Liberty Alone

One of the arguments I’ve come across against choice and a market in education is that some parents won’t make use of that choice.

This may be true, but there are several problems with this line of argument.

Firstly, if some don’t make use of their ability to choose the best school for their child then why should others suffer because of their choice not to choose? You end up harming far more children by denying them opportunity than those few whose parents do not have the opportunity.

Secondly - many examples of people, generally poor, who apparently don’t care about their child’s education. Perhaps they don’t, but perhaps they are so jaded by the lack of choice, the fact that their child is forced to go to a particular, usually failing, school because they cannot afford to move to an area with a good school or afford the tuition fees for a private school. Even if their child is gifted enough to get a scholarship, the odds are against them because of the belief that private school is only for the rich and poor people stand no chance of getting in - a myth similar to that surrounding university (especially Oxbridge), and one often promoted by teachers.
If we give people the chance to choose a better education for their child, then I think a lot of parents may surprise us. There is not much point caring about your child’s education if they are forced to go to a failing school, with teachers who don’t have the time to teach because of behaviour problems. There’s nothing you can do about it, the decision is taken out of your hands.

Thirdly - it is claimed that these parents will just send their children to the most convenient school and that will create sink schools.
Aside from the fact that most parents who are claimed to fall in this category of not caring are already forced to send their children to a sink school, if funding is tied to the child then will such schools be able to get the funding to survive? They will be forced to up their game to attract the children of those parents who do care, or be forced to close, at which point those children will have to go to a better school.

Finally this invokes a debate about the role of the state in the raising of children. Parents and guardians are entrusted with the care of their children. This argument against educational choice removes some of that responsibility from parents and hands it to the state. This is an incredibly illiberal move. True, the state and society have a duty to intervene if a parent is abusing their position of power, or neglecting their responsibility, but this removes responsibility from all parents, causing a disconnect between parents and their children.
The state is also incredibly bad at being a parent. It is an immense disadvantage to be brought up by the state. The state is not a suitable apparatus for bringing up children. When the state interferes with the choice of parents (and children) in where and how they are educated it is bound to have negative consequences for most children.

To claim that parents need the state to force them to look after their children in the best way is authoritarian and reminiscent of both collectivist thought of the socialists and far right as well as much conservative thought.

Parents may not always make the best decisions, but they are best placed to make decisions. The fact that some parents will make bad decisions is not justification for removing all choice. The effects of poor choices can be mitigated, especially by children who can now see a way forward and teachers who have the opportunity and incentive to help children as there is opportunity now.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.