Project and content management for Contemporary Authors volumes
WORK TITLE: Education Unchained
WORK NOTES:
PSEUDONYM(S):
BIRTHDATE: 1964
WEBSITE:
CITY:
STATE:
COUNTRY:
NATIONALITY:
https://thefederalist.com/author/eriklidstrom/ * http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/12/put-public-education-out-of-its-misery-already/
RESEARCHER NOTES:
PERSONAL
Born 1964, in Sweden.
EDUCATION:Open University, M.B.A.; Uppsala University, M.Sc., Ph.D.
ADDRESS
CAREER
Author.
WRITINGS
Contributor to periodicals and online media outlets, including Federalist and Institute of Economic Affairs Web site.
SIDELIGHTS
In Education Unchained: What It Takes to Restore Schools and Learning, author Erik Lidström suggests a radical reimagining of American education. He proposes to replace public funding of education with a free-market system that puts the responsibility for paying for children’s education directly on their parents, with no assistance from the government. The author argues, noted S.T. Schroth in Choice, “that government spending has led to a decline in schools and that as funding has increased, quality has declined.” “In fact, almost no matter what kind of government reform we carry out, the quality of education in the United States, Britain, or my native Sweden will at best remain in its current abysmal state,” Lidström declared in an essay appearing in the Federalist. “But most commonly the net outcome of a government reform will be that education quality deteriorates even further. Despite their enthusiasm and good will, charter schools and home schoolers today constitute not even halfway houses towards reform. They are more like a tenth of a way towards it, even though in the future both groups may become the sources of great education.”
Lidström implies that, while education is provided to all, not everyone benefits equally from an education. “A hidden assumption is that we `know’ what good education is. No, we don’t,” Lidström asserted in the Federalist. “To begin with, we all have different ideas about what good education means. Even more importantly, we do not have a meter, an instrument in our brains that can measure quality. Instead, we measure quality by comparing things. … When the government provides us with education, identical for all, by definition we have nothing to directly compare with.” In fact, Lidström stated in his introduction to Education Unchained, “government must disengage from most aspects of schools and education if we are to improve them. Ideally, no government funds should pay for schools. If we want to proceed more cautiously, and we still want to pay for some schools through government, it will be argued that the sums must be so low that both the schools and the teachers will still be financially dependent on fees paid directly by parents. An even stronger case will be made that government should not be involved in determining the curricula.” Neither, Lidström continued, should government be involved in administration or supervision of schools. “Education must be voluntary, not compulsory,” he stated, “and being educated is not the same thing as going to school. One might well get an education away from any school, and today far too many children go to school without receiving much of an education.”
The education marketplace that Lidström proposes is one that relies strictly on trial and error, rather than on planned and mandated results. “Schools are, or at least should be, mere tools to provide children with an education,” Lidström stated in an article on the Web site for the Institute for Economic Affairs. “As such, they can really only be improved in the same way as mobile phones, restaurants, cars or running shoes are improved. We first think about how to go about something. But that is not enough. We must then go through a process of trial and error, which, in a large society, takes place in the market.” Continuing along the path education has followed over the last century and a half, he said, will have dire consequences. “If government does not disengage in this manner, standards will continue to fall or become so low that school is irrelevant to getting an education,” Lidström warned in the introduction to Education Unchained; “increasingly, education will take place in parallel to school and after one has ended one’s formal education.”
BIOCRIT
BOOKS
Lidström, Erik, Education Unchained: What It Takes to Restore Schools and Learning, Rowman & Littlefield (Lanham, MD), 2015.
PERIODICALS
Choice, June, 2016, S.T. Schroth, review of Education Unchained: What It Takes to Restore Schools and Learning, p. 1521.
ONLINE
Federalist, http://thefederalist.com/ (October 12, 2015), Erik Lidström, “Put Public Education Out of its Misery Already;” author profile.
Institute of Economic Affairs, https://iea.org.uk/ (October 15, 2015), Erik Lidström, “Why Education Must Be Set Free.”
Put Public Education Out Of Its Misery Already
We cannot improve our kids’ education together.
By Erik Lidström
Wouldn’t it be great if we could implement some grand scheme to ensure that all children, regardless of where they live, regardless of who their parents are, get a good education?
Those who oppose Common Core, or Race to the Top, or No Child Left Behind are often nevertheless convinced that government should carry out some other kind of school reform, possibly under the auspices of the individual states. Lately, copying Finland has been a popular idea, although their government system is also beginning to crumble.
Many believe charter schools (public schools freed from many regulations) should be given more freedom and their numbers expanded. Some libertarians argue it is ethically wrong for the government to provide universal, “free,” and compulsory education, and that education should be left to the parents. But libertarians may also feel the positive ring that “providing all children with a high-quality education” has to it.
In my forthcoming book, “Education Unchained: What it takes to restore schools and learning,” I take a different approach to the role of government in education. I demonstrate that we simply cannot reform the education of “our” children “together.” The good thing is, we could easily make changes that, within a few years, would provide virtually all children with a kind of education superior to anything that has come before. But we simply cannot do it “together.”
Government Isn’t the Answer—We Are
In fact, almost no matter what kind of government reform we carry out, the quality of education in the United States, Britain, or my native Sweden will at best remain in its current abysmal state. But most commonly the net outcome of a government reform will be that education quality deteriorates even further. Despite their enthusiasm and good will, charter schools and home schoolers today constitute not even halfway houses towards reform. They are more like a tenth of a way towards it, even though in the future both groups may become the sources of great education.
Despite their enthusiasm and good will, charter schools and home schoolers today constitute not even halfway houses towards reform.
We must snap out of it and look at education clearly. First of all, education is, or at least ought to be, the outcome we seek. Schools are, or rather should be, mere tools to provide children with education. For various reasons, though, we treat schools as if they are a goals in themselves, as if they are some kind of tribal initiation rite, a ritual everyone has to go through.
Secondly, a hidden assumption is that we “know” what good education is. No, we don’t. To begin with, we all have different ideas about what good education means. Even more importantly, we do not have a meter, an instrument in our brains that can measure quality. Instead, we measure quality by comparing things. A high-quality mobile phone from 2003 is a joke today. Few would buy a high-quality car from 1951. When the government provides us with education, identical for all, by definition we have nothing to directly compare with.
We treat schools as if they are a goals in themselves, as if they are some kind of tribal initiation rite.
We have also largely forgotten how good education used to be. In fact, just how bad schools are today, compared to the schools of old, is hard for most of us to fathom. In my book, I estimate we have lost about six years of education over twelve years for academically minded pupils, compared to the government systems of, say, Sweden in 1878 or 1968. This means for practically minded pupils the fall in quality is more than 100 percent. For these children, schools today destroy value.
Thirdly, we treat education as if the laws of nature somehow do not apply. We improve, in any area of life, only to a small degree through rational thinking, because once we have thought long and hard about something, we must put it to the test. In a modern society, this happens in the marketplace. Often, or usually, it turns out that we were wrong, or that someone else had better ideas, and it is back to the drawing board.
The only way we truly progress, or even manage to preserve what we have, is through unchained trial and error. It is important to realize how crucial failure is. Lack of failure blocks innovation like a clogged drain. Competition should sweep away failing schools within weeks.
Government Ruins Education, Like It Ruins Most Things
Thus, to improve education we must liberate it. Government should have no, or hardly any part in financing education, determining curricula or diplomas, or oversight of education. In short, I propose a “free system of education” where parents pay, without any or hardly any government involvement.
In the nineteenth century, governments copied, homogenized, and systematized school systems that the private sector had already invented and evolved.
There are some common objections to this. Before we get to some of them, I want to briefly discuss the fact that schools used to be better and cost a lot less. So from where did that higher-quality, lower-cost education come?
Governments cannot invent something as complex as an education system out of thin air. In the nineteenth century, governments copied, homogenized, and systematized school systems that the private sector had already invented and evolved. Furthermore, governments at the time could make schooling universal, “free,” and compulsory because, for decades, most parents had already been voluntarily sending their children to schools.
Again, we treat education as if the laws of nature do not apply. Imagine what would have happened if the government in 1870 had taken over the production of running shoes. It would produce identical running shoes that “everyone” has the right to get “for free” because “one should not make money off running shoes.” Today, these running shoes would probably resemble East-German army boots. “Charter shoes” would be available with differently colored laces and maybe insoles.
Had the government in 1842 set out to provide everyone with “free hamburgers,” today they might cost taxpayers $30 each. They might be vegetarian and most likely without salt. The bread would be of the full-grain variety that is so hard that one could use it as a weapon. The local Diner-Cook Associations and Hamburger Boards would discuss skimmed versus half-fat milk, and whether the carrots (no fries!) should be peeled.
Education Should Be Way Cheaper
One objection to a free system of education is that not all parents can afford it. But education is one of the least costly businesses there is to enter. Almost all you need to create a school is a teacher, a large room, and some area to play outside during breaks, such as a schoolyard, a garden, a public park. The cost of education in the United States was $11,109 per student per year in 2009 for the first six years. For years seven through twelve, it was $12,550. Often only half of this money reaches the school, and only one-third the classroom. The monthly cost for younger children is thus about $925, twelve months per year, out of which just over $300 might reach the classroom.
Almost all you need to create a school is a teacher, a large room, and some area to play outside during breaks.
If you instead charge $300 per month per child, and teach 25 children, you would take in $90,000 a year. This should be sufficient, as the U.S. average salary of a teacher was $56,383 in 2012-2013. As a teacher, you would have no administration looking over your shoulder. Instead, 25 pairs of vigilant, fee-paying parents would scrutinize your teaching.
A free system like this would leave room for large tax cuts, since taxpayer money is no longer spent on education. Poor people would therefore have more money to spend.
But what about those who still cannot afford to pay? Today, millions of children in the slums of the Third World go to high-quality private schools that typically cost 5-10 percent of the local minimum wage. Those who cannot pay because their parents are destitute or because they are orphans are taught for free, or at a reduced rate. The same applied in nineteenth-century Britain. It is hard to see why Americans today would be less charitable.
This Would Reduce, Not Increase, Child Neglect
But what about those parents who do not care about their children’s education? First of all, these parents are not that many. Secondly, there would be no bad schools to choose from as deteriorating schools go bankrupt within months. In a free system, if you discover that your child still can’t read after three months in school, you put your child in another one.
School reform in a free system takes place at a pace that is tens of thousands of times faster than in a government system.
If your child is bullied, if he is disciplined for eating his sandwich into a particular shape, if she still can’t read, write, and speak French after six months, if the school decides to ban playing tag in the schoolyard, you do not create a Facebook page, and you do not appeal to the school board. Instead, you first talk to the school, and if it does not mend its ways, you fire the school. Within a week or two, your child goes to a different one. If you find a better school, you move your child. This means school reform in a free system takes place at a pace that is tens of thousands of times faster than in a government system.
Finally, perhaps we should consider it child neglect if a 12-year-old does not possess certain skills, such as basic arithmetic or being able to read a 200-page book, write a short essay, and answer a civics quiz. These are simple demands. But if they were applied today, the politicians and bureaucrats who are responsible for schools would almost all be locked up in prison.
We must compare what I propose with reality, not with some perfect fantasy world. Today, the reality is, for example, that 47 percent of adults in Detroit, some 200,000 people, are functionally illiterate. Half of them have high school degrees.
Of course, there is quite a bit more to the argument than this, and a free education system would not be perfect—there is no such thing in human affairs. Not everyone would get a good education, either, but far fewer would be poorly educated than in a government system, and we would still be able to help them through voluntary efforts.
Erik Lidström is the author of "Education Unchained," out this month from Rowman and Littlefield. He holds an MSc and a PhD in physics from Uppsala University, as well as an MBA from the Open University.
Erik Lidström is the author of "Education Unchained," out this month from Rowman and Littlefield. He holds an MSc and a PhD in physics from Uppsala University, as well as an MBA from the Open University.
Why education must be set free
ERIK LIDSTRÖM
15 OCTOBER 2015
INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS > BLOG > POLICIES > EDUCATION
Debates on education reform are usually based on a number of unstated assumptions. One is that we already “know” what education is and what it could be. Another is that some appointed experts can improve a government-run school system. In my forthcoming book Education unchained: What it takes to restore schools and learning, I argue that both of these premises are false.
Schools are, or at least should be, mere tools to provide children with an education. As such, they can really only be improved in the same way as mobile phones, restaurants, cars or running shoes are improved. We first think about how to go about something. But that is not enough. We must then go through a process of trial and error, which, in a large society, takes place in the market. If we want to improve education we virtually have no choice but to return it to the market.
But returning education to the market must be done properly. There must be no or hardly any government funding of education. Government should not be involved in determining curricula or diplomas. Government should have little or no part in the supervision of schools or of education in general.
Today, these suggestions may sound shocking, but it is actually simply a question of returning to the very mechanisms that once made education great in the first place. Before government took over education in Britain in 1870, close to 90 percent of the working classes could both read and write. Since then, we appear to have been going backwards. In 1995, 20 percent of twenty-one year olds admitted to difficulties with reading and writing. At least 95 percent, possibly 99 percent of children went to school in 1858. Already in 1851 there were about 45,000 schools in Britain, all of which would be qualified as private by today’s standards.
Competition in the market has at least three roles. First of all, competition spurs people on to perform whatever they are doing in a better way. Secondly, competition spurs people on to invent new things, to modify old things, to find new things to do, or to find new ways of doing old things. Innovation in capitalist societies is like mutations in genetics. As Hayek put it, competition is a discovery procedure. It generates new knowledge.
Thirdly, competition weeds out unsuccessful products and services. Who decides who is successful? The market. And who is the market? All of us. Competition is a system of success and failure. Failure is essential. Without failure, the flow of innovation is blocked like a clogged drain. In a free system, failing schools would regularly be swept aside by the competition.
Right up until 1870, parents in Britain hired and fired schools and teachers as they saw fit. The result was much better and much less expensive education. Government took over that education, standardised and homogenised it. But, cut off from trial and error, it soon began to decay.
Free markets versus government planning might seem like a finely balanced problem where one might plausibly argue for both options. To see why this is not the case we should put some numbers into this Hayekian knowledge problem.
Government system Free system
Time to prepare a reform Five to twenty years Days, weeks, months
Time to evaluate a reform Five to twenty years Days, weeks, months
No of concurrent reforms One Tens of thousands
No of truly competing providers of education One Tens of thousands
Cost per month £500 to £600 paid through taxes Probably about £200, paid directly by the parents
Evaluators Government bureaucrats and politicians Millions of parents, millions of older pupils
– see Education unchained: What it takes to restore schools and learning
In a free system, parents pay the schools and teachers directly. Therefore, if your daughter still can’t read after three months, if your son cannot read, write and speak French after six months, if there is mobbing, you simply shop around and change school in a week or two.
The low expected cost might surprise the reader. But all one really needs to open a school is a teacher, a large room, books, some furniture, and access to a play area outside, such as a schoolyard, a garden, a patch of wood or a public park. At £200 per month, someone teaching 25 children would receive about £5000 per month. This is about a third of what schools commonly cost today. But today, according to figures from the US, often only a third of what school cost actually reaches the classroom.
The result of all this is that school reform would take place tens of thousands of times faster in a free system than in a government one. As should be obvious, at the rate government reforms proceed, once every ten to forty years, there simply isn’t sufficient trial and error to even maintain the quality we once had.
Lidstrom, Erik. Education unchained: what it takes to restore schools and learning
S.T. Schroth
CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. 53.10 (June 2016): p1521.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 American Library Association CHOICE
http://www.ala.org/acrl/choice/about
Listen
Full Text:
Lidstrom, Erik. Education unchained: what it takes to restore schools and learning. Rowman & Littlefield, 2015. 175p bibl afp ISBN 9781475822434 cloth, $65.00; ISBN 9781475822441 pbk, $34.00; ISBN 9781475822458 ebook, $33.99
53-4482
LB2806
2015-24904 CIP
Those seeking to improve public schools in the US often struggle to define how they wish to make schools "better." Lidstrom espouses a belief that government spending has led to a decline in schools and as that funding has increased, quality has declined. He presents his ideas in 12 sections: an introduction; "The Knowledge Problem"; "The Threats to Improved Education"; "School, Work, and Growing Up"; "The Ethics of State Education"; "The Rise of the Government School System"; a critique of pedagogy; how he alleges government schools fail; the downward spiral in quality over time; the benefits of a market system; "The Negative Externalities of Government Education"; and a plan to reinvigorate schools. Though the author considers only one perspective, it is well-reasoned and passionately argued. Best for those well-versed in the issues public education in the US faces, such as upper-level undergraduates or graduate students in a seminar setting. It might serve as a useful counterbalance to Diane Ravitch's Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools (CH, Jun' 14,51-5720) or Larry Cuban's As Good as It Gets: What School Reform Brought to Austin (CH, Oct'10, 48-1007). Summing Up: ** Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates and above.--S. T. Schroth, Towson University
Schroth, S.T.