It's not about free market in education itself, but about everywhere else.
Teachers are overworked and underpaid, they can't afford to go far beyond what curriculum says they should. Parents demand schools prepare kids well for their adult life - which for almost all families means primarily preparing for a decent job. Thus the labor market is indirectly but strongly influencing the curriculum. Labor market demands a way to sort people, so standardized testing and pressure to choose your career at even earlier ages appears. On the other side, governments are embedded in the market reality, they need to manage their budgets and seek savings, so their prioritize, tightening the school system to provide what the market demands.
I could go on and draw some other feedback loops. But the point is that you can't disentangle schooling - or anything government - from the economic reality, and that this economic reality is sufficient in explaining the shape of education system. No conspiracy, or ill will by any rich and powerful agents needed.
> Teachers are overworked and underpaid, they can't afford to go far beyond what curriculum says they should. Parents demand schools prepare kids well for their adult life - which for almost all families means primarily preparing for a decent job. Thus the labor market is indirectly but strongly influencing the curriculum. Labor market demands a way to sort people, so standardized testing and pressure to choose your career at even earlier ages appears. On the other side, governments are embedded in the market reality, they need to manage their budgets and seek savings, so their prioritize, tightening the school system to provide what the market demands.
If there's no slack in the system then how do you propose to expand the scope of function provided by a system running at its limitations?
> I could go on and draw some other feedback loops. But the point is that you can't disentangle schooling - or anything government - from the economic reality, and that this economic reality is sufficient in explaining the shape of education system. No conspiracy, or ill will by any rich and powerful agents needed.
I agree with this, which is why I questioned you. A free market in education would do a lot to empower educators to offer real, functioning education because they'd be able to charge what they needed and compensate their teachers appropriately.
> If there's no slack in the system then how do you propose to expand the scope of function provided by a system running at its limitations?
I don't. I do think that adding slack into the system is an important step in fixing educaction. But my comment was trying to point towards the question of how come there's no slack in the system? What ate it? Answer: market pressures. Not some elites thinking a dumber populace is easier to control and wishing a weaker educational system into existence.
> A free market in education would do a lot to empower educators to offer real, functioning education because they'd be able to charge what they needed and compensate their teachers appropriately.
I'm not disagreeing completely, but I have many concerns about this view. Free market is good at optimizing for behaviors that yield immediate, short-term profit. Good education is very hard to price, with profits following the actions by many decades. I fully expect that making education governed by the market directly would make it settle on even stranger proxies in lieu of delivering proper education. On top of that, free market for commodity labor doesn't equal happy labor, but rather unhappy labor living on minimum wage.
> how come there's no slack in the system? What ate it?
The lack of market pressure allowed the quantity of unnecessary/unwanted services to expand as the quality decreased (because people are still forced to pay for a failing educational system, bad teachers are shielded from accountability, and anyone who wants to pay for private education must pay twice).
> Answer: market pressures.
If you don't respond to the market telling you that you cost too much and provide too little, you shouldn't be surprised when you're unable to produce what you consume on the market and become dependent on additional assistance.
> Not some elites thinking a dumber populace is easier to control and wishing a weaker educational system into existence.
Can you provide some source substantiating your denial of this historical assertion?
> Free market is good at optimizing for behaviors that yield immediate, short-term profit. Good education is very hard to price, with profits following the actions by many decades.
Free market is also good at optimizing for means of production that deliver commodities and goods over the long term. The limitation is that the owner of the capital must have a long term vision he wishes to accomplish with his capital. Coercive systems decouple the vision-seer from the capital-owner by permitting the vision-seer to realize his vision by expropriating the necessary resources from individuals who do not share that vision. This replaces the impediment of needing a coincidence of capital and vision with the perverse incentives and moral hazards associated with expropriation.
> I fully expect that making education governed by the market directly would make it settle on even stranger proxies in lieu of delivering proper education.
Only as far as the people paying for the education approved those proxy results.
> free market for commodity labor doesn't equal happy labor, but rather unhappy labor living on minimum wage.
a free market wouldn't have a minimum wage by definition.
Teachers are overworked and underpaid, they can't afford to go far beyond what curriculum says they should. Parents demand schools prepare kids well for their adult life - which for almost all families means primarily preparing for a decent job. Thus the labor market is indirectly but strongly influencing the curriculum. Labor market demands a way to sort people, so standardized testing and pressure to choose your career at even earlier ages appears. On the other side, governments are embedded in the market reality, they need to manage their budgets and seek savings, so their prioritize, tightening the school system to provide what the market demands.
I could go on and draw some other feedback loops. But the point is that you can't disentangle schooling - or anything government - from the economic reality, and that this economic reality is sufficient in explaining the shape of education system. No conspiracy, or ill will by any rich and powerful agents needed.