EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
The Problems of Compulsory Education. Reviewed in Telegraphic Form by Our Editor. The occasion is the attempts of legislators to make public education compulsory for children as young as four, thus bringing them earlier into a vicious system.
Stoyan Panchev
- The existing state compulsory education is based on the extremely erroneous assumption that all individuals have the same interests and abilities. Based on this, the system imposes unified programs and teaching methods that are suitable for a small group of all learners, and thus prevents the rest from developing in the areas in which they have interest and advantage.
- The consequences of the artificial mold imposed on all children are manifested in the mass lack of interest, running away from school, enormous stress, violence, etc. It is obvious that a significant part of the students are unwilling to participate in this process of "enlightenment". It is also evident that less and less of what is taught in school has particular relevance to the happiness and future success of the students.
- The fact that compulsory education is loaded with a certain set of "values" is often overlooked. Despite the wishes of educational administrators, value-free teaching does not exist. It is important to consider in such a case whether the values imposed by the political and bureaucratic apparatus are appropriate for each child. Many parents, and students, would say that they have not and would not subject themselves or their loved ones to such a forced transmission of values.
- In the case of education, which is offered in Bulgaria, and in many places around the world. The main thing that is transmitted to children is obedience and submission to the authority imposed from the outside. The idea is instilled that teamwork is something vicious, that permission must be sought for every undertaking, that mistakes are something terrible and must be avoided. This educates obedient individuals, with suppressed curiosity and a desire to experiment, or it creates angry young people, full of aggression and dissatisfaction.
- From a systemic point of view, centralization and the imposition of any model dooms education to a lack of innovation. Contrary to popular belief, education is not "conservative" because the evaluation of the product produced can be given years later, but because it is controlled by a centralized body that stops competition and entrepreneurship and thus leads to the preservation of the retrograde system.
- Centralized systems have the bad quality of spreading errors, i.e. a bad decision at the top necessarily reaches all participants. In an educational system free from centralized control, the errors made do not reach all participants and, more importantly, are quickly eliminated. It is proverbial how slowly and with difficulty the administration is activated to make even the smallest change.
- To avoid all the negatives of the current model, the nature of schools must be as diverse as society. The 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 the removal of state control and the establishment of a free market will be the tendency for a range of schools to emerge and develop to meet all kinds of demand.
One must be able to distinguish "the erroneous presumption that all individuals have the same interests and opportunities" from the desire to give everyone the opportunity to start on an equal footing. Let's assume that education is entirely private, even from kindergarten for example. Parents with their resources will make the decisions instead of their descendants. If you believe that parents have an objective assessment of the interests and opportunities of their children, you are very mistaken. I support the idea of education being entirely private, BUT from a certain point on. The problem with this text is that it does not provide a better realistic model, it simply lists the many problems in a system that works in practice. Give a model that works not only as a theoretical statement, but also in the dynamics of reality.
I am "For" starting children earlier before they have brainwashed themselves or their parents, who are by no means educators, have done so. Because a child with intelligent and capable parents will cope even if forced to go to school for four years. But a child in a completely different family environment can only hope for the school, i.e. for external intervention. Many of the problems you listed create headaches for sociologists and educators. Is the school system really to blame? The fact is that parents are paying less and less attention to their children and relying on fictitious "teachers" like television and the Internet to entertain them. Let's distinguish external circumstances, evaluate the positive and negative sides of the system and then make analyses, eh?
An example of a sound economic view of public education in Pennsylvania, USA:
http://www.elc-pa.org/BestInvestment_Full_Report_6.27.11.pdf
За мързеливите, ще цитирам няколко реплики от заключението.
"...Education serves a vitally important role in granting access to the information and skills needed by individuals to participate in higher education, to sustain productive employment, and to make effective choices about crime, health care, and civic participation. ... The future social and economic well-being ... will benefit if these choices are based, not on politics, but on objective evidence about where educational investment will have the greatest return. ... Now is the time for real education funding reform, because as this report shows, “You can pay me now” or “You can pay me later.” ..."
When I think about the current school system, I inevitably come to the chicken and egg problem.
Our society today is based on the principle of solidarity - that is, the stronger, smarter and more powerful voluntarily give up their world to be distributed to the weaker, stupider and lazier. They do this because it is moral and for the preservation of the species. So, I wonder if the human species would have developed more successfully if the French Enlightenment had not won and we had followed the laws of nature (those of the jungle).
Option 1 - it turns out that the school should be chosen according to the vision of the future of society. Compulsory public school (if implemented ideally) will raise the average level - it will force the stupider and lazier to make efforts so that later they do not lie entirely on the backs of the stronger ...
Option II - if it is true that the current world is already exhausted or was completely wrong - then the evolutionary model requires starting with changing education.
Is evolution possible?
Until now, the changes have always been revolutionary.
This is a relevant presentation on the state of the education system in the US:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
Monev says "Give a model that works not only as a theoretical proposition, but also in the dynamics of reality."
That is exactly what the free market is, and what government education is not.
You ask for a realistic policy prescription that can work in the real world. Free market education is exactly this. In fact, free-markets are beating government in education in many countries for the poorest of families:
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-2005/private-schools-poorest-countries
I can't see how the market can be so good at allocating resources everywhere else but must suddenly fail in the realm of education, where socialism is suddenly best.
On a free market in education, we would likely see a large restructuring of the educational system. Not only would there be private schools, but we might see that grade system (1st-12th) done away with completely. Some people might choose to just read books on the subjects in which they are interested. Others may get together with neighbors and hire an older student or a teacher to teach their kid. Technological advancement also changes the playing field, with the possibility of personalized education solutions brought to kids right at home.
And the objection that parents might not care enough for their children can easily be met: on a market, it's not just consumers who seek out businesses. The businesses themselves have an interest in seeking out customers. That is, educational entrepreneurs would push education on children just as they push various other products on them.
Lastly, perhaps we have a generation of lazy, bad parents exactly *because* of the current educational system which creates such distortions.