Mises Daily

Home | Library | The Wrong Path to Reform

The Wrong Path to Reform

September 30, 1999

Tags Education

The big conundrum after the collapse of the Soviet Union was how to move from
socialism to capitalism. The US faces the same problem now with the public-school
system. Everyone knows that the status quo has got to go. With the newest report
that most high-school graduates can’t even write a coherent sentence, what else are
we to conclude? The questions that remain are, first, how are we to manage the
transition from a communist system of education to something else? and, second,
what should that something else be?

These are the exact questions faced by Russia and its former client states in the
early 1990s. The sad truth is that none of them managed the transition well. Each
state made its own mistakes. Russia freed prices before privatizing industry and
ended up on the IMF dole. The Czech Republic tried to privatize while leaving the
state banking system intact, which ended up owning formerly public industries. East
Germany adopted a West German welfare state it couldn’t afford. None of them did
anything about their socialist health-care systems. And so on.

What do all of these experiments in transition have in common? Despite the
continuing outcry against "shock therapy," none of these states went far enough,
fast enough toward a full market economy .They ended up creating mixed
systems–part capitalist, part socialist–that have foundered on their own internal
contradictions ever since. In each case, too, the leaders of the transition have borne
the brunt of a public backlash that has improperly blamed the free market.

So far, the only options for school reform that have entered the political arena
consist of a mixture of public and private means. If the experiments so far are an
indication, they will not accomplish a transition but merely spread the problems of
the current system in new directions and create new problems.

Let’s dispense with the first reform plan immediately. The idea of federal vouchers
for education was recently suggested by John McCain, whose website brags about all
the education pork he’s voted for. Do you want the central state running your
private school? That’s precisely what would result. The idea might appeal to a
person who thinks the military model is ideal for all of society. But if you don’t
think that the feds ought to be collecting taxes to subsidize and control private
academies, federal vouchers are no answer. Conservatives ought to be on the front
lines fighting such a scheme.

Another variety would contract out the present school system to private firms. The
major advantage here is cost. It turns out that private firms can administer schools
with better results at a fraction of the cost. This is why the Dallas Independent
School District is considering inviting a company called the Edison Project, which
operates 51 schools in 14 states, to come in and try their hand at educating kids.

Would contracting out (please don’t call it privatization!) be an improvement? Not
in the long term. Taxpayers will still be on the hook, paying for education they may
or may not be using, and the government would still be in control. Moreover, the
Edison Project will be forever hamstrung by the requirement that its schools meet
state educational standards. That means a huge focus on raising the scores in basic
skills, but, like the public schools now, neglecting students, or sending them to
babysitting programs, once they have shown competence in those basics.

Finally, as with all contracting out, such a system would be rife with corruption, as
potential bidders exchange favors with bureaucrats and politicians for the contracts.
The people paying the tuition are not parents but employees of the state. And the
students themselves remain a captive audience, coerced by the state to be in the
classroom even when they and their parents have other ideas in mind.

What about charter schools? Under this system, the state creates schools which it
then permits private managers to administer partially on their own terms. The only
difference between charter schools and regular public schools is the locus of control
within the school itself. Seems fair enough until you consider the impact that
charter schools have on authentic private schools. In Grand Rapids, Michigan,
tuition-charging Christian schools are losing students to the no-tuition charter
schools. This has dramatically increased financial strains on those attempting to
educate on a free enterprise basis.

Once all the private schools are driven out of business, it would be very easy for
education regulators to rip away the right of the charter school to control its
curriculum. Already they must accept all comers based on a lottery. And its only a
matter of time before the ACLU is successful at getting the courts to prevent
charter schools from including the religious context in history and other subjects.

All three of these measures–vouchers, contracting out, and charter schools–suffer
from the same problem: they take us only half way there, and threaten to discredit
the whole reform movement because of their failures. They do not come to terms
with the crucial reality that state involvement in education is the source of the
failure in the first place. Until we stop attempting to supply educational services
according to the socialist principle, we will not be addressing the real issue.

In the ideal world, government would have nothing to do with education. But that
is not to say there aren’t interim reforms worth undertaking. All regulations on
private and home-schooling could be repealed, giving them complete autonomy to
teach students without maddening and often malign interference from bureaucrats.
Compulsory schooling can be repealed. Tuition payments of any sort and to any
school could be made tax deductible. Funding and control of public schools could
be entirely localized. Right now, the Department of Education could be abolished.

That such small steps appear to the newest class of education reformers as too
radical tells you all you need to know about their misunderstanding of the problem,
and their lack of moral courage. Like the economic reformers in the days after the
fall of communism, they have yet to figure out that all attempts to involve
government in education have failed and will continue to fail. We need a clean
break with the past.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1929, "the state, the government, the laws must not
in any way concern themselves with schooling or education. Public funds must not
be used for such purposes. The rearing and instruction of youth must be left entirely
to parents and to private associations and institutions."

* * * * *

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in
Auburn, Alabama.

See Murray Rothbard's Education: Free and Compulsory.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Follow Mises Institute