Will School Choice Solve The Evolution Question?
The Cato@Liberty blog quotes from a previous Cato piece by Neal McCluskey:
Ultimately, the problem in Texas isn’t whether or not the theory of evolution has weaknesses, or whether pointing to such weakness is religiously or scientifically motivated. The problem is that the public schooling system requires everyone in the state to fund schools that take a single view, resulting in divisive conflict in the short-term and erosion of liberty in the long. Add to this that government-mandated orthodoxy is inherently incompatible with free inquiry, and it is clear that what Texas needs isn’t to decide what everyone will learn, but how to give everyone the ability to choose where and how their children will be educated.
Superficially plausible, but wrong. Firstly, note that the issue of state-run schools vs. voucher-subsidized private schools is not really relevant. The core issue is whether whatever schools do receive taxpayer money will be allowed to use it to teach creationism.
One way to resolve this conflict would be to stop spending taxpayer money on education entirely. This naturally leads us to ask why should we spend tax money on education in the first place. The answer to this question is that there are positive externalities associated with education. Education benefits not only the individual being educated, but also everyone else in society. Consequently, individuals pursuing their own self-interest tend to purchase less than the socially optimal amount of education. To overcome this problem the state taxes individuals and subsidizes education.
However, it is crucial to realize that “education” is a rather heterogeneous activity. During a typical school day, students may jump from geometry to english, to history, to chemistry, and so forth. One might legitimately inquire whether society reaps positive externalities from teaching kids each of these particular subjects. But today is not the day for a battle between Shakespeare and Nobel. Instead, I would simply like to propose that teaching kids false beliefs does not benefit society. Indeed, I would argue that there are negative externalities associated with teaching kids untrue things.*
Railing against “government-mandated orthodoxy” does make excellent rhetoric. Unfortunately, for the state to determine what educational activities are worth subsidizing, it must first determine what things are true and what are false (and what things are not yet known with adequate certainty). If the state is not willing to make these judgments then it has no business subsidizing education.
*Ok, I admit it: The thought of levying Pigouvian taxes against Sunday schools fills my heart with glee.
Education begins at home. One does not only acquire knowledge from a teacher; one can learn and receive knowledge from a parent, family member and even an acquaintance. In almost all societies, attending school and receiving an education is extremely vital and necessary if one wants to achieve success.