07.31
The concept of “distributed knowledge” is one that I talk about frequently here. It’s one of a handful of indespensible components of a truly free market. But it’s one of the most mischaracterized parts at the same time. Frequently, you will here people insinuate that many people “doing their own thing” is chaotic, or somehow detrimental. Wouldn’t it be better if everyone was on the same page, following a single plan? That way, we can all work toward a common goal together. But, the flaws in this type of reasoning should be obvious.
This type of thinking is perhaps nowhere more prevalent than in education. Somehow, education is looked upon differently than all other human endeavors. It’s assumed that unless there is a grand, unifying curriculum that everyone follows then somehow children will end up less than ideally educated. Take post-bellum Peabody Trust advocate and Alabama congressman Jabez Curry for example:
Here, Curry shows the flaws in his thinking, as well as an insight into the merits of state and private education. His presentation is a loaded argument in favor of tax-supported schools. His words make freedom, diversity and choice seem like chaos. He denigrates private schools because they did not fit the government-funded model. His ideas parallel those of the Radical Republicans. These comments were written in the 1890s, long after his mental transition, and explain why he sounds like a Radical.
“The conviction had not yet rooted itself in the public mind or conscience, that elementary, much less universal education was an essential factor in national progress, or the only secure basis for free representative institutions. In the schools and academics of the ante-bellum period, teaching was often superficial, inadequate and unsystematic. Each school went its own way, independent of all others. [This was not necessarily true. Sectarian religious schools, which taught a large percentage of the children, followed the same program.] Differing in organization and methods, there was no unity of a general plan, nor common curriculum, nor helpful correlation. Such schools owed their origin to private enterprise, to energy or liberality of communities, sometimes to local jealousies, and of consequence they had no official inspection, nor any examination, nor certification of teachers. [This is at least partially untrue. An inspection, certification, etc. was done within the system of church or community schools, without outside interference.]“
Curry is lamenting the “unsystematic” structure and lack of “unity” in pre-war schools. This is a common complaint we here from government types. Lack of uniformity and cetralization is always frowned upon as less than efficient, and generally unfavorable. But, in real life. The life lived by non-beuracrats. Diversity and decentralization is always not only preferable, but necessary to get the job done. The free and open market operates, to borrow a phrase from Eric Raymond, as a bazaar. Many voices and agents acting in their own self interest will end up creating a unified whole called a marketplace. This marketplace cannot function when all agents act uniformly as one. Something like that isn’t a marketplace. It’s a religion.
But, the natural question arises: why would we want schools to resemble a marketplace? The short answer is because markets are where innovation happens. Let me give you a somewhat lengthy example. When little Johnny’s daddy, who is a farmer, is in the middle of harvest season, he really needs Johnny on the farm helping instead of in school learning about Greek mythology. Why is this somehow wrong? It’s not like when Johnny isn’t in school he’s locked in a closet, cut off from the world. No. Little Johnny is getting a thoroughly well rounded education in that scenario. One where he learns practical life skills, agriculture and business to compliment any classroom learning he may receive. So, let’s assume for the sake of example that this is a liberal school and allows Johnny to stay at home and help his dad.
Now suppose he comes back to school after harvest and tells his teacher that he and his father figured out how to handle a complex problem that they were faced with on the farm the previous week. As he describes the problem and tells the solution, his teacher realizes that this is similar to a particular classroom difficulty he’s been struggling with. So the teacher goes about implementing a modified version of Johnny’s idea to the daily teaching method and has tremendous results. When word gets out about this, other teachers begin to implement the idea and have similar success. This is how markets innovate. But, under a top-down, unified, centralized approach, this market mentality is stunted. Innovation is only allowed by those outside of the system and then approved by a far away committee.
It’s no wonder our schools are suffering so badly. Socialism kills innovation in the economy. Why do we think importing socialist ideas into education would do anything other than kill innovation there as well?
No Comment.
Add Your Comment