More on the Conservatism of the Left
What are the hallmarks of conservatism?
They defend the status quo to the death. No matter that real, per-pupil spending doubles every few years, no matter that test scores are flat or falling, no matter that students are signing up for remedial classes in college or at their employer's in droves. The answer is always the same: there is nothing wrong with it except that it is underfunded.
Suggest any change -- smaller districts, privatization, year-round schooling, changes in the way curriculum is selected, homeschooling, vouchers, or apprenticeships -- and they oppose it.No matter that private schools are all the rage in India, Japan, Eastern Europe, they don't want anything to do with it. Public schooling is an American institution.
For example, see this. It contains several very specious arguments about access to specific public school programs for people who otherwise homeschool. For example,
The entire argument, however, rests on a faulty premise itself: that other people should pay taxes to support schools, regardless of whether they have children or not, on the basis that there is a public good generated as an externality. The author makes only passing mention of the private benefits (when pointing out that public schools provide them without charging a fee, as if they were charitable institutions full of volunteer teachers). On average, people's income is related to their educational attainment. The existence of a positive externality is not everywhere and always a reason for moving a transaction totally into the public sphere, nor is it any reason why the institution must be both publicly funded and administered. The author simply assumes away any question of whether the student or his/her parents ought to contribute some percentage of the cost of education, and this is easy to do because the author analyzes only on the basis of the externality, the side-benefit, while hardly acknowledging the main benefit which is private.
This is vulgar Second Best theory at work, yet again, and it proves as bankrupt as in other venues. To review, Second Best consists of a three step process:
- Defense of traditional methods and beliefs
- Resistance to change
- Disregard of methods and beliefs used or held by foreigners as un-American
They defend the status quo to the death. No matter that real, per-pupil spending doubles every few years, no matter that test scores are flat or falling, no matter that students are signing up for remedial classes in college or at their employer's in droves. The answer is always the same: there is nothing wrong with it except that it is underfunded.
Suggest any change -- smaller districts, privatization, year-round schooling, changes in the way curriculum is selected, homeschooling, vouchers, or apprenticeships -- and they oppose it.No matter that private schools are all the rage in India, Japan, Eastern Europe, they don't want anything to do with it. Public schooling is an American institution.
For example, see this. It contains several very specious arguments about access to specific public school programs for people who otherwise homeschool. For example,
"One argument that home-schoolers make in favor of access to extracurricular offerings is that they pay taxes that finance the public school enterprise. Therefore, they claim, they are entitled to take advantage of the school's offerings to the extent that they and their children are interested in doing so.Note that this whole part of the argument is misdirection. It begins with a statement about whether taxes are tuition, but never actually refutes the claim. What the author is essentially arguing is that public schools are a take-it-or-leave-it package deal: you can either attend and get all of the goodies, or homeschool and get none of them. The underlying truth about school funding is that funds are doled out by many states on the basis of school population, and allowing homeschoolers to participate in some programs might lead to undercounting and therefore underfunding. True enough, but that is not something the author gets around to discussing.
[...]
"This argument may sound persuasive, but it is based on a faulty premise about a taxpayer's entitlements. Paying taxes is not the equivalent of paying tuition for public school. If it were, then people who have no children, or whose children are grown, would not have any obligation or reason to pay. Yet we all pay taxes, regardless of whether we have children and of how many we have."
The entire argument, however, rests on a faulty premise itself: that other people should pay taxes to support schools, regardless of whether they have children or not, on the basis that there is a public good generated as an externality. The author makes only passing mention of the private benefits (when pointing out that public schools provide them without charging a fee, as if they were charitable institutions full of volunteer teachers). On average, people's income is related to their educational attainment. The existence of a positive externality is not everywhere and always a reason for moving a transaction totally into the public sphere, nor is it any reason why the institution must be both publicly funded and administered. The author simply assumes away any question of whether the student or his/her parents ought to contribute some percentage of the cost of education, and this is easy to do because the author analyzes only on the basis of the externality, the side-benefit, while hardly acknowledging the main benefit which is private.
This is vulgar Second Best theory at work, yet again, and it proves as bankrupt as in other venues. To review, Second Best consists of a three step process:
- Identify a market failure (in this case, a positive externality)
- Recommend a policy solution ("free" public schools)
- Declare victory (ignore any negative externalities resulting from the policy, ignore any potential market-based alternative solutions)
Labels: education, politics, vulgar 2nd Best Theory
<< Home