Education and auto-insurance

‘Why should education be any different than auto-insurance?’ This was the question posed to teacher leaders at a forum in Edmondton, Canada, last week. The question was put by Peter Cowley of the Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by some major corporations. Cowley’s argument was that the State should require all auto owners to have auto-insurance, but should not be the provider. By analogy, while the State should require that education be compulsory for all children, there was no reason, he suggested, why the State should be the provider. Cowley argued for a diversity of providers, competing with each other, thereby, he said, raising the overall quality of education.

The Canadian Teachers’ Federation had invited Cowley to its President’s Forum, held prior to the Annual General Meeting, precisely in order to hear the arguments being used to attack the concept of public education as we know it. His presentation was juxtaposed with an analysis of the neo-conservative agenda by Bruce Campbell, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. While the Cowley presentation certainly succeeded in getting the adrenalin flowing for the participants, the point was that it reflected views more widespread than we would like to think in many countries, not least in the United States and in Europe. There are many who agree that education is important, but who also hold that provision should come more from the private sector. Somehow, it is felt, the private sector will put in the resources. This generally turns out to be wishful thinking, so the next level of argument is that competition should be introduced into the public sector in order to encourage efficiency. Hence the movement for Charter schools in the USA.

Along with increased competition come league tables, comparisons within and between countries, and the push for performance pay. The merit, if it can be called that, of the Cowley presentation was that it confronted teacher union leaders with the need to restate the case for public education. Nothing can be taken for granted. Nor is it sufficient to bemoan or deride the neo-liberal arguments. They must be addressed.

In the 21st century, the case for quality public education for all is as powerful as it ever was. At the Forum, it was put by CTF Secretary General Calvin Fraser under the heading ‘What should be the promise of public education?’ Calvin described the early history of public education in Canada and the notion of ‘the common school’, which became the basis for community development, national progress, and individual success in a country of immigration and great natural and human diversity. This is a history that can be repeated in every other industrialized country today. It is a basis for citizenship and participation in democracies. Why then, do we witness this movement to move away from public education, even to denigrate it, and to search around for something else to take its place?

We can debate the reasons for this shift in thinking among significant segments of opinion. That it is ideological in nature is certain. But what is the basis for applying this particular ideology, that of the market and competition, so persistently to education? My own conviction is that it is all a matter of interest. The rationale for pursuing policies that deepen economic inequality is very much the same as the rationale for policies that increase rather than diminish educational inequality. In both cases, the rationale is dictated by short-term particular interests, while the longer term common interest is neglected.

It is also certain that this continuing ideological pressure on the concept of public education has consequences for public funding. It leads naturally to starving public education of badly needed resources. There is pressure to ‘do more with less’. A vicious circle is set up, of diminishing resources and of more reasons to criticize public schools – leading to proposals for alternative forms of provision. This vicious circle has to be broken. We have to build, or in some cases rebuild, a consensus in political discourse that public education is the foundation for national, community and individual progress. To achieve that consensus, we have to build, or rebuild confidence in the quality of public education.

Rebuilding the consensus of public support for quality public education is eminently do-able, for there remains a strong reservoir of public support. But it will not just happen by itself. It will take the mobilization of education unions and their members, actively engaging with other actors of civil society which share our values. This must be the basis for our advocacy whether at the G20, the international institutions, or with each national or local government.
Tough political choices on public funding lie ahead. In this context, talk of other means of educational provision, of alternatives to public provision, is dangerous. The auto-insurance analogy is superficial but seductive. It would be unwise to under-rate it. We have articulated in our own circles the case for education as a public good, not a commodity. Our challenge is to take that case convincingly and credibly to wider communities, and to do so with a clear political agenda.