TABLE OF CONTENTS.

1. Introduction	2. The Facts
3. The State as Parent	4. The State as Educator
5. Economics of the Free Market	6. The "Voucher System"
7. Conclusion	8. Notes.

[TOP] [DOWN]


[TOC]
1. Introduction:-
In an age entirely different then that which we now know, during the 19th century, government, such as it was then, got itself involved in the business of education. Local communities set up schools and ran them. Comparatively speaking, the system back then worked. Society has since evolved, and no longer do we have small interested groups running one room school houses; we now have a huge centralized government running a complex educational system. And things now, as the Economic of Council of Canada pointed out, do not work: "Canada's education system will send a million more illiterate young people into the working world by the end of the century unless there are fundamental changes."

[TOC]
2. The Facts:-
Nova Scotians, like the rest of Canadians, are suffering from illiteracy: 15% of all adults between 16 and 69 can neither read or get beyond a familiar word in a simple text; 37% cannot meet most everyday reading skills.[2] When it comes to science and math we are sadly behind in the international ranks;[3] and 14% of the population in Nova Scotia have low "Numeracy Skills."[4] Our children drop out of school at an alarming rate; 26.8% of all students who entered grade 9 do not graduate from high school.[5] As for costs: overall the province of Nova Scotia spends approximately a quarter of its budget on education; it spends more of its citizen's money on education than in any other area, except that for health care. For the year 1990 it spent, on average, $4,217 on each pupil (compare this to $2,506 in 1982).[6]

Canada spends proportionately more of its resources than just about any other country in the world on education, more certainly than does New Zealand, France, Australia, the U.K., the United States and Japan (just to name a few).[7] Canada's teachers, it would appear, are the highest paid in the world.[8]

The Economic Council of Canada states, that while the results are spotty and difficult to compare from province to province (the system does not like testing itself), what results are available do suggest "that average achievement in the tested subjects has not improved, but rather has deteriorated over the past 25 years ... as test results deteriorated between 1966 and 1991, the student/teacher ratio declined by about one third, while expenditures per student, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled."

[TOC]
3. The State as Parent:-
Government's business, which it limps through in a very expensive and intrusive way, is -- in the running of itself. It barely succeeds. What is for sure, government cannot run an educational system. The evidence is there for anyone of us to behold - it cannot, it seems at any price, do the job. Even supposing it could, there are important constitutional reasons why it should not. (From the outset, it should be made clear, that there is a distinction to be made between those who run something such as the educational system and those who are charged with the grave responsibility of setting educational standards, which all educators are bound to live up to if they expect to maintain their license. On how to achieve the standards, or at least, to achieve the best possible level; is, of necessity, a job for that marvelous mechanism we know as the free market.)

Any system which splits interest and responsibility apart is not a system that likely will work. It is in the nature of man, as an individual person, to take responsibility for a situation in which he or she has an interest. While we all have a general interest in an educated population, it is the parents who have the primary interest in seeing to the education of their child, therefore the primary responsibility must also be left to them. Now, it may be that the state should supply the means; but, even if the state could - and the evidence is that it cannot - the responsibility to educate the young in our society does not lie with the state.

We have experimented, and have now experienced, what it is like to have the great collective apparatus of government involve itself in individual personal matters; the laudable aim, of course, was to solve problems. The collective approach - with all evidence running against it - does not work. The collective approach to education has but created a collective problem, the extent of which has only begun to make itself felt. The collective problem is all about us, there, to be inherited; it comes about when the state takes over the responsibility for events which can only be governed by the individuals who have a specific interest in the outcome of these events. The education system, such as it is now, while one of the older ones, is, nonetheless, just another government run program, one that alleviates the necessity for the individual to see to himself and to his family. The fact of the matter is the government school system has diminished parental responsibility. This problem is a problem that was foreseen at the start:

"... the fatal error ... was that the gratuitous system would diminish the sentiment of parental responsibility. To bring a child into the world was to incur a grave responsibility, and no action of the State should tend to obscure the fact. But to relieve a parent from the cost of his children's schooling would most emphatically diminish his motives for forethought."

"[The citizens, the voters] look to the government for help, and such legislation in the name of progress shifts the centre of gravity in the moral world from the parent to the State - slowly but surely undermining the foundation of national life by the deterioration of the unit of the family. (pp. 268-71.)"

Though it might have been advanced at a time when a one room school house and a teacher would do for an entire community, the argument that government can deliver and administer education in a cost efficient manner, drops these days, in the face of contrary evidence, like a lead weight into the sea. The only argument to be addressed is that a government run education system allows for all citizens through the "democratic process" to have a say in the education of the young. If citizens have a way of having a say as to how the government school system is being run, then they are hardly using it. But my point is this - the existing system, whatever its human design may have provided, as anyone can see who has had the slightest involvement with it, is run by a few bureaucratic experts who cave in to those who scream the loudest. (My sympathies, believe me, lie entirely with the haggard school administrators.) The only real democratic system is the free market system, as I will soon attempt to illustrate.

The government school system, I submit, is run, not by the public, but by bureaucrats who, as is their nature, are continually trying to seek a consensus. Thus, we now see a most serious defect as does exist in all government enterprises: that which does get done, gets done, because it has been watered down to the lowest common denominator. Ultimately, in such a system as we now have in the government school system, what is fed to all - is pap: it is fed to the public, it is fed to the teachers, it is fed to the parents and it is fed to the students. And, thus, all that we might expect of our government school system is "pappy output" - and that, only when it works: when it does not work (being more often the case I suspect) it becomes a Carrollian sink-hole into which our money and our students disappear.

"Imagine that you're either the referee, coach, player, or spectator at an unconventional soccer match: the field for the game is round; there are several goals scattered haphazardly around the circular field; people can enter and leave the game whenever they want to; they can throw balls in whenever they want; they can say "that's my goal" whenever they want to, as many times as they want to, and for as many goals as they want to; the entire game takes place on a sloped field; and the game is played as if it makes sense...
If you now substitute in that example principals for referees, teachers for coaches, students for players, parents for spectators, and schooling for soccer, you have an equally unconventional depiction of school organizations." [Wm. Foster, Paradigms and Promises (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1986) at pp. 129-130.]

[TOC]
5. Economics of the Free Market:-
What kind of medicine is it that we need to take, in order to cure the educational malady which now exists. "Of all human powers operating on the affairs of mankind, none is greater than that of competition."[10] If government were to simply leave the educational arena, then a true, publicly (sic) run educational system will arise.[11] To accept that this will happen will take some understanding of classical economics.

Economics is a subject which most of us, all too soon, learn to hate. Little wonder! It is very easy to get thrown off by formula spouting egg heads with wizard hats on. Its definition is understandable enough: the study of how human beings allocate scarce resources to produce various commodities and how those goods are distributed for consumption among the people in society. The essence of economics lies in the fact that resources are scarce, or at least limited, and that not all human needs and desires can be met. It all boils down to how stuff gets produced and how it gets distributed.

Economics was, as a study, first established in the 18th century by Adam Smith, who founded the so-called classical school, which included other British economists such as David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. The classical school embraced the concept that economics concerned itself with the study of natural laws.[12] The classical school believes there exists a natural law, an egocentric mechanism, which drives an extended order of collaboration. This we call a "market"; it consists of a complex of interacting individuals or groups of individuals, all working consciously to advance themselves, and by so working advance society, albeit unconsciously, as a whole.

It was John Maynard Keynes who in the 20th century developed prescriptive theories which ever since have been lovingly embraced by politicians. Economists, by and large, the handmaidens of government (in an act which in itself supports the classical school theory) were attracted to the Keynesian school. In recent years, more and more people of influence have come to see the immense social problems brought by profligate government spending, and, in returning to the classical views, have recognized the power and diversity of the free market.[13]

Before passing on, I should observe that the running of a private school in this province (Nova Scotia) has not yet been outlawed (unlike medicine; but, that, is a different topic). One can set up a private school: all that is necessary is to comply with certain standards as is determined by government regulation (as likely it should be). On setting up a private school, however, one will be faced with competition which is 100% subsidized by the tax payers. Parents (I am told a disproportionate number of public school teachers do this) who send their children off to private schools pay twice, once through their taxes and then again to the private schools. Because of this there exists a huge damp blanket over the education market. This situation is not fair; it is inefficient and thus costly; it deprives us of choice; and it is depriving too many of our children of their right to a proper education.

[TOC]
6. The "Voucher System":-
What are the choices for parents who wish to see to the proper education of their children. First off, parents can, and many do, take a more direct role in the process. They teach their children themselves (a time honoured and natural role); and, in addition, they shepherd them through the public school system, or, if they can afford it, send their children to a non-government school. Parents, however, who wish to send their children off for a private education are at a distinct economic disadvantage. They have to pay for two educations, the one represented by the tax supported public school system, the system out of which they have taken their child; and the other being the private education which they have chosen for their child. As it turns out, in the system as it now exists, only the well-to-do have a real choice.

There is a relatively new movement afoot, the educational choice movement. It has made more of an inroad in the United States, but it is making itself felt in Canada, and increasingly more so. This movement has arisen spontaneously from the grass roots; from those among us, taxpayers and parents, who can see the problems in the present system; and, further, can see that the resolution - by the very nature of the problem - cannot come from within but can only come from without the system. The movement seeks fundamental reform of the educational system through market orientated solutions, such as the contracting out of instruction, home schooling, franchised learning centers, and the voucher system.

The voucher system works this way. Each parent is given a voucher for each of their children. In Nova Scotia the voucher could amount to, say, $4,000 dollars (this amount would be less than the average amount that the provincial government now spends on each student in the province). The parent shops around for the school which best suits the needs of their child. The school sends a bill for its services to the parents, for whatever amount, and the parent pays the bill. For the family it becomes a regular transaction; its the same thing as buying a car or paying the rent. The only difference is that the parent can use the voucher up to the $4,000 limit to pay the school's bill.[14] The school, as an accredited school, would readily accept the voucher in that it can be readily converted into cash at the government wicket.

The voucher system will give an equal opportunity to every child, and yet, harness the wonderful forces of the free market. Every family will have a choice of where they wish to send their child for an education; it could not be more democratic. The family as a private contractual affair reads the curriculum and the private policies of the school and then chooses: chooses it for the religious training it gives, or not; chooses it because it gives musical training, or not; chooses it as a simple sitting service (as is the case for most these days), or not; chooses it because it gives advance courses in science, or not; chooses it because it administers the strap, or not; chooses it because condoms will be readily available in the washrooms, or not: all of this, and more - parent's choice. This is the beauty of the free market system, given a level field, a smorgasbord of educational services will arise from which one has a free choice. It is a responsive and cost efficient system which will naturally evolve and run itself. Imagine! No government involvement; no bickering; resources dedicated to the business of educating the young; and no escalating tax burden. Just imagine!

There is a school in Corona, California, where the administration, the teachers and the parents said, "Enough is a enough." "They called the parents in and they set up detailed contracts with them, even to requiring a dress code for the kids. They made parents aware that homework was going to be required and that they expected the parents to oversee the homework. They said they wanted parents to attend meetings a minimum of once every two weeks at the school. Arrangements were made for parents who did not own a car so they could attend meetings. No excuses!"[15] Here is an example of a school which introduced free market principles - where people are moved to do things on the basis of contract and not on the basis of who a person is, viz., "contract versus status.". This school became extremely popular to the parents in the surrounding area. So popular was this school, that parents were lined up "two nights before applications are processed to ensure that their kids get into this school," some with sleeping bags. The line up to the school, it seems, resembled the line up to a pop concert ticket booth.

Now, with such developments unions and the bureaucrats, you may be sure, are not too happy. However, it is clear, from the Corona school example, just what can happen when "parental choice" is introduced into the system. In the real business world, where one business is being bested, changes are soon made, changes that duplicate or reflect the successes of those businesses which are succeeding - a free market system, where it is allowed to operate, the "good" (as determined by impersonal voluntary choice) is duplicated and the "bad" (again, as determined by impersonal voluntary choice) is rooted out in a continual, day by day, month by month, year by year process. The market will yield up a fantastic variety from which parents can choose, at little cost, and with no costly and endless public debates as to what is "good" or what is "bad." Let the parents choose. It is really quite simple to implement, just introduce a voucher system and let all the schools, whether they are government or private compete for the vouchers.

The objections[16] raised to the voucher system are listed in the book, Free To Choose (New York: Avon, 1981). Milton and Rose Friedman deal with each objection in turn: the church-state conflict, it's too costly, it's too prone to fraud, it's racial, the poor wouldn't be educated, the ideal of equal opportunity for all would not be served (as if it is now), nobody will build new schools, and - the one that I like the most - every one will desert the government schools for the private ones, with the resultant lost of the government school system (we should be so lucky). The Friedmans put each of these questions nicely to rest. (See ch. 6.)

[TOC]
7. Conclusion:-
Whatever it is that we expect of our educational system, it cannot take care of our babies, that we must leave in the hands of the parents; nor can we expect that it will provide the essential seasoning which all young adults require, this we must leave to their employers. One's expectations of any educational system can be clarified and delimited by the realization that there is a difference between what might be described as instruction or training, versus, those activities that help form character in a human being.

Equality of opportunity to an education is for society a primary objective. Though much depends on the meaning of the word education, it can hardly be said that our present system has achieved this dearly held objective. It does not even come close! The bloody flag of equal opportunity hangs frayed and limp above an educational field littered with ideals and expensive governmental mechanisms, which are now so many wrecks strewn about, and which, because of a dried up government treasury, will soon be turned into a stack of smoldering smithereens. Do I exaggerate: remember, please, that I write about a system which claims to be educating the population, this is a claim made in the face of the fact that 37% cannot meet most everyday reading skills! No doubt about it, it's time for a change. It's time to employ the invigorating forces of the market place and at the same time truly serve the goal of equal opportunity to an education by introducing a "voucher system."

[TOC]
8. Notes:

1 Peter Landry is a lawyer and has been, for 20 years, in private practice in the City of Dartmouth. He invites correspondence on the topic and may be contacted at P.O. Box 1200, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, B2Y 4B8, or at peteblu@blupete.com.

2 Appendix K of the report of the Select Committee on Education (Nova Scotia) handed up on March 31st, 1992 (Select Report).

3 See report contained in Maclean's magazine, January 11th, 1993.

4 Appendix L of the Select Report.

5 See Maclean's.

6 The question of costs (because our young are, either; not educated, or mis-educated) can only be fully added up by taking a broader look. It's true that a shocking number of adults cannot read or write, but there is something else that a large number of the population are either learning or (depending on one's point of view) not learning. Our criminal and family court dockets (a barometer of social unrest, I would suggest) are bulging.

7 Only the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands beat out Canada in its spending (see Table 8 "A Lot to Learn").

8 Though the figures are somewhat stale (1984), "secondary school teachers" (in U.S. dollars and after an adjustment in respect to cost of living factors, "purchasing power parity" ["ppp"]) earn more in Canada than their counterparts in other countries: in Canada a secondary school teacher makes $32,000.00 per year; compare this to the U.K., $17,700; Sweden, $18,800; Japan, $22,400; and the United States, $22,700. Most all of the money which our government here in Canada spends on education is spent on teachers' salaries. The percentage will vary from province to province, but here in Nova Scotia, for 1986-87, teachers' salaries took up 68% of all that money which was spent on education, it did not leave much for "capital expenditures," 7.6%. (See Tables 6 and 7 in the statement made by the Economic Council of Canada, 1992, "A Lot to Learn.")

9 While testing educational standards is likely one of the few legitimate governmental functions, it is not something that I can see is being done.

10 Henry Clay, in a speech to the American senate, 1832.

11 Until the market has an opportunity to respond in all its diversity to the demands of education, there will, of course, be a continuing role for government schools, but they would be obliged to compete on a level basis with private schools.

12 One must understand that there are two kinds of law: one is scientific, or natural law; the other is a rule (or set of rules), apart from a natural law, which society prescribes for itself (positive law). The former is descriptive, cannot be broken; the latter is prescriptive, or man made law, it can be broken (that it can be broken is definitive of prescriptive law, there would be little need to pass a law if it could not be broken).

13 Throughout the years lonely lights of the classical school were kept burning by brave and heroic men, such as Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), Nobel Prize winner, Friedrich A. Hayek (1900-92), and Milton Friedman (1912- ). See for example Hayek's splendid book, The Fatal Conceit (University of Chicago Press, or Routledge): "But because of the delusion that macro-economics is both viable and useful (a delusion encouraged by its extensive use of mathematics, which must always impress politicians lacking any mathematical education, and which is really the nearest thing to the practice of magic that occurs among professional economists) many opinions ruling contemporary government and politics are still based on naive explanations of such economic phenomena as value and prices, explanations that vainly endeavour to account for them as "objective" occurrences independent of human knowledge and aims. Such explanations cannot interpret the function or appreciate the indispensability of trading and markets for coordinating the productive efforts of large numbers of people." (p. 98-99.)

14 Most anybody in Halifax would agree that a very fine education can be had for your daughter at the Scared Heart School, a private school. This school's tuition fees ranged (1992-1993 school term) from $2,999 for primary through to $4,108 for grade Twelve.

15 From an 1992 address made to a group in Philadelphia by Joseph F. Alibrandi, who heads up, in addition to being a CEO of a major US corporation, a California-based educational reform group; as quoted by Overview a publication (Nov. '92) of the National Citizens' Coalition.

16 The Economic Council's Statement, previously cited, does set forth at p. 14 a table "Choosing the School of One's Preference." In this half page table, the Council briefly sets out "the advantages," "disadvantages" and "problems." The Economic Council was not addressing a true "voucher system" but rather addressing the difficulty within the "government system" of giving parents full choice. It seems to this writer that a certain number of the "disadvantages" and "problems" would be resolved by a true "voucher system." Also, I think that the Economic Council did not consider the power of the market, given a chance, to supply the right product in the right place and in sufficient quantities. Certainly there will be disparities, but one can see great disparities in the existing government system, and I think that the performance averages (37% illiteracy in the population, for example) have no where to go, but up; and the costs (our government treasuries are now drained) have no where to go, but down.