Written on 9/27/14.
{Analysis Using the ‘Broken Window Fallacy’ as Stated by Frederic Bastiat}
Proposition: Online education is bad for society because it puts classroom teachers out of work.
**
Let’s examine that which is seen, first of all. If enough students remain at home, instead of filling the classroom, they will fill their homes, putting a classroom teacher out of work, which then saves the school that would pay his salary money. The teacher then searches for work elsewhere; for my analysis, perhaps as a one-on-one tutor. The students who have not attended the teacher’s classroom and have instead stayed at home to use the online material have therefore missed out on the teachers’ expertise, and in their place, someone else now has the opportunity to experience the expertise, but at the cost of their parents, however, whose money is spent on the tutor for their child. The child’s knowledge or understanding is then furthered. The students whom have stayed home, presumably, have not had this same furtherance. Additionally, the students who use the online curriculum miss out on the opportunity to learn in a classroom setting, with other children their age.
From this information, what do we see? Who gains? And who loses?
Well, firstly, the child whose parents have paid for the tutoring has gained. He has gained expertise that he would not have gained had the students shown up in the classroom.
Secondly, the teacher has gained. He has gained monetarily; tutors often are paid much more than traditional classroom teachers.
Thirdly, the students using the online curriculum have lost. They have lost expertise, socializations and friendships.
However, is this assessment truly accurate?
Let’s continue, and examine now what is not seen. Many times, what is not seen in the classrooms are things like bullying, harassment, manipulation, blackmailing and even rape and shootings, all forms of abuse, from students and teachers alike. Certain naïve students will sell illegal drugs back and forth, and far too frequently, young girls engage in a form of prostitution. High schoolers, and nowadays even middle schoolers, are promiscuous, even drunkards. At school dances, the immorality in the music played over the speakers, the disgusting movements they call ‘dancing’, and the immodestly dressed girls, are all things certain parents would very much prefer to keep their children away from.
Therefore, what is also not seen is the results of all those goings-on. Lowered self-esteem, self-confidence and perception of self-worth, or even self-preservation. Humiliation in front of peers. Depression, cutting, suicide, anorexia. Because a girl was told by an in-crowd she wasn’t good enough; pretty enough; skinny enough. That she wasn’t worth anything, and she would never be accepted. Because a young man was told by the most popular boy in school that he wasn’t smart enough or handsome enough or strong enough or athletic enough, and that nothing he did would ever matter, that he would never be loved. With a loud voice, the herds of sheep in the schools cry out, ‘The things you like are weird. Your passions and hobbies, joys and desires, dreams and visions, are strange and they stray so far from what we have defined as ‘normal’. We don’t accept you for your differences, and we deny the similarities. Because you’re not like us, you don’t deserve our goodwill or encouragement.’ This is the evil that is largely unseen.
What is not seen, is that, although the teacher who became a tutor has gained monetarily from the parents of the tutored child, another tutor, who would have been hired in his place had the students attended the classroom, has therefore lost the same amount of monetary value.
What is not seen is the online curriculum which the students are using as per order of their parent(s) or guardian(s), is often times equal to, if not better than, the quality of curriculum received and taught in a classroom. Therefore, what is also not seen is that, when curriculum is put in video form, a teacher can get an exponentially larger amount of students taught in a subject in a very small fraction of the time it would have taken in a classroom, or one-on-one setting.
What is not seen is the gain of real control of the parents over their child’s upbringing. By placing them at home, in a controlled environment, wherein they can add or subtract any amount of material they please, wherein the schedule is infinitely flexible, wherein the student may proceed at any pace he is comfortable, and wherein the correct values and principles are taught by the parents and practiced by the children, they exercise true responsibility in their parenting.
What is not seen is a greater sense of ‘socialization’ for the students who did not attend the classroom. Yes, it is true that children become socialized in the schools. I am not denying that. But it is in fact a very limited socialization. They only socialize with peers, people their own age, and teachers, although of almost all ages, all have the same facet; teaching: this causes students to perceive them all similarly, if not the same. Without this limitation, children who use an online curriculum will socialize with those younger and older than them, and with the correct parenting, will learn how to treat adults and children with friendliness and respect.
From this analysis of the seen and the unseen, how can we better interpret who gains and who loses?
First of all, the students who did not attend the classroom, although they have missed the expertise of the teacher, they have also missed out on the oppression of the society in the schools, which I believe is a net gain for society as a whole. Secondly, they have also gained education that lines up closely to, if not exactly to, the views and beliefs of their parents. This is not a limiting thing, and this does not inhibit a child of the ability to think for himself, but, if the parents are establishing things like morals, integrity and responsibility, it is also a net gain to society. Thirdly, they have gained a closer relationship with their parents. Since they are actively involved in the form of education in some way, (even if they do not directly teach the material), the time spent with children is of a better quality when the child accepts direction and conversation about many, if not all, areas of his life. This is also a net gain to the societal whole. Fourthly, the students who did not attend have prevented their self-esteem, self-worth, etc. from being damaged by opinions that should carry no weight. Ideally, this is replaced with positive encouragement, discipline and constructive criticism. Finally, they gain a broader sense of socialization, via many outlets, not just school-related outlets.
The only loss I see in this for the student would be of friendships (as stated beforehand) within the school. (This could also be perceived as a gain to society, depending on who the friends would have been.)
From this, then, we see the parent also gains from this. By the child having a better relation to them, this also translates as a gain to the parent. Additionally, they gain from knowing that, through the parenting they have provided, have successfully contributed to society a citizen who is moral, idealistic, leadership-capable and integral. This is obviously a net gain to society.
And finally, the school wherein the classroom the students did not attend is placed, gains a teacher’s whole salary, and may therefore use it in other ways. (Note, this would not be to hire another teacher, since the classroom remains emptied.)
Well, since they gain so much, is there a loser, in fact? Why, yes there is.
The tutor who was not hired is a monetary loser.
Compared to how much both the child and parent has gained, the loss seems so insignificant. This is not to say we belittle the tutor, but rather that all the gain to society is more important than his personal loss.
Rascal For a Reason 