Milton Friedman believes that in a free society we must not forget that there are two types of freedom and they should not be confused. The proper role of the government is to consider these two ways of understanding freedom - which are freedom from coercion and freedom of ‘free of cost’- and help individuals reach their objectives, interfering with each other as minimum as possible. The government should create opportunities to help people achieve their goals, knowing of course that there is no absolute freedom in society. It is important to notice that for Friedman, the society is built by individuals, or families, in contrast to a fundamental unit that is the state and the individuals serving it as if that was their purpose in life. It is the other way around. The state exists to create opportunities for individuals to reach their objectives while keeping the levels of disagreement as little as possible. Because full unanimity is not feasible always and in all cases, it exists the rule of majority (LibertyPen, 2010).
Friedman says that education transmits values, and for that reason, parents should be able to choose which school they want to send their children. Everyone should have a minimum education, but only because the government is funding that education for the benefit of society, does not mean that they also have to administer the education system. For Friedman, the system is wrong, because one thing is to finance and another is to manage. Parents should be able to send their kids to a private school or religious school if they wanted to. The values of a country are formed by the people living in it and not by a State dictating those values (LibertyPen, 2014).
The control of the government over the education system increases as they increase the area of funding. The control of the government increased, dictating values rather than letting parents chose, in line with their personal objectives. This is not, according to Friedman the proper role of the Government in what concerns education.
What Friedman supports is that the Government should provide parents with a sum of money according to that can only be spent on their children’s education. Parents should also pay a minimum amount towards the education of their children as it is their responsibility. Only on hardship cases, the government can provide a larger. But ultimately, through this system, it would be the parents who will be choosing which school to send their children to according to what schools offer and what type of education and values they want to transmit their children. In this way, the government continues to finance, but it is freed from the administration of the education. Doing this will also encourage education and skill diversity, it will allow a healthy competition between schools, and it will allow even religious schools to teach without being coerced by the control of the government (Friedman, 1955).
Harry Brighouse has a different opinion than Friedman. Brighouse is against privatisation of education. However, his central point is not so much about the distribution of freedom and how the State should help individuals reach their goal. Instead, he talks about the education system, whether it is chosen a private or public approach of education, should be there to contribute towards the achievement of public goals set for the system (Azim Prekji University, 2015). Friedman’s and Brighouse have two completely different approaches. Friedman says the government is not only funding but also controlling the education system and monopolised it, imposing what must be taught, and taking away those rights from the parents who are the ones to choose for the education they want to give their children, including values.
Brighouse however, while he enters a debate about the best way to go, private or public, he engages in this discussion by acknowledging that the government does have a sort of power or control over the education system. He talks about the allocation of places in public schools. While the government cannot dictate which kid goes to what school, they are still able to do it indirectly through other systems, such as the housing system. He explains how the upper and middle class can afford houses in the best neighbourhoods simply because they have the best public schools. But families from lower income classes cannot afford those neighbourhoods. When a family is kicked out by the landlord, or does not have a place to live, the government has the right to choose a school for that kid. Indirectly, the way the system works, the government still monopolises the system. He criticises this process not to complain against the government and acknowledge the fact that education became another public function of the government, but to defend his view that schools should not be private.
While educational choice, which means privatisation of school system, means that more people can have access to alternatives that are not under the control of the government, such as Friedman defends, Brighouse has a different opinion. He agrees that the state under the current systems is monopolising the education system. However, he opposes privatisation. However, most of the example he provides seem to go in line with the privatisation initiatives (Tooley, 2003). Brighouse is against seeing the school system as another market. Seeing children as clients, increasing commodities, etc., simply undermine the education system. He says there is more to get from education than economic growth and democracy. There are plenty of research done on economics and psychology that shows that people need more than those two elements to be happy. Economic grown and happiness are not steady. Family, friendship and community relationships, relative freedom in what we do and how we do it, health and particularly mental health, meaningful work paid or non-paid, and living according to a set of standards. These are elements that he considers as key to flourishing in life, which according to Brighouse should be the goal of education on top of those of democracy and economic growth (UWSPcps, 2014). The question is whether the education system is if the government is providing for that, and what type of role it plays on it.
If Brighouse position is applied, then the autonomous facilitated education will restrict the autonomy in choosing the way they want to live according to their set of standards, which was originally one of Brighouse elements for happiness. But most of the options that he offers for the intervention of the State in the Education System do allow quite a lot of privatisation measures: funding, supplying and allocating through different programmes such as voucher education, charter schools, etc. (Tooley, 2003). However, in all of Brighouse debate is grounded on the State as the one monopolising and controlling the system in one way or another.
His same argument seems to be against another element that he mentions as one of the elements to be happy: have a certain degree of freedom and not be controlled such as most of the labour workers are when they are doing what they do and the way they do it. Furthermore, it is aggravated by the fact that Brighouse seems to be specifically concerned about very religious parents, or those living according to their own set of standards. He is almost taking away the rights of parents, and giving it to the State, in the cases where what parents want to teach goes against the State's aims. There seems to be a lot of contradiction in Brighouse argument.
Another argument against Brighouse position of having an all state public school system, where all schools are the same, and there is no difference between classes, is that if they are all the same, then the difference will be marked by the influence of the family. Only those families with more resources will be able to make sure their children receive outside school what they want to give them. It is the same result in a different way. Moreover, when an innovation or a proposal wants to be applied, it can be seen as a way of highlighting and going against equalisation, and worst case scenario, before being able to apply it, every single school needs to be able to do so. It is not that simple.
Discussion
It seems that Brighouse has interesting arguments against Friedman’s position of choice. However, for the purpose of this study, which is the extent to which education is another public function, we must say that Brighouse did a good job at explaining the important role, and almost absolute monopoly in the education system. He agrees with Friedman in that the education system needs to provide more than what it is providing, that the state is only concern with a couple of elements of happiness: democracy and financial growth, or in other words, help children become good citizens. They both seem to want more from the education system, and they are proposing alternative ways to do this. Friedman wants to distance from the monopolisation of the State through a choice of education and privatisation, while Brighouse wants to demand more from the State framework of education, but still giving the state more power. He agrees that there should be a choice and that there are ways in which the state can continue to be the supplier and fund education through allocation using different programs. But the power remains in the State. We could even go as far as saying that the parents have the right to choose for their children, up to the extent where their teachings contradict the goals of the State.
Whether we take Friedman’s or Brighouse’s ideas, we still end in the State. The funding source is the same. This paper does not have the aim of discussing and evaluating which is the best alternative, privatisation or not, but to explore the extent to which the State influences the education system. Friedman argues that the state does more than simply funding but also allocates, and administers. Under this perspective, it seems that education classifies as a public function.
If we look at Brighouse ideas, we can see that he agrees with Friedman in the role that the government has at the moment in regards to education. However, while he does not want to take away the right of parents to have a choice and get involved in their children’s education, he still says that it is the State’s responsibility to ensure that education is done, and in the way that is considered best by the state. The specific example he provides is one of the religious parents who can potentially prevent their children from becoming autonomous. If what the state should do is to educate autonomous people according to the elements that Brighouse proposes based on research, then this theory contradicts itself. Brighouse does not provide an argument to say that the State’s autonomous education is best than what religious parents want to transmit. The State by imposing the framework of education is doing exactly what is preventing religious parents from doing.
After exploring these two positions, we can draw at least one conclusion. We can say that from a business perspective, all investments should provide a return on investment. The State seems to be the one funding education and has also taken steps into the administration of the education system. They will also want to see results and demand certain standards to go in line with their goals. Brighouse mentioned clearly that the State has a framework to achieve its aims, and this is more than enough evidence to say that in the way the State is operating in the educational system, this one is clearly a public function. We are not saying that it must be, we are saying that to the extent in which the State or any other entity or organisation that funds a service, will demand something back. When a grant is given, certain standards must be achieved to keep the award. That is how organisations work when providing grants or scholarships. The State is apparently finding ways in which it can have a degree of control. Brighouse describes the housing market, or the voucher education, charter schools, etc. But the State wants to have control and even limit parent’s choice within the area of the state control.
Privatisation could be a solution for schools to have freedom about the curriculum. However, the funding source would still be the same. This paper is not about providing solutions, not describing how the system works, etc., we simply showed how for obvious reasons, the degree in which education is a public function depends on the level of funding the state provides. Whether the State has the right to decide above parents what is the best education, is also not the aim of this paper.
References
Azim Prekji University. (2015, May 4). USA - Why all Schools are Public Schools: Harry Brighouse. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8OwTBvpRzc
Friedman, M. (1955). The Role of Government in Education. Retrieved from http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEFriedmanRoleOfGovttable.pdf
LibertyPen. (2010, October 8). Milton Friedman-The Proper Role of Government. [Video
LibertyPen. (2014, June 6). Friedman & Sowell: Should Our School System Be Privatized? [Video file] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6C9ZVr8J28
Tooley, J. (2003). Why Harry Brighouse is Nearly Right about the Privatisation of Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education.
UWSPcps (2014, October 16). Harry Brighouse: Why Do We Educate? (Stevens Point, WI). [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXZR-wvGZfk
