THOUGH many Americans are quick to criticize the public education system, few are willing to question whether it should exist. Plenty of citizens are willing to oppose health care and welfare systems on the basis that their money is their own and should not be used to support others, but surprisingly fewer question the validity of paying for schools. This is unfortunate, because public education provides a perfect example of how citizens can be seduced into handing away their rights when a solution exists in privatization.
Access to public education is not a right. An educated citizen is more capable of providing for him or herself and making intelligent economic decisions regarding saving and investing, spending and borrowing. An educated citizen is also more able to make informed political decisions when voting and to express intelligent opinions to political leaders. The advantages of education, however, do not imply any sort of human right to that education. You have a right to life and a right to vote, but you don't have a right to a great life and an informed vote. The latter are privileges that must be acquired at some cost.
Furthermore, this cost is one that no other human being has a moral obligation to bear. A parent may choose not to send his or her child to school, in which case the child suffers but has no power to change the situation. This is the most powerful argument in favor of public education, and it comes down to where responsibility for a child lies. Obviously this responsibility does not fall on any unrelated parties. If I am partially responsible for the education of your child, why is the line drawn there?If responsibility for providing education is drawn from the benefits it confers, why am I not permitted or even obligated to help parent your child to be more well-mannered, more athletic, more culturally diverse or any number of other things? Support for public education arbitrarily assigns some responsibilities to society and some to the parent.
This argument is less disconcerting than the implication that a parent is responsible for making all decisions for his or her child. But even this point makes sense in the context of our society. If we assume a parent can make the decision to feed a child fast food five times a week, raise him or her to be racist or otherwise hateful or make other similar choices, it is silly to suggest he or she cannot decide if the child is educated. Any number of such choices presents opportunities to harm the child, but giving the responsibility to society as a whole is only consistent if the responsibility for all aspects of the child's life is given to society as a whole, which not only destroys the American ideals of parenthood but also imposes an unearned burden on those who do not produce children.
Having established that it is not the responsibility of the government to create a system of education via taxation, an alternative solution is necessary: privatization. Though private schools are often thought of only as exclusive and expensive, the elimination of public schools would free up substantial new markets for affordable private schools. If a government can take your money to run a school, it follows that a private institution could do the same, probably more efficiently because bureaucratic costs are cut out of the picture. This leads to schools that cost less and have a higher overall quality. This can be partially seen in some public education systems across the United States where local governments have hired private education management organizations to run public schools, notably in Denver, with positive results. A switch to private schools would simply eliminate the middleman, in this case the government.
Not all individuals will be able to afford the same quality of school, as evidenced by the enormous dichotomy between existing public and private schools, but many seem uncomfortable with the notion of a more socioeconomically divided education system. There is no more right to an equal education, however, than there is to an education in the first place. Equalizing opportunity in schools is necessary when the government runs schools, but if private organizations are the means to an education, it makes no sense to demand more than you can afford.
Despite best intentions, public school systems present an inefficient and fundamentally flawed solution to a problem that is not obviously within the proper sphere of government control. Considering the amount of stress and leeway Americans put on the choices of parents on behalf of their children, to assume education should be handled any differently is irrational.
By privatizing schools, the quality-to-cost ratio can be maximized through a free market while minimizing the violations of rights. Though the ends are understandable and admirable, they do not justify the egregious means.
Jason Shore's column usually appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at jshore@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 11 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
