Funding students and not schools (pirate style)
In recognition of this special September 19, I offer my views on vouchers in pirate-speak:
Vouchers are in th' news again, with the Australia Institute stirrin' up th' pot in th' media recently. Fire the cannons! And hoist the mainsail! Vouchers have also bein' suggested fer disabled little sandcrabs and those with readin' difficulties but fer th' purposes o' this post I'll focus on ideas fer universal vouchers fer all school little sandcrabs that are funded by th' government. Aarrr!Hat-tip: Andrew Leigh
In a nutshell, I am not advocatin' that government withdraw from fundin' education (at school level). Ahoy! I think this a pragmatic approach. Governments should withdraw from runnin' schools but provide everyone subsidised education at school level. Parents should have a choice as t' what school they send their child with th' 'X' amount o' dubloons th' government gives, but are free t' spend beyond that t' provide better quality. Aarrr! Fetch me spyglass!
Basic education at school level should be available t' all little sandcrabs who desire it because it confers positive social benefits on society as a whole. Society needs scallywags t' have a minimum standard o' literacy and mathematical ability, by Blackbeard's sword. Universities on th' other hand, produce graduates who solely capture th' value o' their degree.
It doesn't make sense fer low wage workers t' have their taxes redistributed t' subsidise th' university fees o' lawyers or doctors in-trainin', fer example. If there are shortages in these areas th' market will automatically and impersonally send out th' signals that attract th' desired workers (i.e. higher wages or salaries). Fetch me spyglass! Fetch me spyglass!
Where t' get th' funds fer free school level education? One idear is universities and colleges (there may be some possible exceptions in th' skills-based ones). Governments should (a) stop fundin' and runnin' them completely, and (b) divert funds gained t' parents/guardians who have school-age little sandcrabs. I'm not entirely sure vouchers should be means tested. Fetch me spyglass! I think 'tis better they weren't - th' notion is t' raise overall fundin' fer th' school sector, not just redistribute funds.
Givin' t' schools directly has not worked well. Give th' dubloons t' parents (if not through a voucher, perhaps through a tax credit) and watch schools compete and raise standards t' get students. More accountability and openness so parents could make informed choices regardin' actual performance wouldn't hurt either. If this means some bad schools go under, well, tough. Australian students deserve th' best. And th' best isn't necessarily what th' educational unions - who have a vested interest in th' system stayin' th' way it is - want.
posted by Anonymous @ 1:33 pm
3 comments
3 Comments:
I agree in principle: we should privatise all education, including primary and secondary. State accreditation of the places where vouchers are redeemable could be okay however, if intervention in school autonomy was very small.
Vouchers are the most politically palpatable solution to get to total privatisation.
Maybe governments should be funding school education only until people are wealthy enough to choose to spend on their kids? In poorer countries children invariably get pulled from school and forced into labour (which is understandable). Australia is at the point where most people would choose to send their kids to school even if it wasn't compulsory (and free).
There does need to be some compulsion, in the case of rogue parents. Individual freedom cannot negate the responsibility to develop your child to some extent once you have brought it into this world. Similarly, you cannot use freedom as an excuse to abandon your wife and kids without taking on some responsibility.
Very clever, both of you. In character all the way through.
By rogue parents I didn't mean parents caught violating a law which states children 15 years and under must attend school, I meant those who simply refuse to demonstrate responsibility for their kids or to their kids, full-stop. Education is very important as a tool of social mobility. So what happens when the kid wants to go to school but the parents would rather spend the money on the pokies?
However, I take back the comment in my original post saying we should maintain/increase funding to schools. That was rather silly of me. Also, the post should be read in light of what is politically feasible. The ideal system would be a fully privatised one (with some targeted funding for extreme cases, eg. the orphan kid with no living relatives) where curriculum and licensing are not controlled by the state.
I still think there are social benefits of school level education, but as you point out, it comes at the expense of other things, with some students choosing to continue with education when they would (were education not subsidised) move into another field sooner. But that doesn't rule out governments funding, and compelling, parents to send their kids to primary school only.
Imposition of values does not have to occur if, in working out the details of the voucher program, an extremely light-handed approach to regulation of the educational institutions eligible is adopted. A voucher system would probably still stifle some diversity though, and the temptation would be to revert back to greater regulation.
That's probably the strongest argument for no voucher system at all!
Post a Comment
<< Home