Liam Julian's review of my book, Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American Education, offered the kind of dismissive response to libertarian thought that's all too common in the Gadfly. Essentially, "there they go again with school choice. Why won't they get real?"
In a moment, I'll tackle the reality question. First, though, I want to address one of Julian's few specific criticisms of my book, in which he takes issue with my description of early-American education as working "more or less optimally." He asks, "does the author actually believe this? For colonial-era blacks and women, American education was an unqualified disaster."
If only Julian had offered the context of what I wrote.
In the book, I clearly laud parent-driven, early-American education because it worked, producing significant educational improvements despite Americans living in harsh, pioneering environments. I also note that women's school attendance was rising long before common schooling. And blacks? Their situation was horrible, but educational freedom wasn't to blame. No, government was. It enforced slavery, maintained "separate but equal," and today runs public schools that regularly shortchange African-Americans.
These are just a few examples of evidence in my book that Mr. Julian, I fear, ignored because they would cramp his attack on libertarian principles. Unfortunately, he also ignored the main point of my book, which the evidence supports: When Americans have educational freedom it works well for parents, children, and society. In contrast, when government has control, education serves politicians, bureaucrats, and school employees, while regularly failing parents and children. And of course it does. When parents have no choice, the system has all the power.
Which brings me to reality.
"McCluskey's book refuses to compromise on any of its overarching libertarian values for reality's sake," Julian complains, later claiming that good education analysis is that which calls for "incremental change."
But who's truly being realistic here? Is it libertarians like me, who look at decades of politics neutralizing well-intentioned incremental changes, see the academic stagnation and skyrocketing spending they've produced, and surmise that education can't be fixed without fundamental reform? Or is it Fordham, which looks at the same history, complains about the same destructive power of politics, and then puts its faith in the next set of tweaks?
My book, I think, makes the answer pretty clear.
Neal McCluskey
Education Policy Analyst
Cato Institute