From the Libertarian Alliance blog:
Libertarians are all more or less agreed that the very idea of a “National Curriculum” - that is to say, where the content of State-imposed education, and by inference, leakage and force, the content of most of that provided privately also - is inimical to human liberty and quite possibly dangerous to the proper and truthful spread of real knowledge also.
While I'm broadly sympathetic to libertarian ideals, I can't agree with this.
Although I believe that schools should have a greater say in how they teach subjects (allowing it to be tailored to the specific strength and weaknesses of the students and teachers), the idea of giving them complete freedom seems a recipe for disaster - further breakdown of social cohesion and a decline in critical thinking being two of the more serious consequences of such a move, neither of them particularly desirable.
Allowing schools to decide what and how they teach would most likely give rise to a fragmented system, with children placed in schools which best reflect the prejudices (political, social, religious) of their parents, thus merely entrenching existing prejudices rather than exposing them to different ideas and providing them with the means to decide between them. It’d be the current Faith Schools issue ratcheted up to 11: socialist schools, conservative schools, Scientology schools - we'd have them all!
It's bad enough that some schools already present Creationism as proper science, do we really want children encouraged to take Body Thetans seriously as well?
While the "invisible hand" would probably weed out the more extreme edges pretty effectively - you'd need basic maths/english to get anywhere in life, no matter how well you could sing the Internationale - I don't see how it would cope with the more long-term social problems that could arise. A national framework - ensuring that children are exposed differing viewpoints and develop the necessary critical faculties - seems a basic requirement for a democratic system.
Of course, I‘m open to counter-arguments.
10 comments:
...schools already present Creationism as proper science...
which of course it is, as scinece is merely the explanation of how things work.
Generally though, the NC did raise standards across the board but broke down at GCSE level.
"science is merely the explanation of how things work"
Science consists of hypotheses testable by the scientific method - Creationism either fails the test or relies on untestable evidence (eg the idea that while the Earth is only 5000 years old, God made it look older). It should be taught in RE classes, not science ones.
It should be taught in RE classes, not science ones.
Yish, don't say that! At least not the muddle headded version you bring up!
Having read the post, spontaneously I intended to add one, two thoughts according education in general.
The start of the discussion such intellegently designed, convinced me, though, that it is just a matter of courtesy not to disturb but to silently retreat.
Interesting post, anyway. Thanks.
In principle, I agree with you, in practice the NC has turned into a sausahe machine to process individuals into good employees.
The aim of giving people knowledge has been lost.
As is happening disturbingly often, I agree with CBI. Mind you, I am drawn to the analysis of state education which emphasises the fact it began contemporaneously with the onset of modernisation, when industry began to demand employees who were at least basically literate and numerate. From that point of view, schools have always been concerned with providing good employees.
Private education, on the other hand, as Wellington observed, seemed to be more bothered about producing good, obedient cannon fodder...
Home education networks seem to do a lot in the way of exposing kids to different outlooks - bear in mind that schools are divided up into year groups, whereas Home Ed groups are not - kids mix with a much wider age range. There are also many kids with special needs in these groups, as they are simply not catered for in mainstream schools.
I also have big issues with grading in education, and more widely the effects on a child's self-confidence that mass education can inflict.
But making Home Ed more feasible for more people would entail much wider changes than just binning the national curriculum...
Matt
You're missing a crucial point. Because state schools rely on the state for funding, they would still be subject to regulation of their schooling content. Schools that openly taught, say a Creationist view of Biology, or an Islamist view of Politics, would be reprimanded and penalised by the education regulator.
Libertarians argue against a NC because it disincentivises teachers from doing their job, stifles creativity and encourages a race to a politically correct bottom. Far better to encourage competition amongst schools, so parents force their own school to adopt better curricula. ie lets encourage a race to the top.
Australia is debating such a move now. A good paper here argues against implementing a NC.
I agree that an overly restrictive NC is damaging - all I'm arguing for is the necessity of a basic framework, overseen by an independent body, to ensure that all students are made aware of conflicting viewpoints and given the ability to properly evaluate them.
Schools should definitely have much greater freedom to be creative than they do now.
The danger in too much freedom, as I see it, is that schools seeped in a particular ideology (be it religious, political or whatever) will simply allow parents to further instil their own biases in their children, making it that much harder for them to develop their own independent views. (I'm not keen on the idea of home-schooling for this reason, though HS networks obviously help considerably). One of the benefits of a national framework would (hopefully) be a certain amount of conflict (we want to teach this, they want us to teach that) which would expose children to disagreement and at least make them aware that different views exist.
I should also point out that I think a democratic state is essential for a democratic education system - until we get the first sorted out there will always be problems with the second.
You're obviously not a libertarian. The point is, if you as a parent have control over what your children are taught in school (or otherwise), you can't at the same time insist that other people's children are taught according to your own prescription.
I would rather have my right to be right and your concomitant right to be wrong, than allow the government to impose its own version of 'right' (ie wrong) on us all
Steve,
The issue of entrenching bias remains though: If I bring my child up according to ideological position X, and send him or her off to a school in which no opposing viewpoints are heard then he or she is very quickly going to come to see the world in those terms, which can be very difficult to grow out of.
Allowing the curriculum to be partially determined by the school and the state looks the best way to introduce some conflicting views.
Post a Comment