Equality of opportunity in an unequal world

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.