Question

What are some paternalistic issues and benefits of government intervention in the education system

Answer 1

Nonetheless, disparities within households in income and in the number of children— both a cause for and a result of the different policies that have been pursued— and the implementation of an educational curriculum with quite substantial costs, have made such a strategy unlikely feasible. Alternatively, the government took on the financial costs of providing the school. In doing so, it provided not only for the basic amount of education needed of all but also for additional education at higher levels open to young people but not necessary of them— as in state and municipal colleges and universities, for example.

Only certain forms of schooling can be justified on these grounds by government subsidy. We do not excuse, to expect, subsidizing solely vocational education that improves the student's economic productivity but does not prepare him for citizenship or leadership. Obviously, making a sharp line between these two kinds of schooling is extremely difficult. Some general education contributes to the student's economic value— in reality, reading has ceased to have a marketable value only in modern times and in a few nations. And a lot of vocational education expands the perspective of the worker. However, it is equally obvious that it is a positive distinction.

Schools run by the government are accessible, but not needed. Nonetheless, the relation between education funding and its administration puts many schools at a disadvantage: they get the benefit of little or none of the government funds spent on education— a condition that has been the subject of a great deal of political dispute, particularly in France, of course. The reduction of this drawback that, it is believed, greatly enhance the parochial schools and thus make it even more difficult to obtain a common core of principles.