My views on private and public schooling are in flux. Broadly I think that private schools are useful in that they save the government money that can be used on more needy students. However I recognise that in practice they also cause there to be less parents with means who care about the state of public education. I was impressed in New Zealand by how good some of the public schools are. The fact that only about 1.5% of students attend private schools there must have something to do with this since it means lots of middle and upper-middle class parents have to care a lot about public schools.
But the New Zealand system isn't perfect either. They use zones to decide which kids can go to which schools. There are choice-based objections to this system. But what I find interesting is that evidence suggests that assigning people a local, free public school doesn't eliminate their willingness to pay for education.
There are two clear ways (although I'm sure there are lots of other ways) in which this manifests itself in New Zealand. First, rich parents support parties like National and ACT that want to undermine the zoning system in ways that will let them choose to send their kids to better school. Of course they have lots of other reasons to support those parties, but at the margin it must drive some donations of time and money to the party.
Secondly and more importantly, the zoning system causes large distortions in property prices. Homes in Auckland, for instance, that are in the zone for Auckland or Epsom Grammar Schools are worth much more than homes that are just outside of those zones. (Apologies that I can't find a good link for this, but I understand it to be a widely accepted fact).
That means the zoning policy re-allocates the parents' willingness to pay for education away from the education sector itself and to the incumbent owners of land in arbitrary zones. This is of course a perverse result. That money could be spent on improving education, even if it is improving the education of kids with existing privilege, it's clearly better than simply enriching people who happen to own land in the zone.
Now I think it is logical to assume that a policy like New Zealand's will reduce the willingness to pay for education over time. Having a good, free option available will reduce how much people value paid-for education, since a free substitute is available. But I don't think any sensible policy could eliminate that willingness to pay. Parents who want their children to succeed will always want to spend money to ensure that success, whether it's on extra books, tutoring or even trips overseas that open a child's mind.
That brings me to Australia's system. I think the selective schools in New South Wales (and outside of it where they exist) are a brilliant means of creating and ensuring social mobility. The fact that kids in Sydney can attend the best academic schools in the state for free catapults literally thousands of kids a year into a position from which they can join the middle classes.
But giving kids access to free, high quality schools that their parents had the willingness and means to pay for is basically middle class welfare. It means parents with poor incentives will spend money that could've helped educate their kids on something less helpful, and it means parents who want a good education will spend it on something other than the school system.
In New South Wales we've seen huge amounts spent on coaching children for the test required to get into selective schools, and huge amounts spent on coaching children at those schools outside of school hours. In other words, there are parents at these schools who have money they are spending on education, but that money isn't helping pay for the schooling their children actually achieve. Indeed there is reason to think excessive coaching cultures are hurting those schools. (Apologies for the lack of links - this was all over the papers around HSC season last year)
In light of that I think that, paradoxically, progressives shouldn't support free public schooling for all students. They should support the availability of free schooling, but that's a different thing. We should make sure that all students can attend great schools regardless of their parents' wealth. But we should find ways to make sure that families that want to spend large amounts of money on their children's' education are actually spending it on the schooling of their kids, not other groups whether they be land owners or coaching company owners.
Ultimately, supporting policies to achieve this should mean there is more money available to pay for schooling for everyone. That, coupled with the possibility of free schooling for those who need it, should mean better schooling is available for all kids.
But the New Zealand system isn't perfect either. They use zones to decide which kids can go to which schools. There are choice-based objections to this system. But what I find interesting is that evidence suggests that assigning people a local, free public school doesn't eliminate their willingness to pay for education.
There are two clear ways (although I'm sure there are lots of other ways) in which this manifests itself in New Zealand. First, rich parents support parties like National and ACT that want to undermine the zoning system in ways that will let them choose to send their kids to better school. Of course they have lots of other reasons to support those parties, but at the margin it must drive some donations of time and money to the party.
Secondly and more importantly, the zoning system causes large distortions in property prices. Homes in Auckland, for instance, that are in the zone for Auckland or Epsom Grammar Schools are worth much more than homes that are just outside of those zones. (Apologies that I can't find a good link for this, but I understand it to be a widely accepted fact).
That means the zoning policy re-allocates the parents' willingness to pay for education away from the education sector itself and to the incumbent owners of land in arbitrary zones. This is of course a perverse result. That money could be spent on improving education, even if it is improving the education of kids with existing privilege, it's clearly better than simply enriching people who happen to own land in the zone.
Now I think it is logical to assume that a policy like New Zealand's will reduce the willingness to pay for education over time. Having a good, free option available will reduce how much people value paid-for education, since a free substitute is available. But I don't think any sensible policy could eliminate that willingness to pay. Parents who want their children to succeed will always want to spend money to ensure that success, whether it's on extra books, tutoring or even trips overseas that open a child's mind.
That brings me to Australia's system. I think the selective schools in New South Wales (and outside of it where they exist) are a brilliant means of creating and ensuring social mobility. The fact that kids in Sydney can attend the best academic schools in the state for free catapults literally thousands of kids a year into a position from which they can join the middle classes.
But giving kids access to free, high quality schools that their parents had the willingness and means to pay for is basically middle class welfare. It means parents with poor incentives will spend money that could've helped educate their kids on something less helpful, and it means parents who want a good education will spend it on something other than the school system.
In New South Wales we've seen huge amounts spent on coaching children for the test required to get into selective schools, and huge amounts spent on coaching children at those schools outside of school hours. In other words, there are parents at these schools who have money they are spending on education, but that money isn't helping pay for the schooling their children actually achieve. Indeed there is reason to think excessive coaching cultures are hurting those schools. (Apologies for the lack of links - this was all over the papers around HSC season last year)
In light of that I think that, paradoxically, progressives shouldn't support free public schooling for all students. They should support the availability of free schooling, but that's a different thing. We should make sure that all students can attend great schools regardless of their parents' wealth. But we should find ways to make sure that families that want to spend large amounts of money on their children's' education are actually spending it on the schooling of their kids, not other groups whether they be land owners or coaching company owners.
Ultimately, supporting policies to achieve this should mean there is more money available to pay for schooling for everyone. That, coupled with the possibility of free schooling for those who need it, should mean better schooling is available for all kids.