Comments on: Private Schools, Equality, and Liberty http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:56:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Vinteuil http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8133 Vinteuil Mon, 17 Nov 2003 05:37:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8133 harry writes: "...there are lots of ways in which we properly limit parents from benefiting their children competitively, even with their money (no bribing judges, or soccer coaches; no buying needed organs, etc)." But the reasons why we forbid bribery and the sale of organs have nothing to do with unfair competitive benefits. It's not as if such things would suddenly become morally permissible if we could all equally afford them. What harry needs here is an example of a *morally permissible* benefit which we limit parents from conferring on their children unequally. I can't think of any, myself. Incidentally, I wonder if Swift would forbid parents to enroll their children in supplemental educational programs after school or on weekends, given that they had all been forced into the same public schools during regular hours. The same "arguments" would seem to apply. harry writes: “…there are lots of ways in which we properly limit parents from benefiting their children competitively, even with their money (no bribing judges, or soccer coaches; no buying needed organs, etc).” But the reasons why we forbid bribery and the sale of organs have nothing to do with unfair competitive benefits. It’s not as if such things would suddenly become morally permissible if we could all equally afford them. What harry needs here is an example of a morally permissible benefit which we limit parents from conferring on their children unequally. I can’t think of any, myself. Incidentally, I wonder if Swift would forbid parents to enroll their children in supplemental educational programs after school or on weekends, given that they had all been forced into the same public schools during regular hours. The same “arguments” would seem to apply.

]]> By: fouro http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8132 fouro Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:23:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8132 Erm umm, where'd everyone go? Must be addressing each other in private-like. [ Must figure out the blogger learn secret handshake. Or, maybe pay dues ] Erm umm, where’d everyone go? Must be addressing each other in private-like. [ Must figure out the blogger learn secret handshake. Or, maybe pay dues ]

]]> By: daniel dennis http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8131 daniel dennis Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:48:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8131 Adam Swifts arguments in the Daily Telegraph against private education do not hold water. Firstly, Swift is unclear about the right to education. Surely there is a right to education? If Swift were to speak to a farmer who sent his children out to work the fields from age six, surely Swift would say, 'These children have a right to education." If he responded, well they have a right to freedom of religion and sexual expression, but not to education, would Swift not be astounded, and disagree vehemently? Perhaps Swift thinks we only have a right to a mediocre education (such as the one I received at my comprehensive school). But then how do you draw the line? Do children have a right to an education that Adam Swift deems good enough? Surely there is no way of non-arbitrarily drawing this line, and arbitrariness is anathema to rights. More importantly, what is education, other than reading certain books, engaging in certain educational activities, listening to and talking to certain people (teachers), and (private education involves) giving one's own money to people of one's choosing (teachers and support staff)? Is there not a fundamental right to do all of these things? These are surely among the most fundamental rights that we have. How can Swift ride roughshod over these rights (by banning private education) without destroying any attempt to have a society where fundamental human rights are respected? I cannot see that the aforementioned rights are less fundamental than the rights to freedom of religion and sexual expression. I do not know exactly what Swift means by sexual expression, but suppose Swift means, the right for homosexuals to not have to conceal their homosexuality on pain of punishment. But imagine Swift saved the life of a dictator, and in gratitude the dictator offered to change one law for Swift. In his country there were two central oppressive laws: the first making it illegal to be openly homosexual; the second making it illegal to read most books, illegal to engage in educational activities, illegal to talk to who one wishes, (such as teachers), illegal to give money to whom one chooses (such as teachers). Which law would Swift change? I know that I and the vast majority of people (whether homosexual or heterosexual) would change the second - for whilst both laws are terrible and oppressive, the second offends against more fundamental human rights. A further point, is that in the field of rights there is no scope, no justification, for trade-offs. In other words, there is no justification for infringing the rights of one person, merely to benefit others (a classic example being, there is no justification for murdering one person in order to redistribute their organs to save the lives of five others). In the field of education, this means that one should not sacrifice the education of one child merely to benefit another. Those politicians who abolished grammar schools sacrificed the education of people like me, to benefit other children, and this is wrong. Secondary Modern schools were a disgrace, but rather than abolish Grammar schools and turn all schools into Secondary Moderns by another name (and harm children like me), the solution would have been to put far more money and staff into the secondary moderns (thereby benefiting the children in Secondary Moderns *without* simultaneously harming other children). This brings me to the last point, which deals with what seems to be Swifts central assumption, which is that there is a fixed quantity of educational resources, with rich people buying the best. If the government increased the wages of teachers, and increased funds to provide more teachers, then more teachers, and better teachers, would be drawn into the profession. Standards in state schools would rise. If this were combined with a return to selective education, then pretty soon there would not be too much to choose between independent schools and grammar schools. Yes, independent schools would still have flashier facilities, and be able to poach some of the best teachers (though there are lots of reasons good teachers would stay with grammar schools) but nevertheless, the education in the grammar schools would be good enough for main determinant of achievement to be the ability of the pupils, rather than the wealth of their parents. Increasing state funding of education, and a return to selective education, therefore seems the best way forward, because it would largely eliminate competitive advantage brought by having wealthy parents, whilst not infringing any fundamental human rights. Do you agree? Adam Swifts arguments in the Daily Telegraph against private education do not hold water. Firstly, Swift is unclear about the right to education. Surely there is a right to education? If Swift were to speak to a farmer who sent his children out to work the fields from age six, surely Swift would say, ‘These children have a right to education.” If he responded, well they have a right to freedom of religion and sexual expression, but not to education, would Swift not be astounded, and disagree vehemently? Perhaps Swift thinks we only have a right to a mediocre education (such as the one I received at my comprehensive school). But then how do you draw the line? Do children have a right to an education that Adam Swift deems good enough? Surely there is no way of non-arbitrarily drawing this line, and arbitrariness is anathema to rights. More importantly, what is education, other than reading certain books, engaging in certain educational activities, listening to and talking to certain people (teachers), and (private education involves) giving one’s own money to people of one’s choosing (teachers and support staff)? Is there not a fundamental right to do all of these things? These are surely among the most fundamental rights that we have. How can Swift ride roughshod over these rights (by banning private education) without destroying any attempt to have a society where fundamental human rights are respected? I cannot see that the aforementioned rights are less fundamental than the rights to freedom of religion and sexual expression. I do not know exactly what Swift means by sexual expression, but suppose Swift means, the right for homosexuals to not have to conceal their homosexuality on pain of punishment. But imagine Swift saved the life of a dictator, and in gratitude the dictator offered to change one law for Swift. In his country there were two central oppressive laws: the first making it illegal to be openly homosexual; the second making it illegal to read most books, illegal to engage in educational activities, illegal to talk to who one wishes, (such as teachers), illegal to give money to whom one chooses (such as teachers). Which law would Swift change? I know that I and the vast majority of people (whether homosexual or heterosexual) would change the second – for whilst both laws are terrible and oppressive, the second offends against more fundamental human rights. A further point, is that in the field of rights there is no scope, no justification, for trade-offs. In other words, there is no justification for infringing the rights of one person, merely to benefit others (a classic example being, there is no justification for murdering one person in order to redistribute their organs to save the lives of five others). In the field of education, this means that one should not sacrifice the education of one child merely to benefit another. Those politicians who abolished grammar schools sacrificed the education of people like me, to benefit other children, and this is wrong. Secondary Modern schools were a disgrace, but rather than abolish Grammar schools and turn all schools into Secondary Moderns by another name (and harm children like me), the solution would have been to put far more money and staff into the secondary moderns (thereby benefiting the children in Secondary Moderns without simultaneously harming other children). This brings me to the last point, which deals with what seems to be Swifts central assumption, which is that there is a fixed quantity of educational resources, with rich people buying the best. If the government increased the wages of teachers, and increased funds to provide more teachers, then more teachers, and better teachers, would be drawn into the profession. Standards in state schools would rise. If this were combined with a return to selective education, then pretty soon there would not be too much to choose between independent schools and grammar schools. Yes, independent schools would still have flashier facilities, and be able to poach some of the best teachers (though there are lots of reasons good teachers would stay with grammar schools) but nevertheless, the education in the grammar schools would be good enough for main determinant of achievement to be the ability of the pupils, rather than the wealth of their parents. Increasing state funding of education, and a return to selective education, therefore seems the best way forward, because it would largely eliminate competitive advantage brought by having wealthy parents, whilst not infringing any fundamental human rights. Do you agree?

]]> By: fouro http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8130 fouro Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:30:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8130 Geez, Nick, I'm channelling Swift with my comparatives of UK/US, Public/Private above. <i>The liberal middle classes patronise comprehensives in words but not with their presence. Like the priests of some mouldering religion, they make pious noises in public places, then go their private ways </i> People are funny things: once they stop being afraid of big scary animals, they focus on somebody else's big scary institution. When that's beat, they then reformulate their own institutions into "big and scary" to give them something to throw spears at. Then come the people in the next town. Then the neighbors. Then each other. But never themselves, or their true motives. All with a veneer of sneer and certitude. Makes you wish you were Dr. Dolittle sometimes. Geez, Nick, I’m channelling Swift with my comparatives of UK/US, Public/Private above. The liberal middle classes patronise comprehensives in words but not with their presence. Like the priests of some mouldering religion, they make pious noises in public places, then go their private ways People are funny things: once they stop being afraid of big scary animals, they focus on somebody else’s big scary institution. When that’s beat, they then reformulate their own institutions into “big and scary” to give them something to throw spears at. Then come the people in the next town. Then the neighbors. Then each other. But never themselves, or their true motives. All with a veneer of sneer and certitude. Makes you wish you were Dr. Dolittle sometimes.

]]> By: fouro http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8129 fouro Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:04:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8129 Ken, can't agree there. For lots of reasons, but mainly because your premise excludes the influence of discipline and guidance and of socialization and peer pressure inherent in education. Proximity does not ipso facto dictate bad into good. But the odds dramatically spike. Don't all posts here, from all angles, point to a question: What is education for? Once you decide an answer for that you can move on to execution. My far-too-nebulous earlier point was that unless there's some meaningful shared definition of "private citizen" and "common weal", including the rights and obligations of each defined entity, then all the rest is preference not fact, isn't it? Seems to me we tried to overcome this once, it was in all the papers in England at the time. It worked for a while, too, however imperfectly. Now, we have The Prisoner's Dilemma approaching end-game. Which is sad: Considering what a cool Democratic thing we've created, we're now reduced to being the great looking Blonde who frets endlessly about the zit on her ass. In my experience working with companies that believe in exploration, and in helping lead an organization that builds identities and physical environments around elevating peoples' expectations and self-belief, *physical* environment has little to do with motivation. Within the limits of talent (and, yes, often paradoxically beyond), you play to the level of your team not the stadium; you learn, at the speed of your peers whether it's in a dumpster or a glassy new suburban cathedral to private education. So the question remains: what is education for? Answer that and common solutions start to emerge. Ken, can’t agree there. For lots of reasons, but mainly because your premise excludes the influence of discipline and guidance and of socialization and peer pressure inherent in education. Proximity does not ipso facto dictate bad into good. But the odds dramatically spike. Don’t all posts here, from all angles, point to a question: What is education for? Once you decide an answer for that you can move on to execution. My far-too-nebulous earlier point was that unless there’s some meaningful shared definition of “private citizen” and “common weal”, including the rights and obligations of each defined entity, then all the rest is preference not fact, isn’t it? Seems to me we tried to overcome this once, it was in all the papers in England at the time. It worked for a while, too, however imperfectly. Now, we have The Prisoner’s Dilemma approaching end-game. Which is sad: Considering what a cool Democratic thing we’ve created, we’re now reduced to being the great looking Blonde who frets endlessly about the zit on her ass. In my experience working with companies that believe in exploration, and in helping lead an organization that builds identities and physical environments around elevating peoples’ expectations and self-belief, physical environment has little to do with motivation. Within the limits of talent (and, yes, often paradoxically beyond), you play to the level of your team not the stadium; you learn, at the speed of your peers whether it’s in a dumpster or a glassy new suburban cathedral to private education. So the question remains: what is education for? Answer that and common solutions start to emerge.

]]> By: nick http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8128 nick Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:03:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8128 It's funny, but I was talking to my sister the other day about her sociology project on the changing influence of class in Britain over the last 50 years. To get to the point, I suggested that the expansion of university access (and the changes in the education system underlying that expansion) had challenged the institutional dynamics of a 'ruling class', but that the pervasiveness of the private school system remains a stumbling block to true reform, simply because many parents embrace it out of sheer pragmatics frustration. It's interesting that moderate Tories tend to have the most productive things to say about the inequities of the British education system: George Walden is the most notable of these, and Swift mentions him in <a href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4633436-111051,00.html">another piece</a> on the subject from March of this year: <blockquote>"Hypocrisy... is a corrosive thing. Rational people reach the state when they no longer see the gulf between what they are saying and what they are doing, or feel the remotest need to align their actions with their consciences. The liberal middle classes patronise comprehensives in words but not with their presence. Like the priests of some mouldering religion, they make pious noises in public places, then go their private ways ... The point is that, in education, hypocrisy has become the norm."</blockquote> And if you want to read Swift arguing his case with more nuance than in the Telegraph piece, I'd recommend that you click on the link above. It’s funny, but I was talking to my sister the other day about her sociology project on the changing influence of class in Britain over the last 50 years. To get to the point, I suggested that the expansion of university access (and the changes in the education system underlying that expansion) had challenged the institutional dynamics of a ‘ruling class’, but that the pervasiveness of the private school system remains a stumbling block to true reform, simply because many parents embrace it out of sheer pragmatics frustration. It’s interesting that moderate Tories tend to have the most productive things to say about the inequities of the British education system: George Walden is the most notable of these, and Swift mentions him in another piece on the subject from March of this year:
“Hypocrisy… is a corrosive thing. Rational people reach the state when they no longer see the gulf between what they are saying and what they are doing, or feel the remotest need to align their actions with their consciences. The liberal middle classes patronise comprehensives in words but not with their presence. Like the priests of some mouldering religion, they make pious noises in public places, then go their private ways … The point is that, in education, hypocrisy has become the norm.”
And if you want to read Swift arguing his case with more nuance than in the Telegraph piece, I’d recommend that you click on the link above.

]]> By: harry http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8127 harry Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:51:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8127 Pouncer, sure I have a fundamental right to freedom of association. It allows me to decide a great deal about how I live my life. My children are not me (couldn't be -- logically impossible). My right to freedom of association does not give me rights to control my children. Read the rest of my comment and you'll see that. Ken, in fact you're wrong. Of course, all sorts of caveats, but there's pretty good evidence that the presence of advantaged and bright kids in a school benefit the other kids (whether those other kids are bright and advantaged or not). Why? Lots of reasons, one of which is that the presence of these kids acts as a magnet for talented teachers, whose skills can be used to benefit the other children. Since I have evidence on my side I'll indulge in anecdote -- my own experience at a school with very high proportions of disadvantaged kids was nothing like you describe -- and nor was that of the handful of middle class kids I was friends with there. Pouncer, sure I have a fundamental right to freedom of association. It allows me to decide a great deal about how I live my life. My children are not me (couldn’t be—logically impossible). My right to freedom of association does not give me rights to control my children. Read the rest of my comment and you’ll see that. Ken, in fact you’re wrong. Of course, all sorts of caveats, but there’s pretty good evidence that the presence of advantaged and bright kids in a school benefit the other kids (whether those other kids are bright and advantaged or not). Why? Lots of reasons, one of which is that the presence of these kids acts as a magnet for talented teachers, whose skills can be used to benefit the other children. Since I have evidence on my side I’ll indulge in anecdote—my own experience at a school with very high proportions of disadvantaged kids was nothing like you describe—and nor was that of the handful of middle class kids I was friends with there.

]]> By: Jeremy Osner` http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8126 Jeremy Osner` Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:20:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8126 Some threads make you laugh; some make you sigh. Some threads make you laugh; some make you sigh.

]]> By: Ken http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8125 Ken Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:40:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8125 "But remember that students themselves constitute part of the educational product. If you attend schools with bright well-motivated kids whose parents are contributing to the effectiveness of the school you are getting a different product than if you attend school with disruptive or lazy kids whose parents have no disposable income and are pressed for time because they both work more than full time. Why should poor kids be given the inferior product? Just because their parents don’t have the resources to buy the better one?" Unfortuantely, it doesn't really work that way. The presence of good students does <i>not</i> turn bad students into good ones. The actual results of putting the good student and the bad student together is that the good student comes out of it with some (hopefully minor) injuries and a diminshed enthusiasm for performing at the top of his game, while the bad student gets a few minutes of sadistic entertainment in between flunking his classes. “But remember that students themselves constitute part of the educational product. If you attend schools with bright well-motivated kids whose parents are contributing to the effectiveness of the school you are getting a different product than if you attend school with disruptive or lazy kids whose parents have no disposable income and are pressed for time because they both work more than full time. Why should poor kids be given the inferior product? Just because their parents don’t have the resources to buy the better one?” Unfortuantely, it doesn’t really work that way. The presence of good students does not turn bad students into good ones. The actual results of putting the good student and the bad student together is that the good student comes out of it with some (hopefully minor) injuries and a diminshed enthusiasm for performing at the top of his game, while the bad student gets a few minutes of sadistic entertainment in between flunking his classes.

]]> By: Pouncer http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8124 Pouncer Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:36:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8124 >For my own kids the local public high school >is clearly the high school which gives them >a best chance of getting into elite >universities, maximizing their lifetime >income expectancy — but it is a huge, socially >segregated, anonymous institution imbued >with popular commercial culture, and when >it comes to it I might prefer one of the >academically less promising, but more >socially mixed private schools ... Do >I have a fundamental right to do that? >Of course not. *HUH?!?* You don't consider that you have a fundamental right of free association? >For my own kids the local public high school >is clearly the high school which gives them >a best chance of getting into elite >universities, maximizing their lifetime >income expectancy — but it is a huge, socially >segregated, anonymous institution imbued >with popular commercial culture, and when >it comes to it I might prefer one of the >academically less promising, but more >socially mixed private schools … Do >I have a fundamental right to do that? >Of course not. HUH?!? You don’t consider that you have a fundamental right of free association?

]]> By: fouro http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8123 fouro Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:36:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8123 Public school parent of 5 & 8 year-olds for the moment, here. A few discontinuous ideas: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Harvard, however, is a different matter. As a British-born American who's tried (been subjected to, more like) public and private schools on both sides of the water, it seems to me things break down fairly simply. All four variants warehouse kids with varying degrees of cotton wool, spun to make parents less anxious about opportunity and about the practical fact of the "warehousing." UK Private schools: Talk equality and work for superiority. UK Public schools: Talk superiority and work for equality. US Private schools: Worry about about inferior education and pursue superior socialization. US Public schools: Worry about superior socialization and pursue inferior education I got my biggest ass-whipping at a UK Private school. I made the deepest friends at a UK Public school. I learned how to play "the game" and found the best drugs at a US Private school. I lost my virginity and found my career-love of choice at a US public school. What's this mean? I dunno for others, but for me: <a href="http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/kass5.htm">"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so".</a> heya skip Public school parent of 5 & 8 year-olds for the moment, here. A few discontinuous ideas: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Harvard, however, is a different matter. As a British-born American who’s tried (been subjected to, more like) public and private schools on both sides of the water, it seems to me things break down fairly simply. All four variants warehouse kids with varying degrees of cotton wool, spun to make parents less anxious about opportunity and about the practical fact of the “warehousing.” UK Private schools: Talk equality and work for superiority. UK Public schools: Talk superiority and work for equality. US Private schools: Worry about about inferior education and pursue superior socialization. US Public schools: Worry about superior socialization and pursue inferior education I got my biggest ass-whipping at a UK Private school. I made the deepest friends at a UK Public school. I learned how to play “the game” and found the best drugs at a US Private school. I lost my virginity and found my career-love of choice at a US public school. What’s this mean? I dunno for others, but for me: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. heya skip

]]> By: Skip Perry http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8122 Skip Perry Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:09:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8122 Wetzel said: <i>I live in Georgia, where the schools are generally poor. Despite our middle class income, my wife and I scrimp and save to send our children to a very expensive private school, which is considered one of the best in the country. My car has 150,000 miles on it and there are no plans for replacement anytime soon.</i> I think my alma mater is your children's rival school, which is not one of the best in the country but still gets its smart people into Ivies. For the record, I've never attended a public school; my parents never had a problem paying 10k+ a year and the thought of going public never crossed their (or my) minds. That's just how it was. The debate on the merits of private schooling seems so distant for me, and I assume it's much the same for young people who only attended public schools. I bet things will get clearer if I end up having kids, though. Wetzel said: I live in Georgia, where the schools are generally poor. Despite our middle class income, my wife and I scrimp and save to send our children to a very expensive private school, which is considered one of the best in the country. My car has 150,000 miles on it and there are no plans for replacement anytime soon. I think my alma mater is your children’s rival school, which is not one of the best in the country but still gets its smart people into Ivies. For the record, I’ve never attended a public school; my parents never had a problem paying 10k+ a year and the thought of going public never crossed their (or my) minds. That’s just how it was. The debate on the merits of private schooling seems so distant for me, and I assume it’s much the same for young people who only attended public schools. I bet things will get clearer if I end up having kids, though.

]]> By: Cryptic Ned http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8121 Cryptic Ned Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:12:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8121 The comparison between the jokes about American and British newspapers are interesting. Is it really true that in Britain the "people who run the country" are different from the "people who own the country"? The comparison between the jokes about American and British newspapers are interesting. Is it really true that in Britain the “people who run the country” are different from the “people who own the country”?

]]> By: Harry http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8120 Harry Fri, 14 Nov 2003 02:09:49 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8120 Chris is right that the book has pretty much everything that has been raised so far covered, and covered well. Read it. I don't think the op-ed piece is flawed -- it is limited by space and by his remit to address the real arguments made by Telegraph readers (you can find their letters by searching his name on the site) -- hence the failure to address Baa's interesting point about the disincentive to develop human capital (which, for egalitarians who care about the least advantaged, would be an important point in the context of tax-benefit system which worked to the maximal benefit of the least advantaged). Here’s why I worry less than some of you about Swift’s focus on the competitive aspects of education, and, as with other of the worries, it may be because of his focus on the British context: the intrinsic, non-competitive aspect of education tends to come along with the competitive aspect in the UK case, and, like him, I see no reason for the ability of parents to pay to be the key to getting at these benefits. If they were disconnected from the competitive benefits (as they are to a much greater extent in some Scandinavian countries) I would still not be keen on parental wealth providing the key, but it would be less of a worry. Swift is well aware of the role the family plays in producing inequality of opportunity, as evidenced in his paper Justice Luck and the Family at the Equality Exchange (ftp://194.167.156.192/EE/swift1.pdf). The point is this: The family is extremely valuable, so protecting its ability to produce the goods that it, alone, can produce, is prior to any concern with equality of opportunity. This means that we shall have to tolerate whatever inequality of opportunity it produces. But private schooling, or at least private schooling access to which is controlled by ability to pay, does not fall into this category. We can prohibit it while allowing plenty of scope for families to produce their distinctive goods. He makes this argument in the piece, which people just seem to be ignoring. What about the right to freedom of association? Maybe the family is covered by this, but if so it is covered in an odd sort of way. After all, children are not free to exit families at least when they are young. Parents are not free to do to for and with their children many of the things that they are free to do to for and with consenting others (who are also free); and even many of those things they are (legally) free to do they (morally) shouldn’t. And there are lots of ways in which we properly limit parents from benefiting their children competitively, even with their money (no bribing judges, or soccer coaches; no buying needed organs, etc). The very institution of publicly-funded schooling is a limit -- if funding were high enough and state schooling good enough (as in some Scandinavian countries) it would be a much more serious limit than prohibiting private schools (though I can see that some of the above commentators would object to publicly funded schooling too). Each case has to be argued on its merits, and appeal to the right to freedom of association isn’t sufficiently specific to decide anything. Incidentally, there’s a lot of data now on what people try to do for their children, and of course some parents simply try to do whatever they can to get their children competitive advantage (often at real cost to their children’s prospects for having a well-rounded, flourishing life). But my reading of the studies is that people who go private are often motivated, entirely reasonably, by the desire to get some particular good thing for their kid -- which might just be the good thing of avoiding an extremely bad school (where ‘bad’ might mean any of a number of things). In the US, for which I know less of the literature on parental motivations for choice, but where the academically elitist schools are largely in the public sector, this seems especially intuitive. For my own kids the local public high school is clearly the high school which gives them a best chance of getting into elite universities, maximizing their lifetime income expectancy -- but it is a huge, socially segregated, anonymous institution imbued with popular commercial culture, and when it comes to it I might prefer one of the academically less promising, but more socially mixed private schools if a) it seems to suit their personalities, b) I could afford it and c) I could stand to go Catholic. Do I have a fundamental right to do that? Of course not. Chris is right that the book has pretty much everything that has been raised so far covered, and covered well. Read it. I don’t think the op-ed piece is flawed—it is limited by space and by his remit to address the real arguments made by Telegraph readers (you can find their letters by searching his name on the site)—hence the failure to address Baa’s interesting point about the disincentive to develop human capital (which, for egalitarians who care about the least advantaged, would be an important point in the context of tax-benefit system which worked to the maximal benefit of the least advantaged). Here’s why I worry less than some of you about Swift’s focus on the competitive aspects of education, and, as with other of the worries, it may be because of his focus on the British context: the intrinsic, non-competitive aspect of education tends to come along with the competitive aspect in the UK case, and, like him, I see no reason for the ability of parents to pay to be the key to getting at these benefits. If they were disconnected from the competitive benefits (as they are to a much greater extent in some Scandinavian countries) I would still not be keen on parental wealth providing the key, but it would be less of a worry. Swift is well aware of the role the family plays in producing inequality of opportunity, as evidenced in his paper Justice Luck and the Family at the Equality Exchange (ftp://194.167.156.192/EE/swift1.pdf). The point is this: The family is extremely valuable, so protecting its ability to produce the goods that it, alone, can produce, is prior to any concern with equality of opportunity. This means that we shall have to tolerate whatever inequality of opportunity it produces. But private schooling, or at least private schooling access to which is controlled by ability to pay, does not fall into this category. We can prohibit it while allowing plenty of scope for families to produce their distinctive goods. He makes this argument in the piece, which people just seem to be ignoring. What about the right to freedom of association? Maybe the family is covered by this, but if so it is covered in an odd sort of way. After all, children are not free to exit families at least when they are young. Parents are not free to do to for and with their children many of the things that they are free to do to for and with consenting others (who are also free); and even many of those things they are (legally) free to do they (morally) shouldn’t. And there are lots of ways in which we properly limit parents from benefiting their children competitively, even with their money (no bribing judges, or soccer coaches; no buying needed organs, etc). The very institution of publicly-funded schooling is a limit—if funding were high enough and state schooling good enough (as in some Scandinavian countries) it would be a much more serious limit than prohibiting private schools (though I can see that some of the above commentators would object to publicly funded schooling too). Each case has to be argued on its merits, and appeal to the right to freedom of association isn’t sufficiently specific to decide anything. Incidentally, there’s a lot of data now on what people try to do for their children, and of course some parents simply try to do whatever they can to get their children competitive advantage (often at real cost to their children’s prospects for having a well-rounded, flourishing life). But my reading of the studies is that people who go private are often motivated, entirely reasonably, by the desire to get some particular good thing for their kid—which might just be the good thing of avoiding an extremely bad school (where ‘bad’ might mean any of a number of things). In the US, for which I know less of the literature on parental motivations for choice, but where the academically elitist schools are largely in the public sector, this seems especially intuitive. For my own kids the local public high school is clearly the high school which gives them a best chance of getting into elite universities, maximizing their lifetime income expectancy—but it is a huge, socially segregated, anonymous institution imbued with popular commercial culture, and when it comes to it I might prefer one of the academically less promising, but more socially mixed private schools if a) it seems to suit their personalities, b) I could afford it and c) I could stand to go Catholic. Do I have a fundamental right to do that? Of course not.

]]> By: Damien Smith http://crookedtimber.org/2003/11/13/private-schools-equality-and-liberty/comment-page-1/#comment-8119 Damien Smith Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:24:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=581#comment-8119 Swift's argument, based on this brief reading, ignores the right of free association (Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights) which some could argue is as fundamental a freedom as freedom of religion. Whether such association, whether paid for or not, is disapproved of should be immaterial. Swift is basically trying to appropriate the positive externalities of better-off or better able students; their presence in state schools is better for the rest of British children who don't have their advantages, but at little or even negative gain to themselves. This is an odd form of targeting: in order to help the worst off targe" [sic] the better off. (There are a number of papers on the microeconomics of social interactions that address this very question.) The trouble in his short piece is that he does not address their parents; compulsion and the "greater social good" aside, why should they agree to do this? A lot of parents will invariably try to do the best for their children, be it by private schools or by moving house (a "postcode lottery" does exist in north London, for instance, with housing prices in Hampstead, for instance, going up around good state schools. What does he propose to do about this? A more efficable solution (at the very minimum, from a transactions-cost standpoint) would be for most parents, if possible, to voluntarily accept the bargain. I have not read his book, so I don't know if he addresses this, but he did not do a good job for his case here. Swift’s argument, based on this brief reading, ignores the right of free association (Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights) which some could argue is as fundamental a freedom as freedom of religion. Whether such association, whether paid for or not, is disapproved of should be immaterial. Swift is basically trying to appropriate the positive externalities of better-off or better able students; their presence in state schools is better for the rest of British children who don’t have their advantages, but at little or even negative gain to themselves. This is an odd form of targeting: in order to help the worst off targe” [sic] the better off. (There are a number of papers on the microeconomics of social interactions that address this very question.) The trouble in his short piece is that he does not address their parents; compulsion and the “greater social good” aside, why should they agree to do this? A lot of parents will invariably try to do the best for their children, be it by private schools or by moving house (a “postcode lottery” does exist in north London, for instance, with housing prices in Hampstead, for instance, going up around good state schools. What does he propose to do about this? A more efficable solution (at the very minimum, from a transactions-cost standpoint) would be for most parents, if possible, to voluntarily accept the bargain. I have not read his book, so I don’t know if he addresses this, but he did not do a good job for his case here.

]]>