In an interesting experiment, Andrew Leigh and Andrew Norton are engaged in what they are terming a “bloggish debate” about the subject of private versus public education.
Andrew Norton is a researcher with the Centre for Independent Studies, and works in the office of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne. He has formerly worked as an adviser to a Liberal Minister. Andrew Leigh is an economist at the Australian National University, and has formerly worked as an adviser to a Labor Shadow Minister.
Andrew Norton kicks the debate off with a post in favour of privatisation that can be read here.
Across the political spectrum, activists want to use public education to influence young minds. In his book Dumbing Down, Kevin Donnelly documents how left-wing academics and teachers shape curricula to fit their political agenda. In government, the Liberal Party proposed a national history curriculum, which was widely seen as another front in the so-called ‘culture wars’.
Rather than fostering social unity, as some of its supporters claim, state-controlled education is a source of division and nastiness. Instead of allowing different groups to devise their own curriculum, and letting parents choose between them, we fight over a common curriculum. The public education lobby stirs class and sectarian resentment in its attempts to take funding from private schools.
3 comments ↓
This should be interesting.
I don’t really like either of their arguments so far (after the introductory round).
Leigh seems to be granting Norton’s claim that public education does inculcate values, but instead of seeing it as tyrannical, he focuses on the positive side, euphemistically describing it as the fostering of shared values. He does make a good point about the fact that in areas of low demand (most prominently in rural areas) there may be a need for state-run schools. (The lack of schools may lead to a geographic centralization, paradoxically leading to a lack of choice.)
Norton’s comparison of state controlled media with schools is not appropriate considering the different societal functions they play (one to inform the other to prepare for employment). And I’m wary of the whole ‘culture wars’ angle; it is quite cynical to see each curriculum as simply the desire to indoctrinate (there are benefits to having a common curriculum: a means of adequately comparing scores, e.g.).
You could even argue that we are dealing with a false binary. That the future resides in a hybrid public/private partnership. I’m sure by the end of the debate that option will feature prominently.
He does make a good point about the fact that in areas of low demand (most prominently in rural areas) there may be a need for state-run schools.
This is a good point, but the fact is that in many rural areas, there are no schools as it is, so public funding isn’t really helping in that respect.
Economies of scale applies to government enterprises too, and they won’t open a high school in a town with 15 students any more than a private company would.
Leave a Comment