Should public schools be privatized?

[brendan]

Two Australian econ-bloggers, Labor supporter Andrew Leigh and 'classical liberal' Andrew Norton, are ran "a bloggish debate" on the topic: Should public schools be privatized? Here is the link: http://andrewleigh.com/?p=1727

I tend to agree with Andrew Norton. What do you think?

[Eriny]

I think there's obvious benefits in privatising education, as Norton points out, but my concern would be who would be owning all these schools. Will it be companies? Will it be that 'good education' is decided by who has the better advertising campaign and makes the campus look shiny rather than what's actually best for education? If companies are allowed to run schools, I'd be wondering if this move would involve product positioning or some other company agenda projected on to students. Also, regarless of who is owning the schools, I'd be worried about equity and whether or not all students would have access to school, because I imagine that school fees would be quite high, or else they would operate at a loss. And if school fees were low, and the school was running at a loss, I'd be wondering what underlying benefit the owners would be getting. I think it could work if there were lots of regulations, and government grants and subsidies which kind of defeats the purpose in the first place.

Also, I don't think it's true that here in Australia, public schools are how the government can spout off propaganda. Although the government has probably tried to with their history syllabus, I've heard lots of government-bashing from my teachers. And even if the teachers don't overtly say that they disagree with a policy action, in some classes we were left to challenge it. Also, even though freedom of speech isn't a constitutional right in Australia, I imagine that the implied right to freedom of speech would continue to protect schools somewhat from the government's agenda, especially on the topic of politics.

[Collin Li]

I'm not scared of corporate exploitation, because I believe competition will make sure there is no room for it.

* Advertising: nothing wrong with it. However, it is costly for the manager of the school. The advertising would have to appeal to the parent, so it wouldn't be like the irrelevant advertisements you see about typical goods and services. Advertising would probably resemble a sedated political campaign: they would show their statistics and compare them with their competitors. Doing this would probably be the best way for schools to increase their market share. Private tuition companies already advertise, so I don't see what is wrong with it. The trend towards privatisation encourages individual responsibility, since consumers must think carefully about the goods they purchase. Thus, reform should be made gradually so that society can adapt to it.

* Company agenda: there would be no room for it in a competitive environment. Transparency would be an important aspect of a free-market education system, as those who choose to be transparent will have an advantage in the market. Those who waste time on company agenda and end up with kids doing worse on other "standard" subjects would be criticised, and parents would send their kids to more worthwhile schools. There may be some exceptions, but they cannot last forever without being exposed. In admitting this, I would always ask: is the cure (government regulation) better than the disease? I would say no. The disease will not get past the immune system (the free-market), while the "cure" limits market innovation and consumer choices.

School fees would increase overall, if there is going to be no subsidy system. If some sort of government funding should take place, it should not go to the schools directly: that will make the complacent. It should go to the consumers. This would be an "education voucher" system, where people would receive, say $5000 yearly, for example, to spend on a school. If the fees are lower than that, they will go into a fund for college, perhaps.

Propaganda within schools is worrying in both cases. Do you trust the corporations, or do you trust the government? I would trust the corporations. With the government, it is a monopoly. With the corporations, there is competition. The free-market will stamp it out, if it desires to.

[Eriny]

Cost is the biggest issue, I think. Vouchers would definitely be the way to go, but still, the fees would be higher than currently, I'd imagine. It doesn't seem fair that parents would have to pay money for the same thing they once got for free. And wouldn't privatisation mean that lower income families would have to go to the schools that may be worse quality but cheaper? To some extent, this could work to actually erradicate choice, especially if vouchers were to be awarded at a flat rate which would still make some elite schools inaccessable.

On a more idealistic note, education is one of the most important contibutors to the economy as well as the the quality of society. So, shouldn't we all be comitted to ensuring that education is the best that it can be through making sure that our government (i.e. the people who's job depends on us electing them) does what's deemed to be best by voters? Shouldn't society itself commit to education, as opposed to the private sector? It probably doesn't work well in reality, but I prefer the idea to rely on people in a precarious employment position than I would on people in business who are rich and relatively safer in their position. Either way, I guess there would need to be an independent, not-for-profit organisation making sure that quality is maintained.

[brendan]

i think something that one must remember is: can low-income families really do any worse than they are now?

[brendan]

who would be owning all these schools.

Andrew Norton Says:
"Andrew Leigh - I never really explained how I would privatise the schools. Because the scope for profit is limited (though I can’t see any good reason to prohibit for-profit schools), and the existing private school providers won’t want to expand quickly enough - a reason I don’t want the conventional voucher scheme - some way would have to be found to quickly remove public schools from state control.

The most likely initial arrangement is something like what ‘public’ universities already have, legislation creating them as self-governing entities, but without government representatives. The physical assets could be put into some trust-like arrangement, which would have government representatives. If the school was completely wound-up, the assets would return to the state. However, with the trust’s agreement the assets could be used in mergers or other deals with other schools. We want to ensure more efficient use of the capital invested in the school system, rather than schools being kept open just for political reasons."

"I would privatise all existing government schools, but there would be no need to abandon positive aspects of the public school ethos, such as a special commitment to the disadvantaged. Schools that did that would get the highest funding rates, enough to keep education free. But no schools would be stuck with the bad aspects of public education, such as protection of incompetent or unsuitable staff, poor curriculum, and excessive centralised control."

[brendan]

i think its not so much "privatized" as it is "de-governmentalized"

[RD]

I tend to agree with Andrew Norton. What do you think?

I'm on the same boat


After I finish high school, I'll employ the "couldn't care less" attitude towards schooling.