local, state and federal school bureaucracies, which all have pressure groups advocating certain ideas. One group doesn't want evolution taught while another one would prefer an emphasis on racism. The result is a hodgepodge of differing ideas and strategies which create mental confusion, not integration. To illustrate this, examine an essential issue like rights. Did you leave high school with a coherent understanding or definition of rights? Did you even hear, let alone read a paper on the non-aggression principle?
On second thought, perhaps expecting a philosophic grasp of rights is setting the bar too high!
Q. What are the duties of Christians towards the princes who govern them, and what, in particular, are our duties towards Napoleon I, our Emperor?
A. Christians owe to the princes who govern them, and we, in particular owe to Napoleon I, our Emperor, love, respect, obedience, loyalty, military service and the taxes ordered for the preservation and defence of the Empire and his throne: we also owe him fervent prayers for his safety and for the spiritual and temporal prosperity of the state.
Q. What ought one to think of those who are lacking in their duty towards our Emperor?
A. According to the Apostle Saint Paul they would be resisting the order established by God himself, and rendering themselves worthy of eternal damnation.
Britain, which was the most literate, prosperous and free nation in the world during the 19th century, had a completely free and private education system until 1830, and a mostly free one until 1870. Ironically, they spent a larger percentage of money on educating their kids during the free period that under government control. E.G. West found 1% of national income was spent in 1833, while in 1920 (long after public schools had taken over) it had fallen to 0.7%. Historian R.K. Webb estimated that in late 1830's 2/3s to 3/4s of England's working class was literate, a striking number considering how relatively poor the world was. Furthermore, there was a substantial rate of education growth, meaning educational opportunities continued to get better, not worse. By 1880, when compulsion was finally used by the state, an astonishing 95% of 15 year olds were literate. Clearly, a voluntary, private education system in a society that values liberty is not a disaster, or only available to the wealthy, far from it!
As classical liberalism (similar to modern libertarianism) faded and gave way to the "progressive" era, the entirety of Europe and America adopted a compulsory, state-run education system. In the case of Britain, public schools were first intended to "fill the gaps", to help the poor, but soon they took over almost entirely. America had a tradition of locally run public schools, but that also has eroded as the states and Federal government adopted more controls and oversight. Ostensibly, the reasoning behind the state-run system was to provide a good education to every child, but it seldom works out this way. A trip to most poor inner city schools will show a product that is little more than a day care, and a poor one at that. Besides basic physical needs and securing rights, education is perhaps the most valuable thing for children, as well as adults. In our study of ethics, we saw it's our ability to use reason that is our primary virtue and means of survival. The primary purpose of education is to develop one's ability to harness this virtue in order to pursue life properly as a human being. A good education prepares a child to become independent and able to take on the world as an adult.
HAMPERING VIRTUE
State-run education invariably tends toward the opposite. Instead of instilling independence, it breeds conformity and obedience. The structure can't deal with each kid as an individual, so it tends to cater to the lower denominators in the classroom. While public schools might have varying successes in teaching kids facts and knowledge (a Japanese or Korean school might excel, for instance), it's generally poor at giving students the most important aspects of education- the ability to trust one's own reason and unleash critical and creative thinking skills. Innovative teaching styles are seldom tried, and course content is often watered down due to its public nature. The content and syllabuses are determined by local, state and federal school bureaucracies, which all have pressure groups advocating certain ideas. One group doesn't want evolution taught while another one would prefer an emphasis on racism. The result is a hodgepodge of differing ideas and strategies which create mental confusion, not integration. To illustrate this, examine an essential issue like rights. Did you leave high school with a coherent understanding or definition of rights? Did you even hear, let alone read a paper on the non-aggression principle?
On second thought, perhaps expecting a philosophic grasp of rights is setting the bar too high!
Above all, the state always comes out being portrayed as benevolent and essential to our well-being. It's extremely rare for any child to leave high school with a serious distrust of state power. To do so would mean public schools would need to ask the students to question the school's own existence! As long as the state has a virtual monopoly on the education system, there are no real incentives to create a service that truly caters to the needs of the students and parents. To make matters worse, it's usually the poor who are trapped in the worst schools, with no chance of sending their kids to a better choice. There are countless parents who would gladly go to great lengths to provide a better education, that are handcuffed by the government monopoly. The idea that parents in a free, prosperous society would
neglect the most important aspect of their kids' development without the government, is nonsensical. There will always be a few that do neglect such things, but their children are at a huge disadvantage in any society. More than likely, they would be better off in private, charitable schools that dealt with (and cared about) such issues.
neglect the most important aspect of their kids' development without the government, is nonsensical. There will always be a few that do neglect such things, but their children are at a huge disadvantage in any society. More than likely, they would be better off in private, charitable schools that dealt with (and cared about) such issues.
A private school in Nigeria
PRIVATE EDUCATION FOR THE POOR?
The modern impetus for government schools is almost always cloaked behind the veil of helping the poor. Most people could envision the middle class and affluent figuring out private ways to educate their children (even admitting its superiority), but can't bear the thought of the poor doomed to a life of illiteracy and poverty. While attempts to institute public education for the poor invariably lead to the state taking over K-12 education for virtually the entire population, anyone trying to advocate against the public system (not just altering budgets, but actually against the system) will quickly be dismissed as not caring for the poor. Leaving aside the fact that governments generally do an awful job of educating the poor, it's the conventional wisdom that private schools only exist for the affluent. Poor people could never afford such luxuries, right?
This conventional wisdom is increasingly being shown as wrong. Here is a good article that shows both the increase and success of private schools in the third world. In many places like Africa, India and even China, the government schools have done such a horrible job servicing the poor, that a whole network of private schools have popped up. While not facilities most first world parents would want their kids sent to, most of them tend to outperform their public counterparts in these countries, and do so for outrageously low prices (sometimes less than $5/month). As with all types of economic goods, the more affluent the consumer, the more quality that will be demanded. If parents in these nations, where poverty is far greater than anything imagined in America, can afford to educate their kids, there is no reason a wealthier population couldn't, with much better results.
The modern impetus for government schools is almost always cloaked behind the veil of helping the poor. Most people could envision the middle class and affluent figuring out private ways to educate their children (even admitting its superiority), but can't bear the thought of the poor doomed to a life of illiteracy and poverty. While attempts to institute public education for the poor invariably lead to the state taking over K-12 education for virtually the entire population, anyone trying to advocate against the public system (not just altering budgets, but actually against the system) will quickly be dismissed as not caring for the poor. Leaving aside the fact that governments generally do an awful job of educating the poor, it's the conventional wisdom that private schools only exist for the affluent. Poor people could never afford such luxuries, right?
This conventional wisdom is increasingly being shown as wrong. Here is a good article that shows both the increase and success of private schools in the third world. In many places like Africa, India and even China, the government schools have done such a horrible job servicing the poor, that a whole network of private schools have popped up. While not facilities most first world parents would want their kids sent to, most of them tend to outperform their public counterparts in these countries, and do so for outrageously low prices (sometimes less than $5/month). As with all types of economic goods, the more affluent the consumer, the more quality that will be demanded. If parents in these nations, where poverty is far greater than anything imagined in America, can afford to educate their kids, there is no reason a wealthier population couldn't, with much better results.
Forget long division or biology? Check it out!
TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION'S POTENTIAL
Now, more than ever, education should be improving by leaps and bounds. With modern technology, education should not only be getting better, but exponentially cheaper, yet the formal routes keep getting more expensive. We are spending more money than ever before on public education, with no better results. The internet allows people access to a seemingly limitless amount of information, and those that truly have talents and excel at teaching are now able to instruct millions, instead of tens. Sites like the Khan Academy allow anyone free tutelage on a dizzying array of topics, and often explain it better than the local classroom environment. New home school courses have exploded in popularity, and offer many great and different choices for parents. As an example, the Ron Paul Curriculum offers a comprehensive K-12 program, where courses are designed and taught by knowledgeable professors from top universities, not to mention best-selling authors. Students are given tasks like creating a YouTube channel, a website, and starting a business. Skills that are essential to succeed and communicate in the modern world, yet are lacking. Furthermore, this course is offered free for K-5, in the hopes that parents will like it so much they will pay for the later courses. Clearly, if we start opening education up to the marketplace, cost will not be a huge barrier. (Note: this site is in no way given funds to promote these services, just using them as an example)
Just as with roads, it's impossible to predict how education would evolve if left to the private marketplace, but it would likely be like 19th century Britain on steroids. More choices, more individualized attention, better content, better results and cheaper prices would arise if parents en masse started opting out of the government system. It truly is remarkable what happens when a provider has to earn the customer's business, and education would be no exception. As long as the government forces every parent to pay for state schools there is no avoiding the immoral violation of the non-aggression principle and "double-paying" for private education, but unlike roads, parents could render public schools obsolete just by opting out of them. If enough voluntarily move to better options and enrollment dropped, the system would atrophy without firing a political shot. This should be one goal for a peaceful, liberty-minded society.
Now, more than ever, education should be improving by leaps and bounds. With modern technology, education should not only be getting better, but exponentially cheaper, yet the formal routes keep getting more expensive. We are spending more money than ever before on public education, with no better results. The internet allows people access to a seemingly limitless amount of information, and those that truly have talents and excel at teaching are now able to instruct millions, instead of tens. Sites like the Khan Academy allow anyone free tutelage on a dizzying array of topics, and often explain it better than the local classroom environment. New home school courses have exploded in popularity, and offer many great and different choices for parents. As an example, the Ron Paul Curriculum offers a comprehensive K-12 program, where courses are designed and taught by knowledgeable professors from top universities, not to mention best-selling authors. Students are given tasks like creating a YouTube channel, a website, and starting a business. Skills that are essential to succeed and communicate in the modern world, yet are lacking. Furthermore, this course is offered free for K-5, in the hopes that parents will like it so much they will pay for the later courses. Clearly, if we start opening education up to the marketplace, cost will not be a huge barrier. (Note: this site is in no way given funds to promote these services, just using them as an example)
Just as with roads, it's impossible to predict how education would evolve if left to the private marketplace, but it would likely be like 19th century Britain on steroids. More choices, more individualized attention, better content, better results and cheaper prices would arise if parents en masse started opting out of the government system. It truly is remarkable what happens when a provider has to earn the customer's business, and education would be no exception. As long as the government forces every parent to pay for state schools there is no avoiding the immoral violation of the non-aggression principle and "double-paying" for private education, but unlike roads, parents could render public schools obsolete just by opting out of them. If enough voluntarily move to better options and enrollment dropped, the system would atrophy without firing a political shot. This should be one goal for a peaceful, liberty-minded society.