Anyone can be a teacher and everything is free?

Education Stormfront sounds very positive about the prospect of directly financed education - the idea that anybody who wants to be a student of something pays any teacher he or she wants any agreed price. According to the article, these are the expected effects:



1. Anyone can be a teacher.
2. The cost of learning will drop nearly to zero.
3. The whole huge bureaucracy will be gutted.
4. Classes will be developed based on what the students want, not what the government wants.

While I would not dismiss this idea entirely, I am pessimistic about these effects or at least about how positive Stormfront is making them sound.

1. Anyone can be a teacher?

Well, anyone can say they are a teacher. The market will supposedly sort out who is good and who isn't. Sounds good. If it is just about knowing things, this can work. But as soon as the knowledge carries responsibilities like safety with it, some sort of credentialism will need to be part of it - standardized tests at least, if not certified teachers and regulated curricula. 

2. The cost of learning will drop to nearly zero and 

3. The bureaucracy will be gutted

Certainly some forms of learning will come at a lower price because of the loss of the bureaucracy. What the article appears to envision is mostly large online classes. Yes, these can be run cheaply. Anyone with any experience actually teaching or taking such courses knows that they have serious limitations, however. 

Any serious mentoring, with human relationships or at least real communication and contact, will have to cost money. If I look at what I get paid for teaching an online class compared to what students pay to enroll, I realize I could run the same courses for less tuition money AND teach them better and earn more money myself without the bureaucracy infrastructure (the running of the school) which eats up over 75% of the tuition. But I would still have to charge each student $100 or more to make it worth my time, my education, my professional expertise. I have a dearly bought and paid for skill set and reading student work, mentoring, teaching takes time out of my working day for which I will charge money. The only short cut is to cut me, the teacher, out of the picture. Technology might some day do so. That day isn't here yet, at least not for the subjects I teach. Nobody will work for "nearly zero" cost. And even if they did, the educational infrastructure - the videos, books, articles, etc. - would have to be subsidized by someone. Is "free" another word for "the taxpayer pays"?

4. Classes will be developed based on what the students want, not what the government wants.

That sounds great and for many subjects that is probably okay. The example in the article isn't an education product, however, but a game. People who buy games tend to be good judges of what kinds of games they like. A hallmark of education, however, is that it can be a bitter pill that somebody doesn't think they want or need. 

When I was in grad school, I only wanted to do Russian history. If I had been all on my own, I would have taken lots of shortcuts and done little European, world or American history and maybe never studied ancient or medieval history at all. But my program forced me to take classes I didn't want - and I am thankful for it. And many classes I took forced me to do assignments I didn't want to do. We've blogged about the problem before: Will people really pay to work? They will have to if they want an education. But if given a choice, generally, the shorter, easier class with the same title will "win" in the marketplace. We're seeing that happen all over institutionalized education. I see little reason to believe the process would be slowed on a completely open market.