What Education Needs
Not more government.
As an antidote to the blather masquerading on MSNBC this week as serious discussion of education, I prescribe the wisdom of Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), the English classical-liberal political philosopher, scientist, and religious Dissenter. In An Essay on the First Principles of Government, and on the Nature of Political, Civil, and Religious Liberty (1768), Priestley argued for a free and spontaneous education environment. For him education must be left to free individuals precisely because no one can know in advance — or once and for all — what forms of pedagogy are best. (The chapter is titled “In what manner an authoritative code of education would affect political and civil liberty.”)
In the manner of F. A. Hayek, Priestley’s writing on education emphasized the trial-and-error nature of discovery — the need for competitive experimentation from many quarters, indeed, for “unbounded liberty, and even caprice.” What a great phrase!
Here’s what he says:
“[O]f all arts [including education], those stand the fairest chance of being brought to perfection, in which there is opportunity of making the most experiments and trials, and in which there are the greatest number and variety of persons employed in making them.… The reason is, that the operations of the human mind are slow; a number of false hypotheses and conclusions always precede the right one; and in every art, manual or liberal, a number of awkward attempts are made, before we are able to execute any thing which will bear to be shown as a master-piece in its kind; so that to establish the methods and processes of any art, before it have arrived to a state of perfection (of which no man can be a judge) is to fix it in its infancy, to perpetuate every thing that is inconvenient and awkward in it, and to cut off its future growth and improvement. And to establish the methods and processes of any art when it has arrived to perfection is superfluous. It will then recommend and establish itself.
“Now I appeal to any person whether any plan of education, which has yet been put in execution in this kingdom, be so perfect as that the establishing of it by authority would not obstruct the great ends of education; or even whether the united genius of man could, at present, form so perfect a plan. Every man who is experienced in the business of education well knows, that the art is in its infancy; but advancing, it is hoped, apace to a state of manhood. In this condition, it requires the aid of every circumstance favourable to its natural growth, and dreads nothing so much as being confined and cramped by the unseasonable hand of power. To put it (in its present imperfect state) into the hands of the civil magistrate, in order to fix the mode of it, would be like fixing the dress of a child, and forbidding its cloaths ever to be made wider or larger.”
Uncertain Future
Priestley is making what should be an elementary point. No matter how far advanced the methods of education are (and who would say they are advanced at all?), no one knows what might be discovered tomorrow or who might discover it. To the extent a coercive bureaucracy controls education we cut ourselves off from tomorrow’s discoveries, since we have no idea who may come up with them or how. Bureaucracies are protectionist and ultimately conservative in the sense that they are not eager to encourage boat-rockers. We find the opposite conditions in a freed market in which anyone may to take a shot at launching a new idea on a large scale or small — and consumers (parents in this case) are free to try it or ignore it.
In a word, what government deprives education of is entrepreneurship, and by implication, competition.
“I may add, in this place,” Priestley wrote, “that, if we argue from the analogy of education to other arts which are most similar to it, we can never expect to see human nature, about which it is employed, brought to perfection, but in consequence of indulging unbounded liberty, and even caprice in conducting it” (emphasis added). He went on:
“From new, and seemingly irregular methods of education, perhaps something extraordinary and uncommonly great may spring. At least there would be a fair chance for such productions; and if something odd and excentric should, now and then, arise from this unbounded liberty of education, the various business of human life may afford proper spheres for such excentric geniuses.
“Education, taken in its most extensive sense, is properly that which makes the man. One method of education, therefore, would only produce one kind of men; but the great excellence of human nature consists in the variety of which it is capable. Instead, then, of endeavouring, by uniform and fixed systems of education, to keep mankind always the same, let us give free scope to every thing which may bid fair for introducing more variety among us.
As if it weren’t already clear, Priestley was no friend of government regulation of education:
“I wish it could not be said, that the business of education is already under too many legal restraints. Let these be removed, and a few more fair experiments made of the different methods of conducting it, before the legislature think proper to interfere any more with it; and by that time, it is hoped, they will see no reason to interfere at all. The business would be conducted to much better purpose, even in favour of their own views, if those views were just and honourable, than it would be under any arbitrary regulations whatever.”
In other words: Laissez faire!
Comment by Jon Thorp on 1 October 2010:
Is it any wonder that so many of the greatest thinkers and movers throughout history have generally not been a product of government education? While correlation certainly does not imply causation, I think this fact to be quite damning to the case in favor of the status quo.
Comment by Libertarian jerry on 1 October 2010:
The 10th plank to the Communist Manifesto calls for a system of free public education. Combined with the Prussian 3-tiered education system that was by and large put into practice in America in the 19th Century,these 2 ideas added together with multicultural political correctness and buttressed with the tactics of Cultural Marxism has set up a Public education system designed to 1.Dumb down the American population 2.Train Americans to be subservient to authority 3. Train Americans not to be self-reliant and think for themselves.This is what the educational authorities call Socialization. All of the above translates into an American population that can be ruled. The answer to the education problem for liberty loving Americans is a Constitutional Amendment that separates education from the state.Good luck trying to get that amendment passed in our lifetime.
Comment by Gman on 1 October 2010:
Why is it that a lot of conservatives and libertarians complain about public education but still send their children to public schools? In fact, I hear them complain more about the plight of our public education system than any other issue. What is it that’s preventing these parents from either home schooling or enrolling their children in a private institution? Is it the perverse incentive of “free” public education? Are they just lemmings? Is it the cost of private tuition? Is is the time cost (i.e. time spent educating instead of, say, working) of home schooling? I’m one of those libertarians who has no use for our public education system. Therefore, I send my children to a private Christian school. I’m a man of modest means. What my wife and I have done is created a strict budget that enables us to afford private tuition. But it requires sacrifice of the standard of living enjoyed by many Americans. We drive older, high mileage cars. We don’t buy big ticket toys. Why do other families push the limits of their means to achieve their materialistic goals? I’ll tell you why – they are the people that Bastiat talks about when he said, “The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else.” The reason my neighbor can direct his resources to something other than taking direct financial responsibility for his childrens’ education is because he can pass the cost of that responsibility on to me and the rest of the public. I’m very doubtful that our education system will ever be privatized because it represents for many families an opportunity to maintain a high standard of living at someone else’s expense. Our public education system is a great “babysitter” so many families can earn two incomes and enjoy the lifestyle that comes with it. But at what long-term expense? Here’s where we see immoral outcomes when the principles of the free society are ignored – in this case individual responsibility.
Couple more points. First, do you think if the public education system was dismantled and privatized, would it institutionalize inequality? Those with the most money would be able to purchase the best education, and vice versa. Second, what about parents that would ignore education if it’s not compulsory? Is it fair to those children? Finally, would a private system be able to produce the same or better graduation rates than a public system?
Personally, I think a private system would improve on all these issues. It wouldn’t be perfect, but what institution is?
Comment by George Schwappach on 1 October 2010:
The big reality between Public and private or Home schooling is the cost. Those lemmings who send their kids to public school pay so much more than they would if they just shut it down and took personal responsibility for their kids schooling. The districts report spending $10,000 $14,000 and even $24,000 per child (D.C.) per year for a high school education. A new Cato report out this year says these numbers are fiction, and he real cost is 150% o 350% higher (www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa662.pdf ).
Even before the study, I really shouldn’t be any surprise. In my case, I sent my two sons to a very exclusive private school which charged $12,500 per year. So, two sons for 4 years each is $100,000 for a high school education. Now, the property taxes I pay on all my real estate for schooling each year is about $4,900. Of course, I don’t jus pay that for 4 years. I pay it forever. Even after I am dead, the taxes will be paid. If I sell the properties, the taxes will continue to be paid. Really, the net present value of payments in perpetuity is over $165,000. Much more than I paid; then add all those businesses, like Target and Wakmart, who do not have children. The real cost of public schooling is phenomenal!
No, Gman is proving that he is frugal, and spends his money smartly. The problem is that his neighbors aren’t as smart, and chose to blow their (collective) dough. If he could only convince them to save like him, the problem would be solved. Well, once we convinced the state to stop collecting money for something we are not using. And there would be the problem of explaining to all those administrators to go get real jobs (I hope the good teachers will still want to teach, and will form private schools to earn a living).
So, saying it won’t happen in our life time is just hopeless thinking. Start getting your neighbors, your co-workers, your friends to take their kids out. We will make it there, one family at a time.
George Schwappach
Comment by Timothy Ridge on 1 October 2010:
“No matter how far advanced the methods of education are, no one knows what might be discovered tomorrow or who might discover it…”
The author claims this is a salient point. But in truth, it’s entirely beside the point. No scientist abandons good methods solely because someone in the future might develop better ones. Likewise, tried and true methods of public education should not be abandoned simply because better methods might be developed in the future.
This piece is nothing more than fact-free, faith-based opinion from a free-market true believer. We’ve come a long way since the seventeenth century. Not that Richman has noticed…
Comment by George Schwappach on 1 October 2010:
“Tried and True Methods”; Mr. Ridge, are you joking? Public (compulsory) schooling has been failing at education sine the first school opened in 1834.
The intended purpose of this Massachusetts school was to convert those catholic children to Protestantism. And considering how many people have left the Catholic Church in the last 180 years, schools have been very successful.
Our schools today separate children from their family values, teach humanism as a religion, and fail to graduate 50% of their students.
And change? You should read John Taylor Gatto, and find out how the ‘system’ treats someone who tries to change (NY City) schools for the better over a 30 year career. Charter schools, where parents get together to form and run their own schools, are severely limited in opening in 22 states. Not because the state fears new methods, but because charter schools do not hire union teacher.
Internet schooling is a brilliant, reduced cost, style of pedagogue, but unions in 12 states have gotten it banned.
So your comments are written from a fantasy world, and not based on scientific fact. If you really care about having the best education made available to every single American, then you must stop defending the education mess we have made, and begin to welcome new ideas.
George Schwappach
Comment by Dennis on 1 October 2010:
I think that Gman confuses education with schooling. They are not the same. Most professionals in our society learn more from apprenticeship than classroom work. Therefore, the question of ‘what is fair’ is extremely subjective. It would not matter if parents did not send their kids to school if the children learned skills that would improve their lives.
Remember, during the Industrial Revolution when literacy rose ten fold it was because workers needed literacy to get better employment. In other words, education is an effect and not the cause of the economic growth.
Besides, in regards to compulsory schooling, how can it be ‘fair’ to force or obligate a person to do anything against their will?
As a matter of fact, one of my least favorite terms is the oxymoron, ‘moral obligation.’
Good job, Sheldon!
Comment by Kevan on 1 October 2010:
I suppose that, if collectivism had an official hymn, it might be a setting of “no man is an island.” What parents do affects not just the parents themselves, but also the child.
Parents cannot be left free to neglect their children’s education by using “experimentation” as an excuse. The laws must hold them accountable, even as it does regarding other kinds of abuse and neglect.
Who is to judge? That is a distinct question.
Comment by Rocky Frisco on 2 October 2010:
Education is showing a person how to learn.
Indoctrination is telling a person what to think.
Children are hungry and thirsty for knowledge.
They naturally resist being indoctrinated.
All a child really needs is to be taught the language and how to read, how to deal with numbers and access to a library and discussion groups.
The more “modern education” a child receives, the less knowledge and wisdom will be gained.
Comment by terrymac on 2 October 2010:
@Timothy Ridge, if science were created by bureaucrats, we’d have less advancement. Scientists are free to try new methods; no bureaucrats dictate how many hours must be spent in eperimentation, nor how many days per year a scientist shall work.
Suppose government has the tools to discover the best form of education, as it is known today. This in itself is a very tall order, but let it be assumed for sake of argument. This “best form” is then fossilized in a set of regulations. No further experimentation is permitted. No improvement is permitted, unless it is generated by a political process. For a clue about how well such processes work, seek out Richard Feynman’s account of his experiences with the California State Curriculum committee.
Comment by James Anderson Merritt on 2 October 2010:
“Why is it that a lot of conservatives and libertarians complain about public education but still send their children to public schools? In fact, I hear them complain more about the plight of our public education system than any other issue. What is it that’s preventing these parents from either home schooling or enrolling their children in a private institution?”
Public schools have already extracted payment for themselves from your wallets, in the form of taxation. If, as a parent, you are not able to stay home to mind and educate the children, then you must send them somewhere, or have someone come to be with them. Many people’s budgets only allow them to use the “free” option, as much as they might wish to choose something else. This problem would be addressed by either instituting a voucher system or by providing dollar-for-dollar tax credits for educational expenses; I favor the latter but would reluctantly accept the former as long as it were intended and executed as a transitional step toward complete separation of school and state.
I also eventually pulled my own child out of public school and enrolled first in charter, then in completely private school. Our family did not have the financial means to pay tuition, but my wife was lucky to get a job with a small private school, which enabled his tuition to be part of her compensation package AND allow her to be close to him during his years at the school. He ended up very well educated and was accepted at several of the major universities, to which he later applied. The school my wife worked at later had financial problems, and the parents banded together to create a non-profit corporation, which allowed the program to continue under new ownership and a different name. So escaping “the system” CAN be done. It just requires a lot of effort, and some sacrifice, much of which might not be so onerous or even necessary, were the government not already hobbling is by taking taxes for their schools “off the top.”
Comment by Phil Lewis on 3 October 2010:
Public education (?) in the USA has deteriorated into a negative spiral of diminishing quality. It’s quite ugly when a taxpayer realizes that children were receiving a better public education in 1875 than they receive in 2010. I regret having sent my daughter to our “central school” … we live in a rural area and the nearest private school was very inconvenient. Home schooling would have been better. The problem(s): ignorant, poorly trained teachers and horrible administrators. Our daughter did “get educated” … my wife and I did most of the hard work … she became a smart, educated person. Hey, education requires a high level of personal involvement … especially today. Leave the job to a bureaucrat and you get what you deserve.
The existing “system” would make Joseph Priestley ill.
Comment by Gerard Bendiks on 4 October 2010:
“Why is it that a lot of conservatives and libertarians complain about public education but still send their children to public schools?”
For the same reason that those who really don’t like to drive cars…drive cars. (There is no viable set of alternatives).
Comment by James Madison Fan on 4 October 2010:
Bendiks,
There are private schools. Many are not very expensive, especially parochial schools.
Having attended both I found that the public education was superior in many ways especially since they didn’t waste an hour a day on Biblical studies. On the other hand the violence and lack of discipline I encountered when I arrived at public school offset any curricular advantage. Since fighting wasn’t tolerated at my Christian school it took me two years to learn how to stand up for myself.
Actually, looking back on those years, that might have been one of the most important lessons I learned. If you don’t fight (literally as well as metaphorically) then people will walk all over you. . The meek may well be destined to inherit the Earth but that’s only because everyone will have taken the initiative and left.
Comment by Miles on 7 October 2010:
Why would a person pay for something he can get for free..
He must be either really stupid or a slave.
Being human means he isn’t that stupid.
He must be a slave.
Comment by Miles on 7 October 2010:
Technology and capital accumulation enable stupid people to do great things.
People go to school to get smart so they can get jobs being stupid. There are no jobs that require a human intelligence in our society. So why are people going to school to be stupid.
The world isn’t going to fall apart if nobody went to school again. Keynes letter to posterity. Our standard of living won’t go down.
Pingback by | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 2 June 2011:
[...] quotation in the title is from Joseph Priestley, whose views on education Richman discussed in a TGIF column last [...]
Comment by skuliltlz on 7 February 2012:
qdi5mE jtdgdpuuqsve, [url=http://gjtzbipwmzwn.com/]gjtzbipwmzwn[/url], [link=http://awvjtmtpawys.com/]awvjtmtpawys[/link], http://gmylxmhbovje.com/