Freer school education

The new draft law on school education has caused heated controversy in recent days. Reading it, I notice the happy fact that a significant part of what is written inside comes very close to the educational system that Friedman ¹ and Hayek talk about. From the new scheme for financing secondary education comes the big debate - whether private schools should receive state money.

The argument of pro-market economists is that if public and private schools compete for students and the money that goes with them, the resulting competition will raise the standard of teaching in both types of institutions. By making their choices, parents and students will “vote” on where the best teaching and learning takes place—a much more efficient and impartial method than the current bureaucratic system of control.

The innovation that worried the public is also morally sound. The focus in the new law shifts from funding schools to funding the education of each individual student, which is undoubtedly fairer. The social element is also present (for its admirers) - still childless taxpayers will participate equally in paying for the education of future generations. Protected schools in remote and sparsely populated areas of the country are also preserved - something that Hayek supports in "The Constitution of Liberty".

The successes of the still timid attempts to introduce a similar system elsewhere in the world speak to its merits. A study by Böhlmark and Lindahl ² (2007) claims that with a 10% increase in the number of free schools (those operating on a voucher principle, as in our new law) in Sweden, the average level of grades of ninth-graders in the entire country jumped by 1% for the period 1988-2003. It is important to note that these are the results of a system much less competitive than the one we will have in Bulgaria, because in the Swedish equivalent both types of financing coexist simultaneously. The number of free schools in the Scandinavian country was too small to provoke a sufficiently contested competition.

A study by Sahlgren ³ (2010) reached the following conclusions:

1. Competition between Swedish schools has increased levels of educational achievement.
2. Free schools receive more approval from parents.
3. Competition between schools has improved working conditions for teachers.
4. Students from less advantaged groups in society have benefited the most from the system.

At the end of the article, I would like to point out another interesting point from the new law that I liked. Namely, the empowerment of the parent or public council for each school. Such a measure provides people with leverage to influence education in public schools. If you believe in the future of your local school, the best way to influence it is to get involved in the process of public control. Chapter 14 of the future law clearly explains what role you can play in the development of public education, and it is not at all unimportant (even students have a voice). The time to ask the state for a ready-made solution is over - whatever we do ourselves, we will have, because the initiative is in our hands.

___

3 Sahlgren, Gabriel H. (October 2011, Schooling for Money: Swedish Education Reform and the Role of the Profit Motive ), Economic Affairs , Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 28-35

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