In trying to understand what makes libertarians different than other groups in terms of their almost religious devotion to squabbling with each other, he points out the following squabble:
"Libertarians have favorable views of home schooling - even though conventional private schooling is equally consistent with libertarian principles."
Diana and I were having a conversation (off-line) the other day where we talked about the difference between moving market arguments forward and being a cheerleader for the market. This conversation rose because I was reading Amartya Sen's new book, The Idea of Justice. In that book, on p. 12-15 he introduces his take on the central problem with discussing justice. He gives an example, three children and one flute.
- Anne is the only one with the skill to play the flute, and asserts that she should get it.
- Bob asserts that since he has no other toys and Ann and Carla have many, he should get it.
- Carla tells us that she made it and that it represents many months of labor.
Picking among these options is supposed to demonstrate your commitments to a theory of justice. If you defend Carla based on the grounds that she will no longer make flutes if her produce is confiscated, then you might be a utilitarian results-oriented libertarian. If you favor Bob, you are supposed to be dominated by social consciousness and favor redistribution. A utilitarian could also choose Anne saying that the music created is more valuable than the loss to Carla.
I fall in the category of results-oriented libertarianism. Other people who support Carla, can also assume that people who make property should have that property regardless of the outcome, that it is a right. This comes from a long tradition of natural rights theory that I will just flag and encourage you to look up elsewhere.
How does this relate to schooling? Well, I am a fan of Homeschooling. I understand it to be an important part of history, many people have been educated in the home and done quite well. I bias my approach to people like Thomas Jefferson, but I have also met quite a few home schooled individuals who are enrolled in Ivy League graduate programs and they seem to have capabilities far beyond those other "normal" Ivy Leaguers who went to more traditional schools. My approach here has been: great results, great program.
For a social scientist to admit that he has allowed availability bias to shape his understanding of an issue is to become a better social scientist. I recently had a discussion with an educator in the state of Utah who assured me that the biggest problem facing Utah public education are home schoolers who join public schools late (like 5th grade age, 10-11) and who are completely illiterate, absolutely without letters. It then becomes a burden on the classroom. Her reaction to this was to say that home schooling, at least in Utah, was more of a burden than a benefit -- something that really speaks to me and my results oriented understanding.
Caplan's question helps me put a firm finger on my methodological problem. I never defined what goal I think education should reach at the primary level. I have always hated what I see as brain washing by well-meaning but hopelessly uninformed public educators (the ones that take the job for the salary, not the ones that chose it as a vocation). I thought the incentive structure was wrong. I also wrongly ignored private schools which I assumed to be only marginally different, and that margin must be, I figured, elitist rhetoric and inculcation of a consumer mentality.
What Caplan's question requires me to do is to re-examine my thinking on School Choice and imagine not a loose and disaggregate home school network, but a continuum between home schools, small private schools that accommodates home schools, and private schools. This refocuses the question on school choice and the very real lack of it over the past century. Public schools certainly have a place in this mix, but we need to better understand the factors that make a public school work vis-a-vis a private school and a more open solution for kids, like the ones I met who that are currently studying at Ivy League universities, need a great deal of flexibility to thrive. Home schooling is not for everyone. It is not even for most people. But, we can support parents who want to craft a unique educational experience for their children by offering choice.
Parents have a right to their children's future, in my approach, not because the children are "theirs" in some unimpeachable way, but because we believe that they are the best people to decide for the children. Most parents love the child irrationally much. This is hard to replicate in any other property rights scheme. However, we should facilitate good decisions by allowing for systems of rules to help parents fulfill their overcommitment to their children's success. In the case of homeschooling parents who don't teach their children to read.... I can't defend their right to be in control of their children's education. I just don't see it.
--Update--
Related video by David Schmidtz: Short(2:36)
It is not about winning a race, it is about children becoming the best they can become.
No comments:
Post a Comment