By Joy Pullmann
Thursday, April 20, 2017
This week The
Atlantic trotted out a bevy of soft-headed, undead arguments against school
choice that rely on anti-capitalist fables, including the old “education is not
a business.”
Tell that to the teachers unions, who profit handsomely
from the $600 billion-per-year U.S. K-12 industry monopsonized by government.
Pretending education is not big business is a lie to keep the taxpayer spigot
open to its current hose. Teachers and bus drivers don’t work for free. They
contract with schools to provide education services in exchange for money,
regardless of whether that money comes filtered through government or directly
from consumers. That’s called a market.
Author Jason Blakely is an assistant professor of
political philosophy at Pepperdine University. He asserts that school choice
initiatives like an innovative model Arizona’s governor has just signed into
law are
part of a much wider political
movement that…views the creation of markets as necessary for the existence of
individual liberty. In the neoliberal view, if your public institutions and
spaces don’t resemble markets, with a range of consumer options, then you
aren’t really free. The goal of neoliberalism is thereby to rollback the state,
privatize public services, or (as in the case of vouchers) engineer forms of
consumer choice and market discipline in the public sector.
So far, so good, although it’s not clear what is
“neo”-liberal about it, given that this idea has been around at least since
Adam Smith, who wrote nearly 300 years ago. Then Blakely gives us a false
choice: “the argument over ‘school of choice’ is only the latest chapter in a
decades-long political struggle between two models of freedom—one based on
market choice and the other based on democratic participation.”
Economic and
Personal Liberties Are Related
Our options as free people are not either economic
freedom or political freedom. We can have and do want both. In fact, the two
are deeply related. That’s why it is entirely standard for free-market
proponents to support both. After all, what is more democratic than millions of
people freely making countless individual choices in social transactions
conducted only when both parties think there’s mutual benefit, all without
anyone else substituting their own preferences for that of the individuals
transacting? What Blakely’s false choice reveals is that he is using
“democracy” to in fact almost mean its opposite.
Especially in the American context, many people think of
democracy as meaning something like consent.
I agree to the rules that provide the broad parameters inside which I am free
to do as I will. I voice that consent through many means, including the ballot
box, but also through free speech, freedom of association, restraint of government’s
interference in my affairs, and freedom to contract for goods and services I
want to offer or obtain. In other words, the default is doing what I want
without asking for permission from anyone.
But the way Blakely uses it suggests by “democracy” he
means “subjecting individuals’ freedoms to the will of whatever majority
happened to show up to the polls last time.” Sorry, sir, but in America
citizens do not get to decide what everyone’s freedoms and rights are every
time they go to the polls. That’s called mob rule, and it’s why our country is
a republic, not a democracy. Self-government under the rule of law and
ennumerated government powers emphasizes individual rights, while Blakely’s
form of democracy leads towards collectivism. Self-government expressed in high
individual freedom is highly likely to lead to a flourishing society, while
collectivism time and again leads to shortages, rationing, sclerotic economies,
and at its extreme the death of millions. While very few kids die inside
American schools, the evidence is plentiful that on the whole they are
seriously underperforming, and because they’re choked with central planning.
For example, three economists have estimated that if
American kids’ math performance matched that of Canadian kids, all American
workers could expect annual salary increases averaging 20 percent over the next
80 years. Further research finds that if all states’ academic achievement rose
to that of the highest-achieving state, Minnesota, “The aggregate present value
of gains from added [economic] growth would amount to some $78 trillion, or
over four times our current GDP.” Now, remember, GDP growth is money in the
pockets of American workers.
Since I don’t believe in measuring everything merely by
economic gains, I’ll throw in that improved academic performance is associated
with better life outcomes like longer-lasting marriages, interpersonal skills,
and less drug use and teen pregnancy. Learning more is good for you, and good
for society.
Try Collective
Bargaining with 350 Million People
So, at this point, we should all be asking, “Holy
schneike, how do we get improved schools?” Blakely’s answer is actually pretty
vague — he says citizens should debate it and “center their questions around
democratic freedoms” — but his anti-choice rhetoric provides cover for
essentially doing nothing. He seems to favor anything that is arrived at
through a sort of democracy as collective bargaining.
You subject your child’s education to collective
bargaining and see how well that works out. I’m getting my kids in a good
school now. What I want is for the portion of my taxes that goes for education
spending to also not be subject to collective bargaining, because, again,
collectivization increases costs and decreases quality, while individual
liberties incentivize the competition that improves outcomes.
What a lot of Republican types don’t realize, however, is
that the majority of their education policies do precisely the same thing — force families to negotiate with their
school district, state, and the federal government to get the education they
want. That’s what happens when they place any regulation on local schools.
Republians prefer fascistic programs that run taxpayer money through
quasi-private contractors, and Democrats prefer socialistic policies that run
money through government programs, but both are different costumes on the same
old central planning wolf. Both substitute bureaucrat and lawmaker preferences
for those of individual families. That’s why regulation should be extremely
minimal. But it’s not.
Just look at the education initiatives Republicans have
pushed for over the past half-century: centralized curriculum and testing
mandates, state takeovers of failing schools, chaining teacher ratings and pay
to one-size-fits-all evaluations, and dramatically expanded federal power and
programs that will expand further if the Trump administration goes for a
nationalized voucher program like the kind Amity Schlaes recently promoted in a
Forbes magazine article. They use
market-sounding words like “accountability” and recently have been very
enthusiastic about “choice,” but these are often false advertising.
The Education
Politics Of Discontent
Rerouting more education funding through the federal
government will accelerate the nationalization of American education. It’s that
simple. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The feds will then have increased
power to tell education providers what they must do to get the money, and
there’s the rub, since federal power brokers are much harder, if not
impossible, to influence than your wife or even neighbors.
It’s not only stupid but wrong to force parents to
negotiate with the rest of the country to get their kids into a school they
want, and that’s what federal programs entail. No wonder people are extremely
dissatisfied with every federal social program. They pay the bills but have
essentially zero control over what their dollars end up doing. Chronic
helplessness is a route to despair, and that’s what the politics of
centralization yields. Not surprisingly, the feeling was a top predictor of
voting Trump.
This is because “the people” simply cannot weigh in on
every single tiny thing about how a school runs — how much Teacher A should be
paid, how many guidance counselors to hire, which math curricula to use, how to
structure bus routes, etc. Even in a small public-school catchment everybody
cannot “democratically decide” everything. So “democratic governance” is simply
impossible even when centralized even just at the school district level. This
is why paeons to “democracy” and “local control” are often pretense for taking
away people’s self-government and turning control over to petty little
dictators.
When a parent can choose where his child will go to
school without having to buy a new house in another town and move into it, he
has individual, not collective, bargaining power. Merely having the power to
relatively easily switch schools is leverage to keep schools attentive to
family preferences instead of bureaucrats’ preferences. Parents don’t have to
do it; they just have to be able to do it. That is a real school choice.
Right now, most parents cannot access school choice
unless they have enough disposable income. This is seen in the huge assymetry
between the 42 percent of Americans whose top preference is a private school
for their child versus the 10 percent who actually enroll their kids in a
private school. It’s a real shame, both for them and for us all, because both
the international and domestic evidence resoundingly finds that school choice
improves civic engagement, tolerance for disagreements, social skills, and
those math and reading scores. Higher regulations reduce these benefits.
This is really what is at the heart of the school choice
debate. It’s whether individuals have the right to make their own decisions for
themselves and their families, or whether even the pettiest of their decisions
must be subject to other people’s control. When Americans choose the latter or
our representatives force it on us, it leads not only to dissatisfaction, but
lower academic quality and political weaponization of the curriculum.
No comments:
Post a Comment