Education without the state
著者
書誌事項
Education without the state
(Studies in education, no. 1)
IEA Education and Training Unit, 1996
大学図書館所蔵 全2件
  青森
  岩手
  宮城
  秋田
  山形
  福島
  茨城
  栃木
  群馬
  埼玉
  千葉
  東京
  神奈川
  新潟
  富山
  石川
  福井
  山梨
  長野
  岐阜
  静岡
  愛知
  三重
  滋賀
  京都
  大阪
  兵庫
  奈良
  和歌山
  鳥取
  島根
  岡山
  広島
  山口
  徳島
  香川
  愛媛
  高知
  福岡
  佐賀
  長崎
  熊本
  大分
  宮崎
  鹿児島
  沖縄
  韓国
  中国
  タイ
  イギリス
  ドイツ
  スイス
  フランス
  ベルギー
  オランダ
  スウェーデン
  ノルウェー
  アメリカ
注記
Description based on: 2nd impression 1998 by the institute of Economic Affairs
Bibliography: p. 112-120
内容説明・目次
内容説明
Functional illiteracy, youth delinquency and lack of technological innovation all point to the failures of state schooling. They raise the question of why governments should be involved in education at all. One justification for state intervention in education is that, without it, there would not be educational opportunities for all. However, the great majority of people would not need state intervention for funding or provision of educational opportunities. Intervention would at most be required for a minority in need of financial support. This conclusion is supported by historical evidence from Victorian England and Wales, and from more recent experience around the world, of educational entrepreneurs stepping in to provide desired opportunities where state education is failing. A second justification offered is that equality of opportunity requires state intervention in education. When the record is examined, it is not clear that states anywhere have been able to provide equality. Strong theoretical arguments undermine the suggestion that they ever would.
Moreover, arguments against 'markets' in schooling which purport to show how they increase inequality actually point to problems not with markets, but with state regulation and provision themselves. Many influential philosophers and economists agree that justice or fairness requires that everyone has adequate opportunities. But markets - with a funding safety-net - could provide adequate opportunities for all, and more effectively than further state intervention. A final justification is that state regulation of, inter alia, the curriculum is required. Lessons from the recent history of the national curriculum illustrate the general undesirability of government intervention in the curriculum. The problems of 'competing visions' and the 'knowledge problem' and considerations of the nature of education point to the folly of not leaving decisions to parents and young people themselves. If state intervention in education is not justified, except for a funding safety-net, how can we move towards markets in education? A simple proposal is put forward, linked to recent discussion of the learning society and lifelong learning accounts.
Lowering the school leaving age to 14, and simultaneously giving young people two years' state funding for them to use in a Lifelong Individual Fund for Education (LIFE) would help liberate the educational demand side which, coupled with liberation of the supply side, would lead to an enlivening and nurturing of the enterprise of education.
「Nielsen BookData」 より