Is there such a thing as a libertarian education policy?  I have always been partial to J.S. Mill’s suggestion that (a) people should be allowed to educate their children how they wish subject only to the caveat that the government will test the children, periodically, to see that they know certain essentials (what the essentials and how often they should be tested can be left to the side) and (b) government can provide some schools for those who want or need such.  More and more, though, I find myself drawn to a strict abolition of state administered education. (Nothing I say here argues directly against state funding of education.)

One common argument for state schooling (I am referring to universal state administered primary education) relies on its supposed necessity to creating good citizens.  This claim seems implausible; there are clearly other methods of making good citizens, including private schools and home schools where the teachers (or parent-teachers) are well prepared.  But the necessity claim might be narrower: state schooling is necessary to make all citizens good citizens.  But again, it seems possible that an alternative could work as well.  (I doubt any system could make all citizens good citizens. Perhaps the following claim is more plausible: “if it were possible to make all citizens good citizens, it would be in state schools,” but I don’t know why we would believe that—nor how to evaluate it.)

Another common argument is that state schooling is necessary to provide equal opportunity.  Of course, many that do not attend state schools do very well for themselves, not requiring state schools.  The claim, though, may stand: it’s not that you can’t have opportunity without going to a state school, but that without state schools, some will not have opportunities—in any case, there won’t be equal opportunity. Yet, we’ve had state schooling for quite a while now and I think its clear that we do not have equal opportunity.  (Perhaps we have gotten closer to having equal opportunity since state schools have been in place; I am skeptical.)  Still, I am sympathetic to the concern that without state schools, some will have no opportunity at all.  But this is not clearly true either.  Absent state schools, we may have more options.  Many private schools now are quite expensive, but if there were no free alternative, it seems likely that more private entrepreneurs would offer lower prices for schooling services.  And, of course, if there were no state schools, there would be no taxes for state schools, so those who currently have no money for private schools might have some money for private schools (and those who now have some would have more).

Some might think that what is necessary for equal opportunity is state schooling combined with an (enforced) absence of alternatives.  This is also implausible since (a) there is no good reason to think ramping up state schools to cover everyone will make them better than they are now and (b) part of—arguably, much of—what helps children perform better in school and life is what happens in their homes, with their families. The best schools will fail to well educate those who get extremely poor nutrition or rest at homes; some children with good home lives would be able to flourish even in poorly performing schools.  (Perhaps some think this is just a matter of resources and that if we enforced an absence of alternatives and gave state schools enough money, we’d have equal opportunity.  I think this implausible.)

So much for the arguments for state schooling.  Are there arguments against state schooling?  There may be some (the leveling factor and a concern about indoctrination both seem important, e.g.), but I take it the standard libertarian view is simply that the burden of proof falls on those who want more state action, not on those who want less (for the purposes of theory; obviously for the purposes of politics in the current world, the burden goes the other way unless we can argue for shifting it).  On my own, perhaps non-standard, form of libertarianism, government action is only permissible to prevent or rectify harms.  So, my question: does a state schooling system help prevent or rectify harms?  If it does, it may be permissible on my scheme.  If it doesn’t, its not and I should wholeheartedly commit myself to abolitionism.

It’s clear enough that state schools can help end some harms.  Teachers, like doctors, are required—for good reason—to report if they fear a child is being abused.  Such reports can lead to interference in abusive relationships, ending harm.  But this does not require state schools.  Teachers in private schools can have the same requirement.

I think the single biggest way schools aid in ending harm has far more to do with opportunity than anything else.  The idea is noted above: schools can provide opportunities.  What does this have to do with harm?  In a nutshell, societies divide up resources and roles in different ways and some of these can be detrimental. It thus seems possible that in any society, though all of the individual actions in that society are just, there can be wrongful setbacks to interests of some citizens because of the system. If that is right, interference to prevent or rectify the harm is permissible.  Providing opportunities to those harmed in such situations to leave their harmed conditions behind seems a good way to rectify the harm—and schools may provide that.

An example might help.  Say a widget manufacturer depends on a noisy process to manufacture its wares.  Now say that laws are enacted requiring any widgets sold in the U.S. to be produced in the U.S.  Perhaps the manufacturer would otherwise locate its factory in a remote location to avoid imposing its noise pollution on anyone.  City C, though, has high unemployment.  City C thus strikes a deal with the manufacturer—with tax incentives, guarantees of road improvements, and even bond sales to finance a factory—to open a factory in its borders.  Unsurprisingly, the factory is built in a lower income area (land and labor are cheaper there).  Everything is done above-board, in accord with all laws, with only good intentions all around.  The result?  A noisy factory in a low-income neighborhood.  The children in that neighborhood are now less able to get good sleep (say widget manufacturing is necessarily a 24 hour process).  Those children thus now perform less well in school (and other activities).  They are less likely to get into college, to have lucrative careers, etc.

In the example, no single act is wrongful (perhaps with the exceptions of the various government actions).  Despite this, it seems to many of us that the children in the neighborhood have their interests wrongfully set back—e.g., their interest in healthy sleep.  To rectify the situation, providing the children opportunity what is needed to lead a good life seems reasonable.  If doing so with state provision of school is an efficient way to do so, that too seems reasonable.

Clearly state provided schools can serve the purpose endorsed—rectification, through provision of good schooling, of the harm they suffer.  Given all that was said above, though, it does not seem likely to be the only way to rectify the situation.  It is not necessary.  Does it even do so efficiently?  I am not qualified to answer that question and invite comments from those who are.  I’ll end by merely saying that if state schools are not efficient—I don’t say most efficient—providers of the means to rectify the harm, I will be left without any reason to endorse their continued existence.  If it’s shown decisively that they are not efficient providers thereof, I’ll wholeheartedly embrace the abolition of state administered education (as already noted, I leave to the side state funding of education).