Public schools and boot camps for the poor

Private education credits part of broad assault on all our public systems

By: Linda McQuaig

  It's possible that Mike Harris's deep sense of inadequacy as a teacher left him determined to crush the public education system - a goal he tried to carry out first as a golf pro and later as Ontario premier. I'm not dismissing this theory. But I think there's a simpler explanation for Harris's ongoing efforts to destabilize public education in Ontario, the latest volley being his decision to offer tax credits for private school tuition.
  It's simply part of the Harris government's broad assault on all our public systems, in an attempt to undermine public confidence in them and open the door for more private-sector alternatives, which Harris's business supporters are keen to provide.
  Of course, the Harris Tories argue that they are merely trying to provide choice. Parents dissatisfied with the public system will be better equipped financially to move their children into the private system. Introducing this kind of choice and competition into the education marketplace, the theory goes, will improve the quality of all schools. Public schools will have to shape up or lose students.
 

Despite attempts to focus on the more sympathetic cause of religious and alternative schools, a significant chunk of the public money will go towards subsidizing well-to-do families

  But while competition works well in the marketplace for shoes, restaurants and lawn ornaments, education is different. Albert O. Hirschman explained why in his influential book, Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Hirschman argued that, in a market system, dissatisfied consumers exercise their power by "exiting," that is, taking their business elsewhere.
  But in a non-market system, like public education, the way to improve the system is by "voice" - complaining, engaging in dialogue, pressing for change. Exiting has little impact on the system.
  So, for instance, when I got a call the other day from the National Post, pointing out that my subscription renewal was overdue, I followed Hirschman's theory and informed the guy on the phone that I was considering not renewing my subscription because I found the Post too right-wing. I was threatening, in other words, to "exit," and I'm confident that my consumer preferences will soon be reflected in more balanced editorial content in the Post - or at least that's what would happen if enough people did what I did.
  In a public system, "exit" has little impact. In fact, an exodus of students - particularly, the brightest, richest and least disabled of students - won't improve things, but on the contrary will turn public education into a warehousing system for the less fortunate. The only way to avoid this is to keep affluent people and others who demand high-quality educaton in the public system where they will voice their concerns, insist on improvements, demand excellence - at the school and at the political level.
 

Even now, public education is strapped for funding. Imagine, how much harder it would be to resist future cuts if the only opposition is from poor people.

  One of the reasons that our health care system has remained relatively strong - even in an era of cutbacks - is that rich people use it. It's the same system that the poor use, but because the rich rely on it too, they insist that it be good. And it is - for everybody.
  Of course, many of the affluent have already moved their kids out of public schools. But by offering a tax credit, we are encouraging even more of them to do so, in addition to squandering considerable public funds on people who are not needy and in many cases are downright rich.
  Despite rigorous attempts to keep the focus in this debate squarely on the apparently more sympathetic cause of religious and alternative schools, let's not forget that a significant chunk of the public money will go towards subsidizing well-to-do families sending their kids to exclusive private schools. If we have an extra $350 million to spend on education, which we apparently do, shouldn't we first make sure that the public system has enough textbooks and libraries, and that class sizes aren't too big? Some advocates of the tax credit have come up with the disingenuous argument that by luring people out of the public system, we will save money, leaving more to be spent on the unfortunate ones remaining in the public education warehouse. This is about as logical as those Reagan-era economic theories about how the way to raise more tax dollars from the rich is to lower their tax rates. That wasn't true, and neither is this.
  Indeed, this magical theory is based on the idea that, even if the richest and the brightest opt out of the public system, the funding formula will somehow remain the same. On what planet would that be the case? When those people go, so does any remaining political clout for the public system. Without them, there would be no strong political constituency - that is, one which the government would listen to - insisting on proper funding and decent standards in the public system.
  Even now, public education is strapped for funding. Imagine, how much harder it would be to resist government cuts in the future if the only opposition were coming from poor people - who would presumably fight the cutbacks along with their battles against boot camps and compulsory drug testing for welfare recipients, and with about equal success.
  As for claims the tax credit will allow for greater diversity in our society, I suspect its real impact will be to relocate diversity into cloistered private settings, cut off from the rest of society. Surely the goal in a democracy is to encourage a tolerance of diversity, which comes from daily experience - as happens in a public schools - of dealing with people who are different culturally, religiously and ethnically.
  Public education is too important to democracy to leave its defence to the politically powerless. Without a strong public system, we have little hope of creating a society where there is equality of opportunity, an informed electorate, and a tolerance for diversity. That's why public education is not just different - but more important - than shoes, restaurants and lawn ornaments.

Linda McQuaig is an author and journalist. This column, reposted with permission, appeared originally in The National Post.

See other columns by Linda McQuaig

Posted: April 21, 2001

[ Front Page ]