Four biting articles by Greg Lindsay on state schooling:
1. “Where has the choice gone …,” freeEnterprise, April, 1975, pp. 6-7.
2. “Curriculum must be out of bounds,” The Australian, July 29, 1993, p. 11.
3. “Maintaining education divide,” The Sydney Morning Herald, April 6, 1998, p. 16, as a letter to the editor.
4. “Education is another consumer choice,” The Australian Financial Review, September 22, 2004, p. 63.

1.
Greg Lindsay, “Where has the choice gone …,”
freeEnterprise, April, 1975, pp. 6-7.

What more than a few words of sympathy can be offered to alleviate the concern of parents who feel that the standards of their children’s education — their free education — are steadily declining?

What words of encouragement can you offer the worried parents who come to you with complaints about a teacher who just cannot control his classes (why do they need controlling? — another question), or having one political conviction or another, feels it is his duty to help the minds of his young charges to see the glory in his utopian ideas? What realistic alternative can now be offered to the parents of children whose teachers are plainly incompetent or perhaps have some quaint idea that his pupils should live the truths of the violence and sexual intent of the outside world in the cosy, controlled comfort of the classroom?

A good case study is the recent Murphy incident within the N.S.W. State teaching service. Murphy, an English teacher at Kirrawee High School in Sydney was suspended from duty and charged with improper and disgraceful conduct, based on a number of events, the truth of which depends on who was relating them. As it was, the teeth of the Department’s case fell out one by one when Murphy was defended by the N.S.W. Teachers’ Federation (at a cost of $10,000), but this is not the point in question. What matters is the lack of alternatives for parents who consider that their child is not being fairly treated. Some parents may consider that the teacher is entitled to do what he wishes. Some may not — then what of their rights?

Private schools? Are they at present any real alternative? I don’t think so. Particularly if parents are looking for something altogether different. Most non-government schools (and I stress most, not all), are little different from government schools, save maybe for smaller class sizes and then only for the lucky or well-healed school. There is no guarantee that the standards of service offered will be any better at all — quite likely it will be a good deal worse, and, of course, they are still bound by the state controlled curriculum.

Even if the parents did opt for a non-government school, most of them will severely deprive themselves financially for their children’s education, paying in effect two sets of fees for the privilege of rejecting state education.

The state does not require a man to have the same house or the same car as the next man, and in fact if he is industrious enough or arranges his priorities in such a way that enables him to choose the best available, then he is welcome to it. If he doesn’t like his sports club, then he is not compelled to stay, nor is he compelled to assist in payment of the membership fees of those who do like it there. He can join another or, if he feels so inclined, start one of his own. Where, then, is the justice and a sense of fair play in a system that tells a man who is just unable to afford extra fees for a private school under the present arrangement, that if he wants a better education for his children, then he must sell up his house and maybe change his job so that he can now move to an area in which the government schools might be superior. In effect, this is the result of school zoning, but why change in any case, one zone is as good as another — or so they tell us. This is not striving for excellence in education, but the sort of mediocrity that a socialist state demands.

In reality, of course, the difference between one zone and another can often be quite alarming, making the theory of equality in education nothing more than words.

It is quite easy to find people who will support centralised state controlled education. Their reasons are not often very sound. Most have known no other system at all — “it has always been so, so why then should it change?” Yes, why.

A short look at the history of education will show indeed that this has not always been so.

And this short look at history will also show rather dangerous precedents for terrifying contingencies, even well within recent memory.

If the object of any government (wittingly or unwittingly) is to create a “great” and strong state, all pulling together for the common good, all aiming for the same prosperity for all, then a system of tax-supported, compulsory state education for the children of the state, is perhaps one of the easiest methods of achieving this end — Hitler did it, Napoleon did it … the list goes on.

People who value freedom (and who doesn’t? — just tell me) should value the right to select an educational opportunity for their children and for themselves, but those opportunities are fast dwindling to one only: the state.

What chance does a non-government school have in the face of massive government spending in education?

Sure, spend some money. Why not? It must only improve standards in education to the betterment of all — “Shouldn’t it?” we might well ask. Characteristically though, the opposite is happening.

It is apparent now, that skill in basic areas of learning such as spelling, arithmetic and reading exhibit difficulty for an increasing number of school leavers. Simply spending money is not the answer needed for the vexing question of declining educational standards.

No, if sanity is to be brought back into the sphere of education, then alternative, private education must be allowed to at least compete on an equal footing with state education.

Parents and students, when you are next faced with an incompetent teacher, a teacher whose methods you deplore, a teacher who insists on passing over what you consider to be fallacious or dangerous information, a school in which the facilities are dirty, dangerous or just downright ugly, a learning situation that is so boring, so colourless as to assist you to lose all vestiges of creativity and interest in anything new — then ask yourself just what are the alternatives.

Education by the state is not just, it is not free and, most of all, it is not in the interests of those being educated — it serves the purposes of the state only. That is their justification ultimately for the imposition of their coercive educational institutions.

Future articles will deal with types of private education, the ways that they may be financed, the history and immorality of compulsory education, particularly with reference to Australia, and why there is no justification for free education, especially at the tertiary level.

***
2.
Greg Lindsay, “Curriculum must be out of bounds,”
The Australian, July 29, 1993, p. 11.

It’s a curious thing that at a time when central planning’s credibility has suffered a fatal blow, the idea of a national curriculum should even be taken half-seriously.

Maybe what we should be talking about is not one curriculum, but instead, even more than the seven indicated by the State administrations. Perhaps too, we should be wondering, even aloud, about what the State is doing in education at all.

Leonie Kramer’s excellent column in The Australian (July 16) gives us the first glimmer of a new approach to the provision of education services — which in the light of the present debate about the Constitution and federalism hints at opportunities for choice and excellence to blossom.

The Centre for Independent Studies has been presenting a series of lectures throughout Australia, the Bert Kelly Lectures. A recurring theme has been the role of government, federalism and constitutionalism. And, dare I say, what a republic really means.

Distinguished scholars and public figures, such as Professor Wolfgang Kasper, Professor Geoffrey de Quincey Walker, Suri Ratnapala and columnist with The Australian Frank Devine, have over the past few months raised issues which go to the heart of how we are governed.

Let’s share a few of their ideas and apply them to the national curriculum debate. Professor Walker, dean of the Law School at the University of Queensland, says: “A federal structure makes it harder for any one group of politicians to ruin the entire economy at once.”

The same can be said in education. Do we really want to contemplate the education bureaucrats and politicians of Joan Kirner’s day experimenting with the future of the nation’s children, rather than have it happen in one State only?

Professor Walker goes on to focus on those “ideologues of centralism” who, while promoting some of the minor inconveniences of federalism, ignore its massive advantages. “Any legal difference between States is treated … as a sign of failure, rather than evidence of creative diversity and experimentation and an opportunity for the exercise of free choice.”

Suri Ratnapala, also at the University of Queensland and one of the most skilled constitutional lawyers in the country, says: “Federalism involves the recognition that human communities form different associations for different purposes and hence different types of power are derived from different associations or constituencies. Accordingly, federalism as an ideal requires power-holders to be responsible for the appropriate constituency.”

The determination of our major political parties to deny the States the genuine freedom to compete without centrally designed policies is the best evidence that substantial benefits can be gained from competitive federalism.

And more importantly, federalism does offer something very tangible. It’s the only constitutional protection of liberty that is neutral: you can choose to move to the State that protects the particular freedoms you cherish most.

The federal system enables people who find State laws or regulations oppressive or uncongenial to vote with their feet. In the past decade, Australians have done so in massive numbers, as Professor Walker notes, mainly moving from the over-regulated States of the south to the more enterprising climate of Queensland. And perhaps now we might see people, wishing to obtain the best available public education for their children, considering a move to NSW.

No less an authority than the great Nobel laureate in economics F.A. Hayek put the final boot into planning mentality: “The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson in humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society — a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilisation which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”

Let’s stop now this talk of national curriculums. Instead, let’s talk further of breaking the mould of State education. Let’s restore choice and responsibility in education to the parents and let’s put our best and most creative minds to the task of figuring out how to do it.

***
3.
Greg Lindsay, “Maintaining education divide,”
The Sydney Morning Herald, April 6, 1998, p. 16, as a letter to the editor.

I thought it pathetic that Adele Horin (March 28) could honestly believe that the only reason people might wish to send their children to a private school was academic. Of course it’s an important consideration, but not every parent is silly enough to think that they all have geniuses for children.

The reasons for seeking a better or even a different education are varied and complex, but the fact remains that there is a majority of parents who wish something else for their children than is delivered by the public system. A Herald survey in 1994 found that the numbers are around 60 per cent. Perhaps the public system will improve marginally, but it has structural defects that will not be resolved while it is controlled by the education industry: the teachers and their unions; the bureaucracy; and the politicians who are confused about their aims for education.

Only parents know what is really right for their children and many are willing to make enormous sacrifices to have the chance to fulfil this. This includes paying fees at the private school and taxes to maintain the public system they don’t use. Let’s be clear who is subsidising whom.

So if Ms Horin is correct that the shift to private schools is accelerating, then it’s a victory for parents in our democracy who believe that they should have something to say about the type of education their child receives. May it continue and may true educational entrepreneurship bloom to provide what is best for all our children. Perhaps then Ms Horin will focus on education itself rather than bleating about the private/public debate which is almost now a non-issue.

***
4.
Greg Lindsay, “Education is another consumer choice,”
The Australian Financial Review, September 22, 2004, p. 63.

We should loosen the state’s grip on education, writes Greg Lindsay.

Education is an issue in which everyone has a direct interest at some point in their lives.

But much of the recent election debate has added nothing to answer a fundamental question. Why is it, with free state education available to everyone, parents give up the free product for one that can cost as much as $17,000 a year?

The parents of more than 30 per cent of Australian children are already rejecting the free product.

We live in an age when human capital is rewarded. We are constantly reminded by politicians and others of the knowledge economy and similar concepts.

Just dig around an average Mark Latham speech. He is right. Parents know this, too.

And what if being conscripted into buying a product which you think is inadequate seems so much like being forced to have a car built by the government, but one that you the parent and taxpayer think may be damaging or disadvantaging your children.

What do you do when you believe that your children can’t afford to lag for even a small moment in the quest for human capital development? What if the major provider, the state, is failing, or you think it is failing?

Answer: You do what people are doing. You seek something that matches what you want.

In the case of education we should encourage the search. It is flexibility, choice and experimentation that are the keys to the knowledge economy.

Of course, it’s not only knowledge that parents seek from schools, so human capital should be interpreted fairly broadly.

The mandarins in the departments of education ultimately can have no real idea of the educational needs of individual children, and trusting your child’s future to the class warriors of the teacher unions is a risky strategy.

They are your children not the state’s and that’s why you agonise, and why you are willing to sacrifice. And why you end up paying twice.

It is compulsory for children to attend school. But that the state should provide the service doesn’t necessarily follow, even though since the second half of the 19th century that’s been the case.

Why should it always be so? We are moving away from state pensions and have privatised much of government service provision because these days, apart from statist ideologues, nobody really accepts that government provision is the only way.

In education, like so much else, consumption possibilities have become more accessible due to the availability of different forms of finance.

Consumption, especially when you have children in whom you wish to invest, has been made more equal than at any time in our history. Schools even take credit cards for fees.

The coalition’s funding system is inadequate and has allowed the funding of schools rather than the funding of the child to lead to a divisive debate over school resourcing, reaching its nadir with the ALP’s new policy.

Ultimately though, some kind of child-centred funding mechanism will be demanded to stop the grubby squabbles. Vouchers, tax credits and other schemes have at various times been proposed and all would be a vast improvement on what we have now.

Let’s empower parents and make schools truly competitive and help every child have access to the best, however defined. Imagine if every parent could have the consumer power of the better off.

By all means provide extra support for government schools (this is, of course, the primary responsibility of the states), but also ask, is this the best way of spending taxpayer dollars?

More money is going into state education than at any time in history, but significant numbers of parents just don’t like what they see. Who is learning from this?

It seems that it’s the parents who do move their children, not to mention those who don’t because they can’t afford to.

Dividing the people on this fundamental issue is not worthy of any politician supporting it. They are our children and our tax dollars.

Others who think they have a claim on both should explain this pretty clearly.