One subject the coalition parties can agree on is school reform. There's a proposal under way that will make it a lot easier to start private schools in Norway, and it looks likely to pass in Stortinget. The Conservatives and the Progress Party like this because they approve of privatization and individual choice in general, the Christian People's Party because it will encourage more religious schools. As it is today, you're only allowed to start a private school if it offers something that is significantly different from the public schools, (Steiner schools, for instance, and religious schools) - as long as it isn't too different. An application for a religious elementary school, a few years ago, was famously denied by Labor's Trond Giske, for being, well, too Christian. The application was later approved by the new Conservative minister, Kristin Clemet, along with many others, and the new law is designed to make this process easier in the future.

The left-wing parties, naturally, disapprove. Jens Stoltenberg (Labor) and Kristin Halvorsen (Socialist Left) had an article each in Dabladet yesterday (no link), where they in very similar words highlight the two guiding myths of the social democratic school system: The national meeting place, and the educational zero sum game.

To start with Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian public school system is "one of the finest things about Norwegian society, [because] the income of the parents or their education does not decide what schools their children will go to. [..] It is a strength of Norwegian society that there are fewer differences between people than in many other countries, and it is a strength that children of different backgrounds meet in the same school. This has helped to create the Norway we have today. [..] Elementary school is meant to give children a common platform .."

Kristin Halvorsen: "Until now, children of all backgrounds have gone together to the same elementary schools. Independently of their parents' economy, education or ethnic background, they and have had the possibility to get to know each other at a young age. This has contributed to providing children and youths with an understanding and tolerance of each other, and has had an integrating effect on society. With Norway becoming more multicultural and diverse, this is more important than ever."

In other words, the public school is more than a place where your kids get their education. It's a component of the social democratic vision, a place where people of all backgrounds can meet and overcome their differences. The unspoken part of this argument is that when people are no longer forced to share the same schools, society will revert to its natural state: separated by class, race and wealth.

Also left unsaid is the larger role the public school plays in the social democratic vision, not only as an open meeting place, an example of "togetherness", but as a tool for political education, a way of ensuring a very specific set of common political values. It would be unfair to call this indoctrination, but schools obviously have a major effect on what kind of worldview kids end up with. This power has been used actively, and I suspect that part of what worries the anti-school reform parties is that for the state to lose control over the school system would threaten the foundations of social democracy.

To me, the choice of education belongs with parents, not politicians, and while there also is a class and race issue here, the state vs parent aspect takes priority. Based on what I remember being taught in school, I would at least like the option one day to send my kids somewhere else. We obviously need a common educational platform, but forcing everyone to go to the same kind of public schools leads to homogeneity, not diversity.

There are risks, of course, such as the opening of Saudi-financed elementary schools, but as long as we're aware of the problem, I'm sure we can avoid that form of abuse. The fanaticism 101 scare is a side issue, anyway, because the real benefit of a more liberal private school law is increased choice for regular people who want a regular school - just better.

But what about fairness? Aren't private schools unfair and unsolidaric, because they give the rich better education? Jens Stoltenberg: "[This law] is the first step towards a dual school system. That is the wrong direction and a wrong priority. We don't want Norway as well to have a system where children of wealthy parents with good education systematically are sent to better schools than children of parents who don't have as much."

Kristin Halvorsen: "This will not provide everyone with a choice. Not all parents will have the opportunity to send their children to private schools. This will primarily be an option for resourceful parents in urban areas. [..] In addition, private schools may decide to only accept the entrance of the strongest pupils, while those with a greater need of being followed up, and a greater need for special education, are left to the public schools."

I agree that the richest will benefit more from this than the poorest. But what exactly is wrong with that? Education isn't a zero sum game. Just because one kid knows more, doesn't mean another knows less. Private school reform means a larger sum of money in total spent on kids' education, not less. This is bad for who?

Besides, in a country that is practically one uniformly wealthy middle class, it is ridiculous to conjur up frightening images of "the rich", enjoying their luxuroius privileges at the expense of us regular people. This isn't the 19th century. Most of these "rich parents" Halvorsen worries about are just ordinary upper middle class parents who want their kids to have a good education.

More surprising than her dislike of the rich is Halvorsen's jab at the "strongest pupils". Apparently, private schools will give smart kids even more unfair advantages than they already have, and this a bad thing, somehow. In reality, a major weakness of the whole egalitarian school system is precisely its failure to accommodate for the smart kids. If you're ahead of the class, you're expected to stop and wait for the others to catch up. Exceptions are made for the occasional child genius, but not for the averagely over-bright. Private schools could be an option for these kids, and let the public school teachers focus on the ones who need their attention most. Again, this is bad for who?

I like the idea of private schools. I like the competitive atmosphere it will introduce, and I like the choice they will give to parents. I don't see why the educational needs of individual children should be subjected to the demands of an ideology of homogeneity and mediocricity, and I don't accept the social democratic state's claim to the right as secondary parents. Stoltenberg and Halvorsen should see this as a challenge to increase the quality of public schools, and not as a threat.

"Also left unsaid is the larger role the public school plays in the social democratic vision, not only as an open meeting place, an example of "togetherness", but as a tool for political education, a way of ensuring a very specific set of common political values. It would be unfair to call this indoctrination, but schools obviously have a major effect on what kind of worldview kids end up with. This power has been used actively, and I suspect that part of what worries the anti-school reform parties is that for the state to lose control over the school system would threaten the foundations of social democracy. "

I couldn't agree with you more, and I welcome any opportunity for the foundations of social democracy to be shaken up a bit, - preferably with a visible alternative within a social democratic society.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of class struggle. Some of the best social legislation in America has come about as a response to protest by labor forces. But Scandinavian social democracies have too much of an ideological hold on so many social institutions that they've failed to recognize the stultifying effects of social democracy, leaving less and less room for possible social innovation.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/210