Why is the West culturally antagonstic towards non-state-controlled institutions?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian

The more I think of it...

What this boils down to is filling a need. It appears that the government of India is unable to properly educate its population. Therefore, the people are taking matters into their own hands.

A slight correction there. The political right is realising that the government has been far too subverted by overly Nehruvian ideology, and has become sclerotic and incapable of doing ANYTHING, so the political right is taking matters into its own hands and trying to fix the broken systems which the left (or rather, the Congress party), which was in power for over fifty years without an interruption, only talked about fixing. In India, the left talks, the right acts. And because they're the right, they have German or Japanese skills in organising big or small things.

The need was there for over a hundred years. It is only now that it is being filled, because of the political awakening of the right. This will force an awakening of the left, too, so it's good for everyone.

Originally posted by Arrian

Despite the frequent hand-wrining you may see concerning the state of US public education (and/or other Western countries), the system appears to be in much better shape than in India. As such, there is less need for "grass roots" primary education... though private schools exist and are widespread, and home schooling is allowed.

It is in infinitely better shape.

Originally posted by Arrian

There is no particular hostility to those non-governmental options. There would be hostility to dismantling the public school system in favor of totally privatized education.

-Arrian

What if there evolved an alternate system of private schools which were affordable for people of the middle class and above, but which were leaps and bounds better than the public system, so that the people from this private network had distinct and significant advantages? Would a hostility develop then?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ned
A, is your only concern education?

It is the first step, on the foundation laid by which everything else can be built. For example, there is an adult literacy program I linked to somewhere in the last few posts which teaches the three Rs to illiterate adults, with the aim of making the whole of Delhi literate (about 20,00,000 people are to be made literate in this scheme). After the literacy part is done, the same service organisation runs a post-literacy program for the neo-literates who happen to be unemployed, which helps them in finding a job.

There are many, many others, and people are working on them, too.

[Arrian]

It's called private schools. They already exist. They are often better than public schools and since they cost money, they exclude the poor unless there are scholarship grants (and there are). Still, it's mainly a middle-class and up system.

My wife went to a fairly prestigious private school for her highschool years. It was and is leaps and bounds better than some public schools. I'd say it's better, but not by leaps and bounds, than my (public, but in a rich town) highschool. Then again, it costs something like $15,000/yr to attend. Some scholarship money is available (my wife got some of it), but realistically there won't be too many poor kids at that school.

As for hostility... some, sure. Not enough to shut the private schools down or really hinder them much. Again, if someone advocates shutting down the public system in favor of private-only schools, that's another matter.

A better subject to consider is the school voucher debate. I think the hostility to that is from those who argue that it would weaken the public system further because those who are able would pull their kids out, leaving only the most disadvantaged in the public system. I haven't really spent a lot of time thinking about that one, honestly.

-Arrian

[Sandman]

Originally posted by aneeshm
"To hell with the state" as in "I don't give a damn what the state does as long as it doesn't interfere with MY work". It's meant to signify the complete independence of the institution you want to set up from the state in which it is being set up.

6,04,260 students all over India

That's not many.

something this powerful being in the hands of anybody other than the state?

They're not powerful.

I don't see much anti-statist ideology in this admirable little scheme. It's not telling the government to get lost, it's going where the Indian state has failed miserably to go.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's called private schools. They already exist. They are often better than public schools and since they cost money, they exclude the poor unless there are scholarship grants (and there are). Still, it's mainly a middle-class and up system.

My wife went to a fairly prestigious private school for her highschool years. It was and is leaps and bounds better than some public schools. I'd say it's better, but not by leaps and bounds, than my (public, but in a rich town) highschool. Then again, it costs something like $15,000/yr to attend. Some scholarship money is available (my wife got some of it), but realistically there won't be too many poor kids at that school.

As for hostility... some, sure. Not enough to shut the private schools down or really hinder them much. Again, if someone advocates shutting down the public system in favor of private-only schools, that's another matter.

A better subject to consider is the school voucher debate. I think the hostility to that is from those who argue that it would weaken the public system further because those who are able would pull their kids out, leaving only the most disadvantaged in the public system. I haven't really spent a lot of time thinking about that one, honestly.

-Arrian

I'm talking about a set of private schools coming up which are affordable by the economic top 70% of the population, but not the bottom 30%, and which are leaps and bounds better than the current lot of public schools, and which confer a significant advantage to people who attend them compared to those who go to public schools - a development capable of effectively limiting social mobility by an order of magnitude, and capable of creating an underclass of people who can't afford them. How would society react them? By mandating that these schools also become part of the public system?

[Ned]

A, I think the answer to your question then is simple. Martin Luther was the person who changed the views of the West so that public education for all became the ideal. Prior to that, schools were private and expensive for the poor who remained uneducated. They were also mainly run by the Church since the fall of the Roman Empire and thus were organs of indoctrination by an organization hostile to Luther and other reformists.

There is still an undercurrent of anti-Catholicism and anti-Christianity in general in the discussion of vouchers that would permit most to attend private schools. Many are openly hostile to the whole concept of private education being funded by the state for this reason. They fear that education will revert to the bad old days prior to Luther and that religion, particularly Catholicism, will again become strong in the West.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by aneeshm


I'm talking about a set of private schools coming up which are affordable by the economic top 70% of the population, but not the bottom 30%, and which are leaps and bounds better than the current lot of public schools, and which confer a significant advantage to people who attend them compared to those who go to public schools - a development capable of effectively limiting social mobility by an order of magnitude, and capable of creating an underclass of people who can't afford them. How would society react them? By mandating that these schools also become part of the public system?

I would say such already exist.

JM

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Sandman

That's not many.

In an average village, there are roughly a few thousand people, and only a few kids of that age (only, say 20 to 30). But this education helps the entire next generation of that village, effectively impacting a thousand people positively. In terms of sheer impact , it's phenomenally many people who are affected by this. There are about 20,000 one-man schools, and a village can be taken to be about 2000 people. That's a sum total of 4,00,00,000 people who are positively impacted.

These places have another impact - they improve hygiene wherever they are set up. They also help in building up the community, because the teacher is not just a teacher, he is not aloof, he also plays an active role in the community where he is teaching.

Originally posted by Sandman

They're not powerful.

Not powerful as in the conventional sense, like a state having power, but they wield tremendous power in how life in these villages and tribes is evolving, and how society in these places evolves.

Originally posted by Sandman

I don't see much anti-statist ideology in this admirable little scheme. It's not telling the government to get lost, it's going where the Indian state has failed miserably to go.

It's not anti-statist, it's just astatist (is that a word?). It does not concern itself with the state.

[Arrian]

Many are openly hostile to the whole concept of private education being funded by the state...

That's the key element. The opposition is, largely, from those of us who feel that if the state funds it, the state should run it, or at least have some control over it. Thus, if the state schools teach, say, evolution, and a private school wants to teach creationism (oops, I mean "intelligent design"), fine... unless the private school is paid for with gummint money (tax dollars).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

By the way, it is my understanding that some of the best private schools are Catholic schools. Including classes such as comparative religion.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


That's the key element. The opposition is, largely, from those of us who feel that if the state funds it, the state should run it, or at least have some control over it. Thus, if the state schools teach, say, evolution, and a private school wants to teach creationism (oops, I mean "intelligent design"), fine... unless the private school is paid for with gummint money (tax dollars).

-Arrian

That doesn't really address my question, which was - what would happen if a network of private schools developed which was affordable only to the top 70% of the populace, and was significantly better than the public network, better enough to confer significant practical advantages? How would society react?

[Ned]

Aneeshm, Arrian somewhat confirms my post on why the West is somewhat unfriendly to the concept of private schools being the main or only educational system.

[Arrian]

I was talking to Ned - it was an aside.

And we've told you, over and over: that already exists in America. The various private schools (I won't call it a "system" because they're all pretty much doing their own thing, with the exception of Catholic schools, which are a large system) already exist, cost money (thus meaning that the poorest of the poor cannot go unless they get a scholarship), and are generally superior to public schools. THIS ALREADY EXISTS.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Main or only is one thing. An alternative is another.

I would say that the vast majority of people have no problem with private schools, but a majority (vast? dunno) would take issue with ALL schools being private.

Setting aside the philosophical/political reasons for that, there is also the simple resistance to change: we have a public schools system now. It has inertia.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
I was talking to Ned - it was an aside.

And we've told you, over and over: that already exists in America. The various private schools (I won't call it a "system" because they're all pretty much doing their own thing, with the exception of Catholic schools, which are a large system) already exist, cost money (thus meaning that the poorest of the poor cannot go unless they get a scholarship), and are generally superior to public schools. THIS ALREADY EXISTS.

-Arrian

That's all right. But today, what percentage of people can afford them? 5%? 10%? A maximum of, I'd guess, 20%. What happens if, instead of being schools which only include the elite, they become widespread enough that they exclude the poor? What then?