Re "Unleash market forces" has been a rallying cry of both the right and some nominally on the left for the past twenty-some years. The free market and private operators do everything better! Competition drives improvement!"
This is stupid, and has been since it was first uttered. There are no such things as free markets. Even the captains of industry do not want them, they want market dominance, that is monopolies through which they can set their own prices and not have to deal with competitors. "Competition is for suckers," one CEO said ... out loud.
In addition there are two modes of interaction that serve us: outside of our "in group" competition can be healthy (no guarantees, like free markets, competitions require regulations because, well, people cheat). Inside of our in group, collaboration is the watchword. Competition creates winners and losers. Do we really want winners and losers in our families, in our classrooms? Should we just tell parents, their child is a loser and maybe he should look for a job at an Amazon warehouse. We used to do this ... and then we stopped. I wonder why?
While I completely agree with this critique of free-market education, there’s an important distinction to keep in mind. Even in its best forms, education is an opportunity offered and not a service to be delivered. While an opportunity can be offered equally and equitably to all, not everyone will have an equal desire or willingness to take full advantage of it.
Re "Unleash market forces" has been a rallying cry of both the right and some nominally on the left for the past twenty-some years. The free market and private operators do everything better! Competition drives improvement!"
This is stupid, and has been since it was first uttered. There are no such things as free markets. Even the captains of industry do not want them, they want market dominance, that is monopolies through which they can set their own prices and not have to deal with competitors. "Competition is for suckers," one CEO said ... out loud.
In addition there are two modes of interaction that serve us: outside of our "in group" competition can be healthy (no guarantees, like free markets, competitions require regulations because, well, people cheat). Inside of our in group, collaboration is the watchword. Competition creates winners and losers. Do we really want winners and losers in our families, in our classrooms? Should we just tell parents, their child is a loser and maybe he should look for a job at an Amazon warehouse. We used to do this ... and then we stopped. I wonder why?
Bravo.
While I completely agree with this critique of free-market education, there’s an important distinction to keep in mind. Even in its best forms, education is an opportunity offered and not a service to be delivered. While an opportunity can be offered equally and equitably to all, not everyone will have an equal desire or willingness to take full advantage of it.