> The current system, in place since a few decades, is akin to a voucher system. I.e. the funding is ultimately via the taxpayer, but through different organizations.
Is it the system advocated by Milton Friedman or is it different?
Is it the system advocated by Milton Friedman or is it different?
I think Milton Friedman's idea, was that parents would actually receive education 'vouchers' and be free to use them in whichever education context they chose for their children.
This is slightly different, as the private/public system is wholly handled by the State system: parents simply choose between alternative schools, and the state channels taxpayer's money to whichever school the child attends.
Unfortunately, in many cases this has simply led to corporations or individuals who employ fewer or less qualified teachers, who in turn hand out 'optimistic' grades to the kids (attracting more parents), and extracting enormous profits from the State system.
At the same time, the normal State schools are being starved of resources; standards are falling, leading to more parents putting their kids into the private schools, leading to an inevitable downward spiral.
People's commitment to ideologies seem to be stronger than any material evidence.
There's a multi armed bandit problem here of course but the law of large numbers should allow you to isolate what effect marketization has.
I'd be shocked if it was positive. Human motivation is sullied and distracted by profit so the actual goals become incidental. If the alignment is close, like in commodities, it's all good. If it's poorly related, such as in education, it seems to be a problem.
Privatization works poorly as a blunt magical instrument wielded on all problems
The voucher stuff was introduced for ideological reasons, and failed like things rooted in ideology invariably do, no matter if the inspiration is Marx or Adam Smith.
> This is slightly different, as the private/public system is wholly handled by the State system: parents simply choose between alternative schools, and the state channels taxpayer's money to whichever school the child attends.
I don't see the difference between those two situations. In your first sentence you talk about a “voucher”, but if it's a voucher, then there needs to be someone who emits the vouchers, and collect them in exchange for money, giving money back. And the “someone” is necessarily the state since it's financing the schools out of its own pocket.