“We believe education is the responsibility of the family, with support from fellow believers; therefore, we recognize that the financial obligation falls on parents, with potential support from private, voluntary benefactors.” — Classical Conversations, We Believe
Private Property
On November 18, 2016, the World Economic Forum published this video of predictions for the future. Their claim: ‘In 2030, you’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.” For many, this video stirred up public sentiment against this globalist institution and its perceived agenda. But why?
This idea of ownership, which corresponds with the historic idea of private property, can be accurately described as a cornerstone on which our nation was built. Four years before the signing of The Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams said, “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Two years before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, John Adams said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Public Property
Conversely, in 1848, when the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were published in the Communist Manifesto, a completely different philosophy was revealed; “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” These ideas need to be set alongside one another for the purpose of comparison, not only in their nature but in their consequence. What we are comparing are entirely different paradigms. And whatever is true about them is always true about them, and whatever is false is always false (Law of Identity).
These philosophies have implications; one leads toward a capitalistic economy, and the other results in a command economy or communism. While it has been the accusation that capitalists are not compassionate toward the needs of those around them, the principles of private property and free markets have paved the way to the most flourishing economies in history.
Michal D. Tanner wrote this piece, published by The Cato Institute, explaining the effects of capitalism: “The transformation occurred first in the West, which was quickest to embrace capitalism but is spreading now to the rest of the world. In the last 20 years, for instance, capitalism has lifted more than a billion people worldwide out of poverty…” Conversely, the Cato Institute’s publication on communism, 100 Years of Communism: Death and Deprivation, by Marian L. Tupy, concludes by saying, “No matter where it was tried, communism has always resulted in mountains of dead bodies. As for socialist economics, it has always resulted in shortages, inefficiency, poverty, and desperation. The verdict of history is clear, but only if people are willing to see it.”
Why do I retrace the consequences of these philosophies? It is my intention for the reader to consider the implications of these paradigms on the education economy.
Ownership and Education
Our nation has a long tradition of framing the education of the constituency as a public good and, consequently, the financial responsibility of the community at large. From that premise, we have adopted a collectivist funding model granting the state, local, and federal government ownership and control by merit of the funding model. Some would argue that we are a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” so if the government owns education, then we, the people, own education.
Indirectly, this may not be false but consider that if the state or federal government owns property, either a building or a park, no individual citizen can actually claim ownership of that same property. When the doors are locked or the park is closed, you will be committing a crime to occupy that property because you do not own it. Ownership of private property is the only guarantee of liberty and authority.
Consider these quotes:
“The system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.” — Friedrich August von Hayek
The widespread distribution of private property ownership is the cornerstone of American liberty. Without it, neither our free enterprise system nor our republican form of government could long endure. — Republican Party Platform 1980
If the government owns education, you do not own education. What do we do with this reality? Those who recognize this conflict of interest and advocate for parental ownership of education have been accused of all sorts of evil motives; “Advocates clearly don’t care about the opportunities of children or struggling families.” And since education is a “public good,” “advocates clearly don’t care about our societies or our nation.”
The Problem with Public Ownership
The problem with these accusations is that communists make similar arguments directed at capitalists. But the unavoidable reality is communism’s legacy is death. The legacy of communist elements in our current education model reveals a similar trajectory, but there are no bodies because this death is transpiring behind the eyes of children and within the soul of our society. Could it be that those who want to leverage the principles of ownership and private property in the domain of education are not tone-deaf to society’s needs but are actually seeking to alleviate the educational poverty of children, families, and society and begin a new chapter of building a flourishing education economy?
The Benefit of Private Ownership
If education were each family’s private property and the transactions occurred in a literal free market, parents would own both the process and the outcomes of education, and the quality of the educational product would reflect the same trajectory as other commodities in the free market. Consider this quote by Milton Freedman, “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.” Privatizing education is not just in the best interest of families; it is in the best interest of the domain of education. If we dare to take this chance with freedom, costs would plummet, and quality would soar.
If you are wondering why you haven’t made this connection to economics before, you are not alone. The Cato Institute is a perfect example of our nation’s state of confusion. The Institute is both an advocate for capitalism and an outspoken voice against communism. Still, it is utterly blind to this blatant contradiction regarding its support for the collectivist funding model necessary to undergird the “school choice” movement.
But What About the Poor?
This answer won’t be loved by everyone, but if you have accepted the paradigm of private property and capitalism, you understand that within these paradigms, you will still encounter families with legitimate needs. Can it be proposed that we care for the educational needs in the same fashion that we serve other needs such as food, shelter, and clothing? It is the voluntary benevolence of individuals, families, and churches that have been commissioned to this work. Historically, there is precedence of a time when the church did understand education to be a significant subset of their philanthropic obligations. But where is the money for benevolence going to come from?
Free Generosity
Generosity is still alive and well if you pay attention during natural disasters or watch the GoFundMe pages of people caught up in legal battles on issues that matter to contributors. Even in the less-than-ideal economic season, voluntary philanthropy is happening. There are two obstacles that we could resolve, however. The first is to stop the public perception that education, and by implication, children, are the responsibility of the state. As long as this lie is rooted in the minds of Americans, it is easy for benefactors to punt their responsibility to generously come alongside and financially contribute to the educational needs of struggling families.
The second obstacle is that a significant amount of each state’s wealth is tied up in the state education budget. In my home state, education expenses take up nearly 50% of the state budget. This means nearly half of our tax liability is collected via compulsory methods to fund public education programs that are, at best, inefficient and, at worst, harm children.
Forced Generosity
How did this happen? It happened because we both legally compelled parents to create demand through compulsory attendance laws and then legally compelled our communities to pay for it. The good news is that for the last 40 years, we have been chipping away at the tyrannical compulsory attendance laws. Ultimately, if no parents want this service, there would be no reason to keep sending taxpayers the bill. However, in the last decade, that demand reduction option has been replaced by an idea to expand the compulsory funding model. Instead of reducing the demand for public funds for education, we have broadened the utility of these dollars to include formerly independent education options.
Rather than education budgets being reduced, they are growing. Instead of communities keeping their education dollars we have renewed optimism in the ability of the state to fix the education crisis. This model, which gave us the current problems, is now being expanded at a high cost to our economy, further draining the pocketbooks of parents and benevolent individuals and organizations who could fill in the gaps for those who need it.
In conclusion, the most compassionate position we can hold for the sake of families, children, and communities is to consider what is true about the education market. We know that education does not get an exception regarding the laws that govern economics. The best way to improve quality and reduce cost is to return to a free market where dollars are left to those who earned them, where education is considered private property on which the state cannot trespass, and where the domain of generosity is returned to individuals and organizations who are compelled by their consciences to give and not by the threat of the state.
It is for these reasons that we believe that education is the responsibility of the family, with support from fellow believers; therefore, we recognize that the financial obligation falls on parents, with potential support from private, voluntary benefactors.
