Contributed Commentary on
Volume 4 Number 9: Coulson Markets Versus Monopolies
in Education:
The Historical Evidence
17 July 1996
William J. Hunter
hunter@acs.ucalgary.caThe history presented is stimulating reading, but the author's conclusions are perhaps too amply foreshadowed by the evaluative language used throughout. An early example occurs in Coulson's description of "the case against" parental choice and inter-school competition: "A significant number of parents, it is assumed, would either fail to inform themselves about competing schools, or would base their choices on the 'wrong' criteria'." The author's preferences are revealed in this statement in several ways. First of all, most writers would be inclined to describe the case in favor of an innovation first so that the arguments against might be understood in context. Coulson prefers to write first about the case against so that the "the case in favor" may serve as rebuttal and, I would presume, to gain the benefits of the recency effect in the reader's memory. Second, the use of scare quotes around "wrong" seems to imply that the criteria that would be chosen ar e indeed NOT wrong. Finally, the choice of "it is assumed" as opposed to "it is claimed" or "it is argued" presents this proposition as an ideological presumption rather than as an empirically testable claim.
It seems to me too that there is something crafty in Coulson's use of references to minority groups advocates for an educational free market as the opening paragraph of the case in favor. Even reading from outside the United States, I recognize Ben Chav is as a very conservative writer whose own Horatio Alger life experience leaves him inclined to expect that individual hard work and determination invariably result in just rewards. While I do not know the other parties Coulson cites, this one is enough to suggest that he has been exceedingly selective in his choice of representatives for a minority point of view.
The effects of such a presentation can be powerfully persuasive and I expect that this article will prove persuasive to many readers. As I said earlier, it is a well written and clearly argued polemic, but readers should bear in mind that from the outset, the author is taking a stand and seeking to persuade. This is not simply "the historical evidence" as the title claims. It is some of the historical evidence presented in the context of the author's unshakable faith in free market forces as a basis for educational reform. As such it is both a good read and a good exercise for a critical intellect, but the reader should really be alerted to the author's intentions at the beginning rather having his conclusions appear as if they arose from the data presented. The conclusions are, I think, far too strong for the data. I appreciate the paragraph dealing with the inadequacies of market systems in providing for the education of the poor, Coulson could go a lot further in making clear exactly who was educated in each of the historical systems he presented. Not only was much of the education he discusses limited to males, it was also often limited to "citizens" which frequently meant landowners. Great masses of children would not likely have been covered by any of the education the author speaks of but would have been left to fend for themselves without benefit of education. Moreover, the author's recognition of this problem does not prevent him or her from asserting that "Competition and the profit motive must be reintroduced into education so that teachers and school administrators will once again have a powerful incentive to meet the needs of the children and parents they serve." The conclusion assumes that schools do not now address the needs of children and parents, a proposition about which a charitable assessment (from any political view) might be that the evidence is mixed.
I will not attempt to treat each of the historical periods that Coulson discusses, but I would like to illustrate how the facts of his presentation might lend themselves to alternate interpretations. Take, for example, Coulson's passing comment: "...Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum, neither of which charged a fee due to the wealth and preferences of their founders..." While it introduces a section on for-profit schooling in Athens, it also makes a point about the role of generous benefactors in providing schooling. Such claims are often part of the rationale of contemporary private schools that seek scholarships to support the tuition of able but needy students. This happens, of course, and students no doubt benefit. But the generosity of Plato or Aristotle might also be seen as a precedent for the generosity of today's elite. Suppose, for example, that in a school system given over to the free market, Ross Perot or Ted Turner were to offer free schooling to some large number of students. Would we be prepared to have those schools become vehicles for the promulgation of a particular set of political principles? On the other hand, the American Communist Party in the 1930's was very generous in support of a variety of charities--suppose communist interests, domestic or foreign, wanted to establish private schools with little or no tuition. Would we be prepared to impose severe regulations on the ownership and operation of private schools to insure that they did not serve narrow political interests or would we be prepared to take it as an article of faith that market competition would address such problems?
An alternate interpretation might also be given to Luther's concern that "if we leave it (education) to the parents, we will die a hundred times over before the thing would be done." Coulson clearly sees this as simply wrong-headed thinking--it is an article of faith for him that parents will in fact make good choices for their children. But if we allow that Luther may have known something of the people he was talking about, it is not unreasonable to consider that the child's labor for the famil y farm or business might have been far to valuable to sacrifice for an education. The "good choice" for most peasant families might well have been to choose food over literacy. Given the availability of low-paying jobs in the service industry today, families could just as readily decide that a sixteen year old's income is a better bargain than paying for schooling. Are we prepared to either decrease the school leaving age or to accept higher dropout rates? My point is only this: however clear the facts of history may seem to be, its lessons are invariably ambiguous.
Finally, while there is certainly ample food for thought in the historical antecedents, Coulson would do well to inform readers about the differences between contemporary democracies and the states that supported the public education systems described in this piece. We ought not minimize the differences in social ecology that make simple generalizations from the past inappropriate.
This article is informative and provocative. I would not want readers to be left with only Coulson's interpretation of the "the historical evidence," but I think both his perspective and his arguments merit consideration.