TheAgitator.com
A Hypothetical
Monday, April 26th, 2004Let’s say you send your kids to a private school. Let’s say that said private school is performing poorly, that it is in fact the most poorly performing school of its kind in the region, likely in the country. It’s rife with crime, mismanagement, and outright corruption among the very people who are supposed to be looking out for and taking care of your kids.
Now let’s say you read in the newspaper that the head of this school makes $74,000 per year and despite the school’s poor performance, the school’s board of directors decides to give her a $33,750 bonus — nearly half her salary.
Most of us would immediately move our kids to a new school. Unfortunately, if you’re a parent in Washington, D.C.’s public school system, you don’t have that option.
Let’s say the teacher’s weren’t one of the most porwerful unions in the country, we could probably fix many of the school issues. Until then, punt.
Why was no one outraged by this when the contract was written? At this point they’re bound to giving her the cash.
Massey’s annual salary rate was $175K, with $74K of that paid out when she resigned.
Incredible that the bonus criteria didn’t require her to stick with the job to the end of the interim period for which she was hired to serve.
They cite a $194K average salary for similar positions as justification, but annualizing her total compensation ($74K + 33K for 40% of a year) gives me $255K. Not bad for a temp gig aborted prematurely.
The biggest problem with public school salaries is that they’re usually awarded on a comparative basis: District A pays their superintendant this-much, so neighboring District B feels pressured to pay their superintendant as much. On the surface, this appears to be nothing more than market pricing, except that *government* institutions don’t compete in the free market, especially when they’re negotiating with unions granted monopoly bargaining power.
I’m always amused when a teacher union calls for “full funding” of schools–I recently heard this argument from Maryland union officials. What exactly constitutes “full funding”? The minute you give the union everything it wants, it will make more demands.
Let’s say the teacher’s weren’t one of the most porwerful unions in the country, we could probably fix many of the school issues.
What incentive would the public school system have to fix any problems, even if the unions were weak?
Jonathan: It’s not that getting rid of unions would increase incentives to improve the schools. It’s that the incentives parents and communities currently have to fix their schools are insufficient to give them power to overcome the unions. Were the unions not there, the existing motivation would allow us to get more done. Basically, it’s just removing a barrier.
DC is such a shithole it ain’t even funny. Half the city is so dangerous that people who don’t have to never even go there. And the left is totally out of ideas on how to undo the lefty social programs that created this situations (affirmative action, excessive dependence on government, banning of handguns, etc.). The right has co-opted some good libertarian ideas for DC, but the lefties are so in charge, narrow-minded, and entrenched that it’s going to be a tough slog.
Jonathan: It’s not that getting rid of unions would increase incentives to improve the schools. It’s that the incentives parents and communities currently have to fix their schools are insufficient to give them power to overcome the unions. Were the unions not there, the existing motivation would allow us to get more done. Basically, it’s just removing a barrier.
I agree with this, but I think the main problem is not that the unions are too powerful, though they are certainly a nuisance, but rather as Radley said, parents cannot exit unsatisfactory schools without paying twice.
parents cannot exit unsatisfactory schools without paying twice.
Jonathon-The unions are the ones creating and maintaining this situation. Remove them and find out how easy voucher systems would be to initiate.
I agree that unions are impeding vouchers. But I do not think that vouchers are necessarily a good idea either. Right now, homeschooling is pretty much independent of govt oversight, at least in the US. If and when vouchers are implemented, the govt will likely try to extend its reach beyond public schools, including likely homeschooling. Vouchers are simply socialist rationing coupons.
I think that the most important thing to point out when criticizing the public school system is the lack of ability of parents to choose education environments for their children. The system that exists is a democratic system, when what needs to exist is a market system. It is precisely the democratic nature of schooling that has resulted in such horrible schools.
Vouchers might be a step towards a market system. Or they might be a step backwards.
Vouchers will create competition. It’s moving towards a free market.
I went to Catholic school for 12 years, the public school couldn’t care less they still got my parents tax dollars. Take those dollars away and they can provide a better product or wither away.
As an aside, sure, public schoooling has a socialist twing to it, but what is the alternative? Yeah, I don’t think removing public funding from basic education will work.
Here’s my (mainly uninformed) opinion: Vouchers, regardless of whether you agree with the concept of free public education (which I know some here do not), are a step in the right direction. The reason that people who can afford to send their children to private schools do is that private schools are, with few exceptions, almost always better. They are free from the kind of lefty feel-good crap that dominates the public school system. I say this as someone who was homeschooled briefly then went through public schools, including one of the best public high schools in the state of Virginia (it’s probably #2 or 3, definitely top 5). Struggling students do better in private schools, because a private school can actually make them shape up or ship out, as it were. Public schools are too bogged down in regulation to actually help the students.
Allowing poorer students to go to these better schools will allow us to shut down failing public schools. Everybody wins except the teachers unions, and that’s why they’re against it.
Jonathan, I’m certainly no expert, so I ask this inquisitively, not accusatorially: in what way do you think that vouchers could become a step backwards?
I would move my kid to a different private school.
Oh yeah, cant move them to anohter satisfactory public school.
I’m certainly no expert, so I ask this inquisitively, not accusatorially: in what way do you think that vouchers could become a step backwards?
Because they could result in growth of govt regulations to private schools and homeschoolers. As long as the funding goes through govt, the govt sets the rules.
Vouchers will create competition. It’s moving towards a free market.
That’s the theory, and I certainly empathize with that theory. I am not certain that will necessarily be the result.
As an aside, sure, public schoooling has a socialist twing to it, but what is the alternative?
It’s not a mere ‘twing’. Public schooling is socialist.
Yeah, I don’t think removing public funding from basic education will work.
Work ‘politically’? Or work if it ever became a reality?
By default, it would at least be more competitive. The current situation is a monopoly. At least with vouchers, parents whom actually care about their kids education will have a choice for a different, better school.
Anything the ‘goverment’ does collectively for the people is socialistic by definition. So? We could eliminate public school funding…you think America is dumbing down now? Give that a generation and Canada will invade us.
So to answer your question, politically, it won’t fly and as a reality, it’s suicide.
Anything the ‘goverment’ does collectively for the people is socialistic by definition. So? We could eliminate public school funding…you think America is dumbing down now? Give that a generation and Canada will invade us. So to answer your question, politically, it won’t fly and as a reality, it’s suicide.
I’m surprised by your view that no public school funding will result in Canada invading us.
Should there be a public food system such to make sure we all eat, or otherwise we’ll starve?
Should there be a public clothes system such to make sure we all dress ourselves, or otherwise we’ll all run around naked?
Do you think that people will no longer have the means, desire, or ability to educate themselves in the absence of the govt forcing them to do so?
Jonathan, you’re quite right that when the government is controlling the money going into private schools they’ll want to regulate them, and that certainly is cause for concern. I guess a school could choose to refuse school vouchers and thus avoid any regulation that may come with them, but that would render the system useless, anyway, so it’s certainly not a good solution. Your worries about homeschooling, however, I feel are unfounded. Since the government isn’t funding the homeschoolers, it’s position relative to them changes little. In fact, I fail to see where vouchers would have any correlation to home-schooling at all. Am I missing something?
So what would happen if you eliminate public schools? Personally, I never saw the word education in the US Constitution and Feel the Feds have no right to involve themselves in the education system. But on a local/state level where would we be without a publicly supported system?
As for your examples, I think there is a big difference in society’s responsibilty to the well being of chidren compared to those over 18.
I think that if parents were responsible for paying for their childs education, a percentage of children would not go to school. Then what? Where does that part of the population end up?
As a childless American, I’d like to take this opportunity to call for the elimination of the public funding of education, vouchers or otherwise. Just think of the possibilities…we can simuntaneously increase enrollment, improve quality, slash investment, and lower taxes. Win/win/win/win!
So what would happen if you eliminate public schools? Personally, I never saw the word education in the US Constitution and Feel the Feds have no right to involve themselves in the education system. But on a local/state level where would we be without a publicly supported system?
I happen to think that we would actually have some educated people around. Like food and clothing, education would be cheap and getting cheaper. There would be diversity in education choices instead of a one-size-fits-all solution.
As for your examples, I think there is a big difference in society’s responsibilty to the well being of chidren compared to those over 18.
So why not have a public food system or public clothing system for children?
Regardless, my argument has nothing to do with society’s responsibility and everything to do with the ability of parents to choose the types of education that is best for their children. You are implying that without the govt taking our money and giving us schools, we would not make that choice ourselves, and that we become so dumb that Canada would invade us. I find that a view that contradicts everything I know about human nature.
I think that if parents were responsible for paying for their childs education, a percentage of children would not go to school. Then what? Where does that part of the population end up?
Sure, some parents might not send their kids to school, but I bet this would be a very small number. Some parents also don’t feed and clothe their kids, yet we don’t have a public food system or public clothing system for kids. We deal with those special cases through other means. Parents have evolved for millions of years to care more for their kids than other adults.
And society is not the state is not society.
does anyone know what % of children grades K-12 today attend public v. private school? 70/30? i am going to guess the #s for private school enrollments is increasing, but it seems a big step to completely do away with public schooling. they are not ALL bad, after all. when i was 4, my parents moved to one of the best school districts in ohio so that i and my brothers and sisters could have a good education. i went to public school K-9 (where my parents paid taxes out the yingyang for the privilege, it was well worth it though) and private 10-12. both equally good schools. 20 years later, i think the district continuously does very well in the state competency tests. unfortunately, not every child is fortunate enough to have responsible and good parents. michelle
Jeb,
Your worries about homeschooling, however, I feel are unfounded. Since the government isn’t funding the homeschoolers, it’s position relative to them changes little. In fact, I fail to see where vouchers would have any correlation to home-schooling at all. Am I missing something?
The main reason that homeschoolers have so much independence today in how they teach their kids, what curriculum they use, how they measure results, etc is that a homeschooled household is not considered a ‘school’. However, in many states, if a bunch of homeschoolers get together for mutual teaching or instruction, they get called a ‘school’ and can be regulated by the local education boards, because they are considered a ‘school’ like private schools.
My fear with vouchers is as follows -
1) I think that there is a possibility that when homeschoolers start accepting voucher money (which they have a strong incentive to do since they don’t use those tax dollars anyway), the govt will try to regulate them.
2) Even without accepting voucher money, the education nazis will try to find reasons to increase regulations on homeschoolers due to there being more regulatable (sp?) schools out there, since now public, private, and other homeschooled children will be receiving ‘state’ funds.
3) The parallel I draw is with the tangled mess that health insurance has become. Due to price controls during WWII and tax breaks for businesses that offer health insurance for employees (who could argue with that?), the health insurance industry is one of the most regulated industries in the country, resulting in spiraling costs, third-party payments, and a general lack of ‘sense’ about it.
I find it laughable that doctors’ visits to check blood pressure, height weight, simple blood tests, history and a physical require insurance. Insurance should be reserved for catastropic events, like car insurance, fire insurance, home insurance, etc. Yet, due to the highly regulated system, we pay for basic goods and services through insurance. The HMOs now have an incentive to go to bed with the govt due to escaping the regulation the govt creates.
Could vouchers create a stepping stone toward a free market in education? I hope so.
But I fear that 50 years from now, the education system will look much like the health care system does today.
I see your point, and I agree that homeschooling will always be under attack from what you delightfully and correctly referred to as “education Nazis”, though the homeschoolers have been able to do fairly well so far through legal defense funds and the like.
On the point of homeschoolers accepting vouchers, I didn’t realize this was a possibility, though I’ll be the first to admit I’m ignorant of the intricacies of the situation.
Barring that, I think that vouchers would have no relation to government regulation of homeschoolers, which is a problem in its own right.
As a final thought, Jonathan, I will grant that you’ve certainly offered the most coherent and sensible criticism of vouchers I’ve ever seen. You’ve at least got me considering the real downsides.
I’m not really in a state of mind to honestly consider the health care analogy; I’m pretty cracked out on caffeine pills, as I’m preparing for finals and writing papers (I’m presently writing a paper explaining why the right should use MLK’s image, for a professor who sees the right as the Antichrist of civil rights. Oh it’s fun)
Another amazing victory for the commies!
I have one thing agains homeschooling. Even though it may give better education to a child than a public school, but it certainly would not give a child one very important lesson that public school would – how to deal with all those idiots that will surround poor creature the rest of his or her life!
My kid goes to a private school, has been doing this for 7 years (he’s finishing 5-th grade, started going there from kindergarden). It’s a wonderful place, wery kind and knowledgeable teachers, amazing kids. Even though they offer the middle school program, too, I’m going to move my kid to a public middle school, for the very reason I stated in the beginning. He must get in touch with the real life at last.
I’ve been following the current DC Schools brouhaha for a bit now and think I have a handle on it.
Fire everyone. Every last employee. Shut down the schools. Give every student a check for what the district pays per pupil (somewhere around $13,000) and let the parents sort it out.
Fil, most homeschoolers (I’m going based on experience with friends and some extended family who homeschooled) get around that problem by having groups that get together where the kids learn social skills. Granted, that’s nothing like learning to get along with idiots, but it helps. And it’s a tradeoff that those people are willing to make.
As a final thought, Jonathan, I will grant that you’ve certainly offered the most coherent and sensible criticism of vouchers I’ve ever seen. You’ve at least got me considering the real downsides.
I’m not really in a state of mind to honestly consider the health care analogy; I’m pretty cracked out on caffeine pills, as I’m preparing for finals and writing papers (I’m presently writing a paper explaining why the right should use MLK’s image, for a professor who sees the right as the Antichrist of civil rights. Oh it’s fun)
Thanks. Good luck.
Fil,
I have one thing agains homeschooling. Even though it may give better education to a child than a public school, but it certainly would not give a child one very important lesson that public school would – how to deal with all those idiots that will surround poor creature the rest of his or her life!
To a certain degree, people do work with other ‘idiots’ in their workplace – people who might not be as capable, responsible, or sociable as themselves.
But schools are not just filled with mere ‘idiots’, they are often filled with criminals, anti-social misfits, alpha-males, and people who have absolutely no desire to learn. This kind of pathology in no way prepares them for the real world. Most people leave the workplaces in which this type of behavior is found, and in general their peers in the workplace are much like themselves.
Homeschoolers can interact with their peers in various ways. Yet, public schools often force children into confronting traumatic situations which do not represent the real world. Someone else makes the argument better than me:
Read the whole thing.
Fil said, “…but it certainly would not give a child one very important lesson that public school would – how to deal with all those idiots that will surround poor creature the rest of his or her life!”
We homeschool, and I think you underestimate the proliferation of idiots throughout our society.
Like food and clothing, education would be cheap and getting cheaper.
Oh, so _that_ explains why the tuition at private universities has fallen through the floor. Not.
Oh, so _that_ explains why the tuition at private universities has fallen through the floor. Not.
Um, do you think that govt subsidies may have something to do with it?
Dear Jonathan, we certainly have very different upbringing and social values, as far as I can see. If I had to leave every time some kind of a hostile pressure was applied to me by the environment, it would be much easier to leave it all in one shot. Quite literally. :-)
I took care of this problem, so my kid won’t be totally surpirsed by encountering the real life. With any luck he’s supposed to get the second dan in taekwondo next Saturday…
Now, let’s get back to homeschooling. I do have some skills in math and programming and know a thign or two about the natural sciences. My wife is quite proficient in music and crafts. Although we both work 60 hours a week on average (and this is not counting bullshitting in Internet :-), and we would both make very poor English or History teachers. Besides, every time I try to explain some concept that seems so simple to me, both me and my kid get really frustrated and we end up playing Mortal Combat against each other. So, how would we be able to homeschool our boy?
It is clear that homeschooling is not an answer for every family (actually, I think there are really small percentage of the families that can do it successfully). Private schools are more plausible, although they cost serious money. Well, there are religious schools, that are often free, but I would really hate to expose my kid to the large quiantities of religion before he turned at least 15.
It seems like a closed loop to me.
Oh, so _that_ explains why the tuition at private universities has fallen through the floor. Not.
Also the high rates college can charge is because it is in such high demand, as you can’t get a job any more without a college education (supposedly).
That is a direct result of all the ignorant coming out of the high schools that are now jokes, thanks to government.
And now, it is happening at the public universities. 5 years at 3 major Universities, and I’ve taught myself everything. There is no educating, only work assignment and grading.
Employers just want poeple who know something, anything GOOD. So they go to the privately educated, or higher and higher up on the graduate system to Masters and Phds. To find someone with verifiable smarts.
“What good is it that knowledge mounts? It’s knowing something good that counts.”
Jonathon, Thanks for the debate. I have our solution that would make us both happy.
It came to me last night, as I picked up the garbage cans at the end of my driveway. You see it’s really a state/local issue much like the socialistic trash pick up here in NJ. In a friends’ town in NH, they have a ‘less’ socialistic garbage system where you take your trash to the dump, but in the end the government still handles it. About 50 miles outside of Phoenix, my friend burns his trash in a pit several hundred yards from his house because there is no trash service of any form. See even trash collection can be socialism…if you want it.
My point? Education is state/local issue and it should be left as such. I’d prefer to live in an area with higher taxes promoting an education system. I wonder what the state/local area without any education system would look like. I’m sure most people who could care less about their kids education would sure like to live with less taxes so they would join you. I’m also sure that large corporations may favor putting white collar jobs in areas with higher education demographics. But I could be wrong, but it’s the beauty of local rule, we get what we want.
I am really beginning to believe that the govt makes everything cost more, especially when they try to make something less expensive. Ironic.
Well, we all know what is the rot of the problems with the waste management in NJ. WE all watch TV, after all. :-)
As for the government making everything more expensive, that is absolutely correct. The higher is the government involvement in the business solutions, the less effective they become. The ultimate example might be Soviet Union, where everything became so expensive that it simply ceased to exist.
The more socialized is something, the less efficient it becomes. You have to feed an army of managers, for starters. BTW, large coroprations suffer from the same problem.
Why do people who can afford It send their children to private school? So they can recieve a better education, thats the simple answer. Why don`t the poorest children in this country go to private schools ? Their parents can~t afford to, thats the answer. Why do we need school vouchers? See above for the answer.
the same as u manuel
“Their parents can~t afford to, thats the answer. Why do we need school vouchers? See above for the answer.”
In a free market they could afford it, market alternatives would appear in every price range. A family that’s already home schooling could take on a another student at an affordable price. Or people who aren’t homeschooling could set up little home schools for small groups.
If you insist on subsidizing the poor then the least bad alternative would be to simply give them cash with no strings and then leave the market alone.
Cash, not vouchers, and they can do whatever they like with it. It’s still theft, but somewhat less likely to socialize private schools.
Just a word from a member of the most POWERFUL UNION IN THE WORLD!!!
I imagine that most of the persons in this little discussion are all middle class and up while, I, member of the most powerful union in the world, work two jobs to pay my taxes (with no income tax I could survive with one income as I could spend my money as I see fit) but that was my choice because I have always wanted to teach.
The school districts are not run by teachers, or by a powerful uniion, but by administrators and politians who have no interest in teaching or the students. They are closing 5 elementary schools in the Houston ISD this summer, and some teachers are losing their jobs, but not a single member of the over-sized administrative staff is losing theirs.
As a science teacher in an downtown Houston school, the biggest problem is not drugs, yes, they’re here, it’s not sex, yes, they’re almost all doing it, it’s not TV, yes they’re all watching way too much of it. The problem is PARENT APATHY. This current society is the NIKE generation. They don’t care about their future, they care about what brand of shoes are on their feet. Where does this come from? How do I get a child that I see 50 minutes a day to care about their school work when their parents could’t care less?
All these suggestions I hear lead to a bigger problem. I don’t have any school age children, do I get a voucher so I don’t have to work two jobs?
The system doesn’t work because it is symptom of the socialism in our country, we need to have these children realize their is consequence for their actions, like getting kicked out of school if you’re not cutting the mustard. Free, public education is a tradition in this country and a great one at that. It is not, nor should it be a right. If you don’t do the work…get out! It sure would be a whole lot easier to teach the ones who want to learn if we could get rid of the ones who don’t.
Frank,
My point? Education is state/local issue and it should be left as such. I’d prefer to live in an area with higher taxes promoting an education system. I wonder what the state/local area without any education system would look like. I’m sure most people who could care less about their kids education would sure like to live with less taxes so they would join you. I’m also sure that large corporations may favor putting white collar jobs in areas with higher education demographics.
I could not let this point go. There is a fundamental assumption under this paragraph that I completely disagree with: that only the govt can provide education.
People in the Soviet Union likely felt the same way – “Without the bread rationing commune, how will we get bread? Will there be ‘stores’ only in the big cities? Surely without the bread rationing commune, there will be no bread.”
I see many Americans have the same meta-context in a different way – “Without the Dept of Education, there will be no education” or “Without the Dept of Energy, there will be no energy” or “Without Social Security, there will be no retirement money”. Clearly, this type of reasoning is false.
Similarly, I think you believe that, as you put it, “without any educational system” there will be no education.
I have no problem with educational systems. I am simply opposed to government education. I like education. I like to see educated people. That is precisely the reason I oppose government education.
Contra to your beliefs, I think that without a govt education system, many people like myself who would rather use the tax money forcibly extracted from me for my kids’ education for different, individualized education systems would move to that area. I think that education entrepreneurs who know that their innovative methods now have a market that is not stifled by the opportunity costs of public education will see it as an opportunity for profit. I think there will be many more choices for education, including some that don’t have the standard ‘teacher babbling in front of bored students for 7 hours a day’ paradigm. I think that perhaps we will start thinking of children as active ‘searchlights’ of knowledge, rather than passive ‘buckets’ to be filled by others. I think that finally children will not lose their innate zeal for learning when they are allowed to explore on their own, instead of being locked up in govt detention centers for 7 hours a day. I think that there will be strong incentives for education suppliers to cut costs and pass on savings to customers. The customers will have more disposable income and business will be attracted to that.
So I completely disagree with your meta-context of “No public education system means no education system”.
I can see where you take what I said as there being “no education system”. Of course I think some type of education system would spring up in the abscence of none. SO that is my point let a home rule decide what is best for a specific state/local area. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
SO that is my point let a home rule decide what is best for a specific state/local area.
This can happen without taxation and govt involvement. Don’t just a specific area ‘decide’, let individuals decide through market exchanges.
But I want Individuals to decide and if they choose they can move to an area that has no publicly funded school system or not. Let it be a state/local issue.
Do you want the federal government to “mandate” that there can be no publicly funded schools anywhere in the US? IMO, the Feds have no rights to be involved in any level of education, its a state issue.
But I want Individuals to decide and if they choose they can move to an area that has no publicly funded school system or not. Let it be a state/local issue.
But you realize that when the state/locality decides to have a publicly funded school, there are individuals living in that area upon whom this choice will be forcibly made. They will have tax taken from them without their consent to be used for schools that they don’t freely choose.
I want every individual, not govts of any size, to be able to freely spend their money on the schools of their choice. If don’t wish to contribute, they don’t pay. It’s their choice.
Do you want the federal government to “mandate” that there can be no publicly funded schools anywhere in the US? IMO, the Feds have no rights to be involved in any level of education, its a state issue.
Not at all. I don’t want the Feds to tell anyone how to live, nor do I want the states/local govts to tell anyone how to live.
What’s left is the market.
If you don’t like an area because of (insert whatever reason you want; taxes,weather,people,pollution,government, etc.) you have the freedom to move to another area.
Part of the expense of living in the Frank Town is that their is a tax collected to fund a public school system. You are free to send your child whereever you want including the public option.
In Wilde City, you are free to do as you please regarding the education of your child. There are no taxes collected for education. There are no mandates for child education.
What’s the problem? It’s an individuals choice to live where they do. Frank Town or Wilde City, no one is forcing anyone to live where they don’t want to.
I wonder what community would be better suited for corpoarte parks? I wonder what type of individuals would be attracted to each town?
The way I see it is. A combination of the two will work for everyone, you can live in Frank Town or Wilde City. You just want Wilde City.
In the end, providing both has more choices.
What’s the problem? It’s an individuals choice to live where they do. Frank Town or Wilde City, no one is forcing anyone to live where they don’t want to.
To a degree, I agree. That is why I support federalism as politically.
However, I have problems with Frank Town both ethically and consequentially.
Ethically, my argument is as follows. Why should I have to move in order to decide where I spend my own money? I don’t want anyone taking my money without my permission for building schools that I don’t approve of and that my kids won’t use. If a bunch of my neighbors gather together and pool their money to build a school that their kids attend, I have no problem with that. But when they point a gun to my head to make me pay for their desires, that’s immoral. They don’t have my consent.
Would you make the same argument for, say, torture? “In Frank Town, the majority can torture the others. In Wilde City, torture is not to be found anywhere. If those receving the torture want to not undergo torture, they can move out of Frank Town.”
And remember that moving has significant costs. A family has to pack all of their belonging, find new jobs for the parents, move their belongings, perhaps hire movers, leave their friends and loved ones behind, uproot their children, and become accustomed to their new locality.
Consequentially, my argument is as follows. Market exchanges act to coordinate resources to their highest valued ends. When I buy a Dell computer with my money, Dell makes that much more money, and Compaq loses that much more profit. Thus, both Dell and Compaq are affected by my purchase – Dell positively, and Compaq negatively. Dell has more money to work with. Compaq has to improve their product to satisfy me enough that I buy from them the next time. Multiply that my millions of customers and you get a robust market that allocates scarce resources to their highest valued uses.
When money is exchanged by force and not voluntarily, these coordination mechanisms are no longer present. When the local school gets my money without my permission, it rewards the local school, even though I do not approve of that school. At the same time, entrepreneurs who might otherwise be able to profit from my money by making a school that I voluntarily choose to pay for, rather than being rewarded, are punished. In other words, the particular product that does not satisfy me is rewarded and the particular product that does satisfy me is punished – the exact opposite of the free market. Multiply this by tens (hundreds?) of thousands within a locality, and the result is that poorly functioning schools become successful, and potentially great schools lose out.
So, both ethically and consequentially, I have problems with the concept of local govts controlling schools.
Let me turn the question around for you. Suppose we define a “school district” not geographically, but rather through preferences. Instead of calling a “school district” those residents within a geographic territory, why not call a “school district” those residents who choose to voluntarily pay for patronage to a particular school?
That way, even if we were neighbords, we could be in different school districts. You could be in school district “Thomas Jefferson” and I could be in school district “Ludwig von Mises”. We could both be satisfied with our chosen product with our freely given consent and neither one of us would have to take part in costly and unethical geographic moves.
Non-Geographic School Districts
I’ve been having an interesting discussion at the Agitator’s blog on the topic of government involvement in schooling. Many people take the “strong federalism” position on various issues, believing Federal government involvement…
Torture? Cruel and Unusual punishment, Eigth Amendment. No can do anywhere in the USA. You are protected.
I understand your objection to government controlling schools and maybe more to the point taxing you for those schools, often providing a less than admirable education quality. Especially when you consider that for half the cost most Catholic Schools provide twice the education. (But don’t forget when you here about tuition at a Catholic School,that is not the true cost of an education. The church subsidizes the school.)
You are free to live where ever you in the US, there is associated ‘costs’ at each local. Some have socialized garbage plans, some don’t. If I move to a specific area, I could pay very small county property taxes and avoid paying for local trash collection, local police, town library, a local school, and street sweepers. Those areas still exist. Do you have problems with the local government taxing you for and controlling garage collection and the town library? You can move, it’s not unethical. No one is forcing you to move, you choose to live here.
I appreciate your school districts concept…you know what’s wrong with it? Line item taxes would be a nice concept in a democratic utopia, luckily we don’t live in a democracy. There is no mob rule and individual choices are limited in effecting society as a whole. You can not opt out of paying your share of taxes to support institutions that have been deemed to benefit society as a whole. You know that FrankTown would attract a different type of person than Wilde City. You also know where the corporate park would build it’s offices. Society benefits from ensuring all children receive an education. I’m sure the Amish would love to stop paying taxes that support our military. Of course they would be a distant memory if not for the WWII GI. Can I strike my taxes that support public transportation, I don’t use the train or bus to go to Manhattan, but I do benefit from less congestion on the roads when I drive into midtown. If you completely turn education over to the private sector, you will not fill the voids. These voids are not people who decided to blow their retirment on the blackjack table and they are not people who choose not to carry insurance. They are children, are they to be left uneducated because of their parents choice?
It seems you think that ANY government funded education is wrong, fair enough. I think people can make educated decisions about where they live and the cost and benefits of any particular area (actually they already do) with public schools being another cost/benefit of their decision.
You are free to live where ever you in the US, there is associated ‘costs’ at each local. Some have socialized garbage plans, some don’t. If I move to a specific area, I could pay very small county property taxes and avoid paying for local trash collection, local police, town library, a local school, and street sweepers. Those areas still exist. Do you have problems with the local government taxing you for and controlling garage collection and the town library? You can move, it’s not unethical. No one is forcing you to move, you choose to live here.
Yes, I actually do have problems with taxes for garbage collection and the town library. If I can pay less for better service, that is what I would choose, but you are not giving me the choice. You indeed are forcing me to move. I simply want to be left alone, to educate my children in the manner I best see fit. Yet, if I simply stay at my particular geographic location, confined by the borders of my property, and send my children to the schools that I voluntarily pay for, that you do not approve of, you want to send armed men to my house to take my money to pay for schools you desire, yet I want nothing to do with.
Surely you see that the moral act of aggression is coming from you, not me. I believe your schools are hurting children, making them dumber, retarding their mental growth, and making them obedient uncritical adults. I want no part of that. Yet, I cannot simply stay in my own house and avoid these anti-learning institutions without you imposing your will on me.
I appreciate your school districts concept…you know what’s wrong with it? Line item taxes would be a nice concept in a democratic utopia, luckily we don’t live in a democracy. There is no mob rule and individual choices are limited in effecting society as a whole.
Ummm…I think you totally misunderstood what I was trying to say. In no way do I espouse democracy. In fact, I think democracy pretty much sucks. What I favor is individual rights – the rights to life, liberty, and property. When I am allowed to sign up for whatever school my kids and I desire to attend, that is a system of individual rights. When you and your friends force me to give over my property to fund the anti-learning institutions you desire, that is mob rule. You are part of the mob. In no way do I want a “line item tax”. I want to be able to pay for schools like I pay for food, clothing, satellite TV, and internet service providers.
You can not opt out of paying your share of taxes to support institutions that have been deemed to benefit society as a whole.
Who did this “deeming”? Did you? Did you and your friends? Did some group of ‘experts’? Because I deem these institutions to be harmful to children, and I cannot without a guilty conscience support them. It saddens me every day to see children placed in these institutions, treating them as sheep, ripping away their individuality, and wearing away their joy of learning. Let’s face it, you deemed these institutions a benefit to society. I sure as heck do not. I want nothing to do with them. I consider them abusive to children.
You know that FrankTown would attract a different type of person than Wilde City. You also know where the corporate park would build it’s offices.
Yes, I think that Frank Town would attract people looking for the same-old education system that has shown to fail in every way. But Wilde City would attract parents who desire a better way to educate their children through individualized, active, child-directed learning. I think that innovative entrepreneurs of education who know that there is a market in Wilde City would invest in Wilde City and create diverse, inexpensive learning environments to fit the individual needs of every child.
Given time, Wilde City would thrive and grow prosperous, while Frank Town would stagnate under the weight of public schooling. Then the Mayor of Frank Town would accuse the residents of Wilde City of not doing their fair share for the “benefits of society” and impose taxation to provide for “institutions” (read: his failing schools) designed to “benefit society as a whole”.
Can I strike my taxes that support public transportation, I don’t use the train or bus to go to Manhattan, but I do benefit from less congestion on the roads when I drive into midtown.
It seems only sensible and fair to me that those who use public transportation should pay for it. I use the Boston T. My neighbor doesn’t. Why should I force him to pay for my ride? If he wants to pay for it so that he has lower traffic to fight on the way to work, that is all well and good. If, however, he forces me to pay for it, that would be selfish and immoral.
If you completely turn education over to the private sector, you will not fill the voids. These voids are not people who decided to blow their retirment on the blackjack table and they are not people who choose not to carry insurance.
Like I said, there were people in the Soviet Union who claimed that if you completely turn over food and clothing to the private sector, you will not fill the voids. There would be no grocery stores except in the big cities. There would be starvation in the rural areas. People are not responsible to take care of their own dietary needs.
Yet, in those societies that largely left food provision to the market, the problem is too much food. There is an ‘obesity epidemic’. There are 25 different types of microwavable chili cups available at the local supermarket. Poor people are fat; rich kids starve themselves.
When you’ve only seen one way of doing things, and that way is through central control, it’s hard to trust different ways of doing things, especially if those ways include emergent orders. Like I said before, I think your belief that people would commonly avoid education their children goes against everything I see around me about human nature. Parents care for their children much more than anyone else, especially govt bureaucrats. They have been evolving for millions of years for this role.
If you believe that parents aren’t smart enough to provide for their children’s education, why do you believe that parents are smart enough to provide for their children’s food or clothing? Why not have public child feeding centers and public clothing centers, all funded by taxation? Why not deem these functions a “benefit to society” and force everyone to pay for them? Surely, if education is such a pressing benefit, food and clothing are more pressing. You can’t learn unless you are well fed and have clothing to wear. If anything should be publicly funded, surely it has to be food and clothing.
I think people can make educated decisions about where they live and the cost and benefits of any particular area (actually they already do) with public schools being another cost/benefit of their decision.
I don’t think you really believe this Frank. Everything you have written above argues against this. When you want to force people to pay for education, you are effectively arguing that people cannot make educated decisions about schooling.
The point of my “virtual school district” proposal is to leave this “cost/benefit decision” to the individuals making that decision. When you point a gun to my head and force me to pay for something, you are taking the cost/benefit decision away from me. I don’t have a choice, because if I don’t pay, I get locked up. My free will plays no part in making any “cost/benefit decision”. When you justify this violation of my property rights by stating that people cannot be trusted to make the best decisions for their children, you are also effectively saying that they are not able to make the “cost/benefit decision” of schooling. They’re too unreliable.
If you really and truly believe that people are able to make “cost/benefit decisions” about schooling, then you would allow them to freely choose what type of schooling they desired, without forcing them to move.
Well, we’re both typing alot on the stuff we disagree on.
Any common ground?
Would you consider it a states’ rights issue?
We both are in favor of a private education (me gots one meself).
We both prefer the private sector to the gov’t to handle most things.
We both know the current school system is in large part failing.
Frank,
I think we do have a lot of common ground, as you point out. My espousal of states’ rights is only a political stance, not an ethical or economical one. Thus, even within states, there are certain ideals I strive for, of which property rights and free markets are paramount.
If you want, we can continue the discussion elsewhere. I enjoy a civil argument. If you want, I can publish your summary of thoughts on why you think completely getting rid of public education is a bad idea on my blog as a ‘guest article’, and we can continue the discussion there as this post will likely be off the front page of the Agitator soon. Email me if interested.
Where’s your blog?
Take your time to visit some helpful info about poker …