Equality of opportunity in an unequal world

As Socrates discovered when he challenged the teachers' union of his time, education is political, and dissenters pay a heavy price. Education disputes are less lethal today. Rebels are no longer executed; it's only their careers that die.

Each day brings another skirmish in a seemingly endless education war. Some battles concern technical issues, such as how children can best learn to read. Other fights are about the content of the school curriculum. What should students learn about history, religion and culture? Teachers' unions mount campaigns against national assessments, while employers want more vocational training to prepare graduates for work. Conservatives worry that identity politics is destroying social cohesion, while progressive educators seek a curriculum that respects "difference." The most intractable quarrels are about money-who gets it, how much, and who decides how it is spent.

Whatever their backgrounds, when it comes to education, even sworn enemies believe that all children deserve an equal opportunity to receive a high-quality education. Who could disagree? There is just one problem. People have radically different ideas about what they mean by equal. Resolving their disputes is difficult because they are value clashes in which each side considers the other not only wrong but also immoral.

In the mind of many critics of education equality, private schooling represents the ultimate evil. In an article titled "If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person," Allison Benedikt calls parents who send their children to private schools "morally bankrupt." Alan Bennett, the author of the widely admired play, The History Boys, claims private education is "unfair" and "not Christian either." He says that "souls … are equal in the sight of God and thus deserving of … a level playing field." Omitting the part about God, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation takes a similar view. In a website purportedly designed to help parents decide whether to choose public or private schooling for their children, the ABC urged parents to eschew private education and "bring back some balance."

Ad hominem name-calling (bad, morally corrupt, not Christian) and vague allusions to "balance" obscure substantive issues. Instead of focussing on the character failings of the disputants, it is more illuminating to examine the logic and values underlying their rhetoric. Using the existence of private schools as a starting point, this article aims to clarify what the phrase "equal opportunity for education" means and how it may be achieved.

Some important facts

Debates about schooling are about values, and we are each entitled to our own. But only one set of facts exists. So, let's get those straight from the outset. Around one-third of Australian students are enrolled in non-government (independent and Catholic) schools. Critics of non-government schools commonly refer to them as "private," a label intended to make them sound exclusive and perhaps to imply that they are profit-making organisations. Because the term is widely used, this paper also refers to non-government schools as "private." However, it is essential to note that almost all of these schools are non-profit charitable institutions, and only a tiny number deserve to be called elite.

Critics often assume otherwise. They portray private schools as privileged and exclusive, their students the scions of wealthy families. This description applies to a small number of private schools and their students, but not the majority. The non-government sector includes schools catering to families of average income, remote indigenous schools, and schools for children with disabilities. Although "private," some of these schools do not charge tuition fees. Counting income from all sources (tuition fees, gifts, government subsidies), the resources available to the average independent or Catholic school are remarkably similar to those available to the average state school.

With these facts in mind, let's turn to the concept of equality. As applied to education, equality may mean one of four things:

(1). All schools should have the same financial, structural, and human resources, or

(2). All students have an identical chance of admission, or

(3). All schools produce equivalent learning outcomes, or

(4). All students have an equal opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.

As shown in the next section, not one of these conditions is currently met by any national school system, nor is it clear that all four forms of education equality are desirable.

Equality of education

Alan Bennett says that forcing all students to attend state-run schools will create a "level playing field." This claim implies that state schools provide an equal education to all their students, yet state schools are far from equal.

Although all Australian schools teach some version of the National Curriculum, those with superior resources may supplement their teaching with additional subjects, provide more elaborate facilities (swimming pools, sporting grounds) and offer a greater range of extra-curricular activities. The differences among schools are extreme. Rural and remote schools (both private and state-run) may lack basic internet connectivity, while selective metropolitan schools (both private and state-run) offer state-of-the-art computing facilities. Class sizes and teacher qualifications vary widely across public and private schools. When it comes to resources, neither the private nor the public sector can claim their schools are even remotely equal.

Student admission policies also vary. Unlike most public schools, which accept all local students, private schools usually get to choose their students. Critics of private education believe that sharing classes with other selected students confers an advantage on private school students. They often neglect to mention that some state schools are also selective, and their students experience the same benefit.

Student achievement, as measured by standardised tests such as the National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), also differs markedly among schools. Some differences result from exceptional teaching, but much of the variability in performance relates to social status. That is, students from wealthy families perform better on standardised tests than those from disadvantaged families. This relationship holds for both private and state schools.

In summary, it is fair to say that equality is not an objective feature of Australian education. Both private and state schools differ in resources, admissions policies and learning outcomes. Since state schools are not any more equal than private schools, why do critics believe that forcing all students to attend them will produce a level playing field? To answer this question, we must move from objective measures of equality to consider the fourth definition of equality-an abstract ideal and a philosophical construct known as equality of opportunity.

Equality of opportunity

Although critics of private education rarely mention it, parents' right to choose private education is enshrined in international conventions. Various Australian governments have adopted these agreements and promulgated them through the Australian Human Rights Commission. An example is the United Nations' International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which states:

Parties … undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State. (Article 13, Paragraph 3).

It could not be any clearer. The ICESCR, which holds the force of law, confirms that parents and guardians can enrol their children in government-approved private schools if they wish. A more recent agreement (the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) reaffirms "the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions."

The United Nations and the Australian Human Rights Commission are not made up of right-wing reactionaries dedicated to protecting the privileges of the wealthy. Quite the contrary. Yet, both organisations uphold the right of parents to send their children to private schools. Why do critics judge parents as immoral for exercising an internationally recognised legal right? The answer lies in the existence of other rights that critics believe should take precedence.

Rights "inflation" is a well-known problem for policymakers. Once governments start to specify them, rights tend to multiply, get tangled, and even conflict. For example, the ICESCR, which acknowledges the right to private schooling, also guarantees every child the right to an "equal opportunity for education." As critics point out, not everyone has the chance to attend a private school; some families cannot afford the fees. Instead of offering such families scholarships, critics want private schools to close and force all students into the public system. This does nothing to ensure that state schools provide students with a high-quality education; it merely compels everyone to attend them. If equality of opportunity is the goal, then education policy should be based on something more positive than spite. It must guarantee every child an equal right to a high-quality education. The following section discusses what such a guarantee involves.

Equality under a policy: rules for allocation

Carving a lamb roast for a family dinner is not typically considered a moral dilemma. Still, as philosopher Mary Warnock points out, the carver does face an ethical decision-how big a portion should each family member receive? One possibility is to serve everyone an equal share of meat. Equal sharing is the egalitarian ideal; every family member has a right to meat, and each receives the same amount. But children usually eat less than adults. An equal allocation would leave the adults hungry and the children with leftovers or tummy aches. Because family members have different appetites, the server decides to allocate the roast proportionally; adults will receive larger portions than children. Other allocation rules are possible. For example, more significant amounts could go to those who helped prepare the dinner or to those who derive the most pleasure from eating lamb.

Well-meaning people may differ in which rule they prefer. Egalitarians might opt for equal portions; libertarians might say that those who made the meal are entitled to bigger servings, while utilitarians would likely support giving more meat to those who derive the most pleasure from eating lamb. In each case, diners receive different amounts of meat, but they share an equal right to be treated in ways that are consistent with the allocation rule. In Warnock's view, this right is similar to our belief that all "people are equal under the law."

What does a lamb roast have to do with education? Like the family members at the dinner table, students have an equal right to education according to the policies governing the allocation of education. If the policy requires equal resources to be made available to every student, then those from poorly resourced schools will require extra resources to allow them to "level up." In practice, however, penurious governments may find it easier to achieve equality by levelling down-providing every child with an equally mediocre education.

It may sound extreme, but strict egalitarians believe that equality is worth pursuing, even if it requires levelling down. For example, Benedikt, the writer who called parents bad for choosing private schooling, admits that forcing all parents to send their children to public schools could mean that some receive "mediocre educations." Nevertheless, she is sure that "it will be worth it, for the … common good." Misery, it seems, loves company.

Psychologist Stephen Pinker illustrates the moral problem presented by "levelling down" with a Russian joke from the Soviet era. Igor and Boris are peasants who can barely afford to feed their families. They have few possessions and little money, but Boris owns a scrawny old goat. One day a magic fairy appears to Igor and gives him one wish. Igor wishes for Boris's goat to die. The fairy grants Igor's request. As a result, Igor is no longer envious of Boris' goat, but neither he nor Boris is any better off. Claiming that mediocre education that is equal for all is better than an excellent education available to some is similar. Envy may disappear, but levelling down leaves no one better off educationally.

Fortunately, in Australia, public funding for state and private schools is slowly being targeted at those who need it the most. Needs-based funding should reduce the differences between schools and students, but gaps will never completely disappear because fairness is not the same thing as equality. Even if it means providing education unequally, fairness demands giving children the education they need.

Children do not all start from the same place in life. Some begin from behind for various reasons (disability, social disadvantage, remoteness, poor English, historical injustice). Instead of spending the same amount on all students, we may wish to give students from deprived backgrounds extra resources so that they can catch up with their more fortunate peers. We may also want to provide extra educational resources to bright students. As future leaders, inventors, and entrepreneurs, they have the potential to make exceptional contributions to the general welfare. Providing gifted students with extra schooling is similar to giving larger servings of lamb to those who would derive the most benefit from eating it. For bright students and for those from deprived backgrounds, a proportional allocation of education is preferable to an equal one because the former is sensitive to each child's individual needs.

In addition to making up for deprivation and challenging the high achievers, there is also a libertarian principle operating in education. Parents who wish to spend their own money educating their children must be permitted to do so. As we have seen, this right is enshrined in law. Unlike equity or utilitarianism, we cannot measure the success of the libertarian rule using scores on standardised tests or calculating the benefits of education to society. The libertarian policy is not aimed at closing performance gaps among students or any other learning outcome; it is a derivative of liberty, something libertarians view as an intrinsic good. People should be able to use their talents, properties, and resources as they see fit.

Let's stop here for a moment and summarise the discussion thus far. Australian schools differ in resources, teacher quality and the breadth of the subjects they teach. So, what does it mean to speak about equality in education when, in objective terms, schools are far from equal? One possibility advanced from time to time is to eliminate private schooling. But apart from reducing envy, abolishing private schooling does not ensure all students an equal right to a high-quality education. Indeed, equality could mean that all students receive equally mediocre schooling.

Currently, there are various policies governing equal opportunity for education. Attempts to level up so that all students receive similar allocations of education. At the same time, utilitarian policies allocate education proportionally to compensate for disadvantages and to provide enriched education to gifted students who are best able to benefit from it. Finally, a libertarian policy would give parents the right to spend their money on private education if they so desire.

These policies are conflicting and hard to reconcile. Each is an attempt to respond to a social need while meeting the demands of political expediency. Still, in each case, children and parents are treated equally under the prevailing policies. Suppose we went further and removed the libertarian choice and closed private schools. Would that make any difference? This topic is considered next.

Thanks for reading Wiser Every Day! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

What if everyone attended a state-funded school?

Closing private schools and compelling their students to attend public would change some things. For example, the cost to the taxpayer would increase dramatically. Non-government schools enrol one-third of all children; forcing those students into public schools would vastly increase the number of state school pupils. Educating all children in public schools would cost taxpayers millions of dollars to house and teach them.

What would these millions buy? The answer is not very much. All children would retain equal education rights under the accepted allocation rules. Those who suffer from disadvantages would still require additional resources, while exceptionally gifted students would continue to receive an enhanced education in selective state schools. Educational outcomes, which are now roughly the same for public and private schools (once social class is taken into account), will remain unchanged. In a few areas, learning may go backward. For example, country students currently studying in private boarding schools may be forced to attend smaller and less well-equipped local schools. In contrast, remote communities that established their own non-government schools because they were not satisfied with their former public ones would be forced to abandon their schools and accept whatever education the public system decides to provide.

Why do the critics of private schooling advocate spending so much extra money for no additional educational gain? Benedikt says that forcing children into public schools would give wealthy, influential parents a stake in the public system. If their children were required to attend public schools, wealthy parents would be motivated to use their influence to ensure these schools offered a high-quality education. Perhaps they would if they had to. But wealthy families tend to live in salubrious suburbs. Their children would attend their neighbourhood public school with their equally rich neighbours. Their high socioeconomic status would ensure that their neighbourhood school performs well on tests such as NAPLAN. Housing patterns would also ensure that children from middle and lower-socio-economic households study with children from backgrounds similar to theirs. In effect, forcing all students into state schools would leave the social class differences among schools unchanged.

The only way to get around clustering children from wealthy backgrounds in neighbourhood schools would be to compel students from high-income families to attend schools in low-income neighbourhoods (or vice versa). In the 1960s and 1970s, American children were "bused" between neighbourhoods to encourage the racial integration of schools. Busing was not a successful strategy. Wealthy parents simply moved to suburbs too distant for daily commuting. Without forced mixing, closing all the private schools in Australia would have little effect on who studies with whom.

Given that closing private schools would cost taxpayers a great deal of money and produce little or no change in educational outcomes, what is motivating those who continue to oppose private education? Like Igor, the Russian peasant, is their opposition solely based on spite and envy?

Not entirely. Some critics believe that wealthy private schools are receiving too much financial support from the Commonwealth government. These schools use their government subsidies to finance fancy facilities (swimming pools, climbing walls, elaborate dining halls) when this money could be better used to help poorer schools. This criticism has merit. School funding rules are opaque; they represent decisions taken at many different times by many people, primarily for reasons of political expediency. However, an objection to school funding policies is not an argument for closing private schools; it is a reason for changing the rules that govern school funding-which is what all political parties have pledged to do.

Coda

Education is a battleground in which warriors hone ideas into weapons. Equality is one of those ideas.

Everyone agrees that all children have an equal right to education. The question is how to ensure this right when the resources available to schools and families are not equal. Unfortunately, misery loves company, but spending millions to prevent parents from exercising their legal right to send their children to private schools is misguided. It will reduce educational opportunities, and unless we are prepared to bus children around to get more diversity in schools, it will not change who studies with whom. Most important of all, ending private schooling will do nothing to raise educational outcomes.

A school system made up entirely of state-of-the-art institutions staffed by master teachers offering all children a high-quality education tailored to their needs is a noble vision. But it does not describe the world in which we live. Although it is far from perfect, our current mixed system of public and private provision provides choice for parents, encourages high-performers and compensates for disadvantages. It is equitable and fair. Of course, we should rationalise funding formulae and ensure that resources go where they are most needed. Whatever we do, our initiatives should aim to improve learning. Fostering mediocrity in the name of equality is not an effective way to build a better society.