Rethinking the Welfare State: The prospects for ... - e-Library

Notes 248
97 Barbara R.Bergmann, “Making child care ‘affordable’ in the United States,” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 563 (1999), pp. 214–15.
98 Blau, supra note 31, p. 42.
99 Blau, supra note 31, p. 12.
100 “The state of early childhood education and care in Canada: an overview” (date unknown),
available at: http://www.childcarecanada.org/ECEC2001/overview_fedrole_aboriginal.pdf.
101 See Chapter 8 on primary and secondary education.
102 Ruth Rose, “For direct public funding of child care,” Policy Options, 18(1) (1997), p. 33.
8
Primary and secondary education
1 Milton Friedman, “The role of government in education,” in R.A.Solo (ed) Economics and the
Public Interest (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1955).
2 See, for example, John Witte, The Market Approach to Education: An Analysis of Amenca’s
First Voucher Program (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), p. 133, and J.P
Greene, P.E.Peterson and J.Du, “School choice in Milwaukee: a randomized experiment,” in
P.E.Peterson and B.C.Hassel (eds) Learning from School Choice (Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution, 1998), p. 335. Witte compares his analysis of the Milwaukee data—
finding no significant improvement in either reading or mathematics compared with the
control group—to those of others (such as Greene et al.) who have found positive outcomes
for voucher students vis-à-vis non-choice students. As further evidence of the gulf in
findings between voucher supporters and critics, see E.Muir and F.H.Nelson, “Social science
examinations of the Milwaukee voucher experiment,” American Federation of Teachers
Research Department, available at:
http://www.aft.org/research/vouchers/mil/rouse/rouse.htm. For a positive review of the
evidence see Jay P.Greene, “A survey of results from voucher experiments: where we are
and what we know,” in Claudia R. Hepburn (ed) Can the Market Save Our Schools?
(Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2001).
3 There are, of course, other approaches. One important variant shares with the skills model the
view that education is primarily a private good. It differs, however, in emphasizing its role in
human flourishing, rather than as a means to greater long-term earning potential. Education
that is pursued for these sorts of reasons (i.e. as personal fulfilment) is perhaps least
deserving of public support.
4 Economic Council of Canada Education and Training in Canada (Ottawa: Canadian
Communications Group, 1992), p. 8 outlines the goals of education in much greater detail.
Rather than two basic approaches, the report sets out four sets of goals: (1) academic goals,
such as literacy and numeracy, problem-solving and the ability to think critically; (2)
vocational goals more closely focused on direct application in a particular career; (3) social,
civic and cultural goals such as citizen participation, moral development, awareness of one’s
own culture and a sensitivity to the diversity of other cultures; and (4) personal goals of
emotional and physical well-being, creativity and self-realization.
5 Business leaders often say that classicists, not MBAs, make the best managers. This may or
may not be true. However, the point is simply that the value of a “liberal” education is to be
measured in other terms. [This “classical” defence of liberal education transcends divisions
over the particular value that theorists give to cultural diversity. In favour of cultural
diversity are Martha Nussbaum, Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defence of Reform in
Liberal Education (Cambridge University Press, 1998), and Amy Gutmann, Democratic
Education (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987); famously against such diversity
is Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Touchstone Books, 1988).]