Tom Askew considers the role of expediency in our failure to privatize education

In a recent article for The Public Discourse, Princeton Professor Robert George compared public tolerance for the institution of slavery along lines of expediency to the contemporary issue of legalized abortion. In setting up his argument, Prof. George made this commentary about the climate of U.S. culture during the time when slavery was legal:

Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people…reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some… showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

I could not help but think of the “expediency” argument I often hear when I support the idea of privatizing all education in the United States. The disruption to the status quo which would result from such a realignment is deemed to be too inconvenient to even consider. Numerous (and largely unlikely) worst case scenarios are offered in counterarguments which overlook current travesties as they imagine that something could be worse.

I couldn’t resist paraphrasing Professor George’s paragraph as I see it applying to education:

Many people, seeing the failures of America’s public schools, would prefer an educational environment that rewards successful schools and eliminates, through attrition, failing schools. But that would require a free and open market, with all parents entrusted with the resources to make responsible school choices for their children. Given U.S. society as it is, with government schooling woven into the fabric of society as it has been for only the last century and a quarter, the economic consequences of teachers incapable of maintaining their jobs in a more competitive environment and the requisite re-investment of resources toward paying quality salaries for quality teachers (while eliminating multiple layers of useless bureaucracy) would be dire. Many people who argue that poor quality, state-funded babysitting is better than the alternatives are not monsters, but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some have shown their opposition to government-funded ideological indoctrination by contributing their tax credits to private schools or being vaguely supportive of homeschooling. They certainly don’t think that anyone should be forced to go to public school. Still, they maintain that government schooling should remain an economically favored option and be given legislative and judicial protection.

This makes me think of the situation that resulted from the fall of the totalitarian regimes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the 1990’s. Yes, there was disruption and societal upheaval for a time. Some people don’t even remember it now. But since it was inconvenient for a period, maybe they should have stuck with communism.