The place of the private sector in public service is, at the moment, but in fact all the time, the subject of very lively debates in our country. This is the case in the case of daycares, where some consider that its deployment is to the detriment of CPEs, which others contest. This is of course also the case in the health sector.
But let’s stick to education.
Here, the debate commonly focuses on what is called the three-tier school: the public network, the private network, and the public offering specific programs. But let’s not forget home schooling and the whole issue of religious schools.
Is the current situation acceptable, or not? How and by what criteria should this be judged? If so, should we act? Can we? And if yes, then how?
The question of justice
Each time, for even the slightest serious people, we find behind all this the decisive and difficult question of knowing what is just and who, therefore, has the authority to educate.
Certainly, some will defend at all costs the status quo which is favorable to them. But even they will want to at least give themselves the appearance of an argument which allows them to conclude that what prevails is right.
So what is fair in the distribution of a good like education? In a pluralistic society like ours? Is it the same for other goods, such as health?
Many plausible arguments are put forward and it is not easy to decide.
A story imagined by the economist Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize winner in this field, makes this clear. Sen introduces us to three children — let’s call them Évelyne, Louis and Arthur — who are arguing over who will have a flute.
Three children, one flute
Évelyne claims that it belongs to her because she is the only one who knows how to play it.
Louis says that he is so poor that he has no toys of his own: the flute would be his only toy.
Arthur assures that it was he who made the flute and that it is therefore his.
Each child uses an argument that economists, philosophers and many others have used to find the criterion for the distribution of goods that would be fair.
Évelyne would be a utilitarian: is just what produces the maximum benefit – here, playing and hearing the flute played. Louis uses an argument asking that we aim to increase economic equality. And Arthur uses an argument used by libertarians and according to which what we produce comes back to us (but Arthur certainly did not make the machines used to make his flute nor cut down the tree from which the wood comes…).
These vast questions remain debated and there is no unanimous solution.
The delicate, even insoluble problem…
It is not difficult to transpose all this to our current debates on school, where similar arguments, and others, also plausible, are invoked.
Without being able to go into details, let us say that here we will emphasize the free choice of parents; there, the economic benefits, notably induced by these people who are going to university — and who, in the majority, will have been in the private sector; there, we will deplore the cost for the public of the private sector, a price considered unacceptable; but here, what the private sector saves the public; elsewhere, we will deplore the inequality of opportunities, but there, the importance of competition; elsewhere still, citizenship and the common school that it requires. And many more.
The debate continues and things going the way they are going, I predict that no government will decide it. To do so would arouse too much discontent and, in any case, all the camps, often well organized, have at least plausible arguments.
It could also be, let’s say it, that what we have is what would be desirable in the eyes of the majority. But we don’t know anything about it and a simple survey won’t tell us anything: for that we would have to debate the issues and be well informed of everything they involve. What to do ?
…and its possible solution
I affirm that on an issue of such importance, we should be able to take the time to inform the public of the issues, the possible solutions, what each entails, then seek to achieve the broadest social consensus. possible. A simple survey, by definition, would not be enough. You will have to take the time you need to inform, discuss and listen.
I have been saying it for a long time (since 2016…): in this education issue, and in many others, we need a new Parent Commission.
I proposed, somewhat jokingly, to call it the Parent 2.0 commission. I change my mind. I still think it is necessary, but would like a new name: the Rocher commission, in honor of Mr. Guy Rocher, the immense Guy Rocher, who participated in the Parent commission. And who would like a new one?
He will be 100 years old in a few days.
Happy birthday, Mr. Rocher. And thanks for everything.