The Failure of Public Education. Part One: The Rotten Foundations

Two main characteristics of public education can be highlighted, which form its foundation: centralized control over the form and nature of the teaching/learning process and financing through tax-based redistribution.

The article was inspired by discussions held with members of the Plovdiv Libertarian Society and the Student Libertarian Club at the UNWE.

The examples are all around us, we have countless anecdotal and empirical evidence of how education systems in different parts of the world are on the verge of crisis. The problems emerging around the globe are a clear sign of a fundamental imperfection in how the processes of learning and enlightenment are organized. To understand what is happening, a deep dissection is needed that does not focus on the current problems related to the management of public education, but on the flawed philosophy of state-organized education.

When we talk about problems in Bulgaria, the question arises whether to point to the failure according to the PISA tests, or the absolute unwillingness of students to participate in the educational process? Perhaps we should focus on the universities, which have become factories for mortgages or a cheap way to move to the capital. The situation in the developed West, although different, is not rosier. We can mention crime in American schools, the poor (but expensive) performance of the English education system [1] or the bubble in higher education in the USA.

Whether the state cannot redistribute enough funds to support an inefficient and wasteful mastodon, as in our country, or pours billions into useless programs, as in the US and UK, the result is the same - a waste of resources and a decrease in the well-being of society. Experience and a simple analysis show that the problem will not be solved by more spending or readjusting the existing model. If we do not want to simply buy time before the next collapse, it would be good to look at the foundations of the education system and look for the answers there.

Two main characteristics of public education can be highlighted, which form its foundation: centralized control over the form and nature of the teaching/learning process and financing through tax-based redistribution.

Accreditation, curricula and state requirements

The detrimental effects of controlling what, where, and how is taught are well known to a growing body of experts (in the educational field [2] ) and parents [3]. Imposing a unified model for how each individual should develop their personal capacity is an absurd idea. Educational psychology has long argued that different learners have different educational needs, not only in terms of how many hours of math or music they study per week (which, unfortunately, is also governed by one or more government agencies), but also in terms of philosophy and overall approach.

If we go into detail, we can ask why it is right for children to be taught that their freedom (to go to the toilet) is something they have to ask for, rather than something they are born with. Why should one subject be included in the curriculum and another not? Why should experts from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, ministers and principals be right, and not, for example, entrepreneurs [4], parents and students themselves? And more importantly, why should what the authorities consider important be imposed on individuals through compulsory education and accreditation laws.

Mass compulsory education is often defended on the grounds of the large positive externalities it creates and the economic growth that can be generated by incentivising education with public funds. This argument is refuted by a study by Wolf (2002), which shows that pouring more money into the British education system cannot guarantee even half a percentage point higher annual growth.

Accreditation, on the other hand, serves as a serious barrier against the creation of new educational institutions that follow models different from those favored by the administration. In this way, competition and innovation are limited throughout the system. The often-mentioned conservatism of education is not simply due to the long period needed for the "production" and evaluation of the product, but also to the artificially created obstacles that stop experimentation and, hence, positive change.

To avoid all the negatives of the current model, the nature of schools must be as diverse as society. Curriculum, teaching methods, and learning time are just a few of the things that need to be diversified. Murray Rothbard mentions that one of the main advantages of removing state control and establishing a free market will be the emergence and development of such a range of schools that can meet all kinds of demand.

Taxes, financing and competition

The second element of the foundation of public education is control over the resources with which the system is financed. It is precisely through this and through the state's unfair competition that the additional stifling of educational entrepreneurship and the limitation of choice occurs. Things in this case are simple, as with any other (quasi) monopoly.

Since the system is not supported by users' money, but by taxes, it does not need to (and does not) meet the needs and desires of those who use it. In this sense, there is no connection between the results of the system and its existence. Unlike any product traded on a free market, which ceases to be produced as soon as it stops satisfying the needs of users, for the simple reason that there is no way to finance its supply.

Thus, the education system cannot self-regulate and adopt new and different models through which to offer a better service. Practice has long shown that innovations do not come through the administrative pyramid, brought down from the top. They emerge based on the ideas of numerous independent players who test the value and usefulness of their ideas on the free market.

To further stifle the emergence of alternatives, the state provides the service “for free.” Thus, even though the existence of the system is financed by taxes, we get something that the Competition Commission should be protecting us from – a player existing with money acquired without consent, and at the same time providing a service at a price that distorts the market and consumer behavior.

The combined influence of centralized governance and taxation is responsible for the poor state of various education systems around the world. Regardless of the exact nature of the crisis created by local political and administrative leadership (a huge bubble or total underfunding), this influence is at the heart of the crisis itself. In the next article in the series, we will look at the alternatives that are emerging alongside or beneath the ruins of the old system.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!