M. Freedman vs. M. Friedman on education

Miriam Freedman takes an extremely socialistic position when she says that the answer to fixing public schools is "simple." She thinks that if we close private schools (and I assume charter schools) and don't give people a choice about their schools, then because rich and powerful people would have their kids in public schools, they would advocate for more money and more programs in public schools.

I hate to say that someone so intelligent is naive, so I won't say that, but it does make me wonder at her optimism. First, it seems that she must overestimate how many super wealthy people there are in the United States and how many of the next level of wealthy people send their kids to private schools. I assume from her bio that she is in a much higher income and wealth bracket than I am, so perhaps that is the society with which she surrounds herself.

It also seems a bit optimistic that the wealthy who currently flee the public schools for the safe haven of private schools would advocate for any other public schools other than there own. There are many high wealth districts that do very well today. The parents from those neighborhoods are not the ones that pile into school district board rooms demanding charter schools or other education reform.

I also wonder about her idea that teachers are scorned. I certainly don't scorn teachers, either in public schools or private schools. Most people that I know do not. We certainly want bad teachers to receive appropriate coaching, discipline and termination (if necessary). We don't want teaching to be a protected profession. We expect it to be like other professions in which competence as well as education is the determinant of a person's success and advancement. No, this isn't universal, people make mistakes or pick their favorites in any profession, but it's not the way it normally works or is supposed to work in a good organization.

No, I have to admit that I remain unconvinced by attempts at social conditioning. Milton Friedman was right. Most people will work for their own if they have the ability and knowledge. His idea of vouchers, as early as 1955, led the way to saying that individuals do have power, and we need to give it to them. While I support charter schools even more than vouchers, the idea behind charter schools is that parents need to be given the power to choose. They may make mistakes, just as we all do in all aspects of life, but the overriding principal is that you can't make someone learn, even in the perfect school. Even in great schools, kids drop out.

So, in the battle of Freedman vs. Friedman, I'll go with Friedman on this one.



________________________________________________________________

In fairness, Freedman does emphasize the importance of parental involvement, with which I agree. How to legislate that is another matter. You can lead a horse to water...

Also, in fairness, it's not clear if Freedman takes this position because she is a socialist or because she believes it's a pragmatic way to fix the public school system. In any case, it yields the same results.