gigantic, a big big ho

The conspiracy theorist in me may be about to come out to play.

In Britain, as in the majority of countries, education is free. This right to a free education is something we passionately protect and advance. For example, many of the debt-release schemes in Africa had in their conditions a commitment to the provision of free education in the future and the introduction of university top-up fees was not without its protests. The provision of free education by the state is rightly championed.

The idea that people should pay for education seems incredulous and counter to our societies values. The long history and existance of private schools often comes under attack. Parents are sometimes criticised for sending their child to a private school, but if that child needed an operation, they would not criticised in the same way if they chose a private hospital to treat her.

The NHS is unique, in other countries citizens are expected to pay, or least get their insurance company to pay, for their own medical expenses. Nearly all of the population live in privately owned housing. Although child care tax credits are avaliable, child care is also privately provided. The railways have been denationalised, and the bus companies are companies too. The energy companies, phone companies, and now the postal services operate in the free market. In several countries, including Britain, Bolivia and Australia, even the water supply has been privatised. The world bank is actively advising Ghana to follow suit. There has even been a call to legalise organ sales, and let a free market economy solve the problem of donor shortage.

Why is free state-provided education championed so universally, when the idea of state-provided (even if it isn't free) housing, healthcare, and water is dismissed?

Is it because education is "every child's right" and is such a basic need that the state needs to intervene? Is access to water not as important? Is decent housing? Or healthcare?

Does the state provide education because the parents can't be trusted to provide it "properly"? Does it set a national cirriculum because trained teachers don't know what children need to learn? Or does the state provide our free, controlled education so we can be trained the ways of the state and learn how to be good citizens, in their opinion? Do they provide free education so children get used to the fact that they learn at school, and not at home, so if the state wanted to place ideas about the world in their minds, those ideas could be instilled and nutured before they have learnt to think? Something that the controlled school system could all to easily neglect to teach.