What If Public Schools Were Abolished?
There are decent public schools and terrible ones, so there is no use generalizing. Nor is there a need to trot out data on test scores. Let me just deal with economics. All studies have shown that average cost per pupil for public schools is twice that of private schools.
if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (47)
There is a lot of good sense in this article. For me, the main problem is that, as a matter of fact, public schools can also be conceived as a tool in order to provide equal opportunities to all children, so that the education provided is aimed at attaining a minimum level of competence in the different areas. The "civic domestication" happens as a side-effect on the basis of who's organizing the education of children (political parties, churches, millionaires, etc). In my view, the right thing to do would be to allow parents to deduct tuition fees from their taxes on revenue, and, why not, allow for the same deduction to private companies that include children education as a fringe benefit in their job offers. The role of the state would then be limited to ensure that all kids go to school until a certain age, and that there are independent boards to ensure that the education provided meet certain "quality criteria" and does not interfere with constitutional civil rights.
Published: April 7, 2008 10:29 AM
In all, this was a nicely done article. There is one point to which I would like to add:
"There will, of course, be widespread hysteria about the poor too, who will find themselves without any schooling choices other than homeschool."
There would indeed be widespread hysteria. It is this complaint that public school advocates raise to protest privatization of education. They argue that education would become a privilege available only to the rich and elite. Even if public schooling is suboptimal from a macro-economic perspective, it is socially just because it affords opportunities not otherwise available to the poor.
Such arguments make an error in reasoning common to most socialist thinking. The error is to assume that the amount of wealth is fixed regardless of human activity. Socialists are concerned with cutting up the currently existing pie. They see problems of distribution and equity. They fail to account for factors of production that create wealth.
Education is often a wealth generating factor of production. It is a good that is demanded not only by parents but by entrepreneurs. A business requiring skilled labor would have incentive to fund the education of people in the region.
This is not to say that the wealthy would have no advantages. They would just as they do today. But I think that it is inaccurate to say that the poor would have no choice but to homeschool.
Published: April 7, 2008 10:40 AM
Another error is to assume that "poor" people in this country have no money. I've worked at a grocery store in two different cities for a total of eight years. I've lived in a "poorer" neighborhood. The vast majority could pay a reasonable private tuition. They would just have to forego spending that last $300 (per week) on pull tabs.
Published: April 7, 2008 10:48 AM
> But I think that it is inaccurate to say that the poor would have no choice but to homeschool.
Speaking of home-school from an economic standpoint, the overwhelming cost is not curriculum, it's the fact that someone has to stay at home.
For instance, the "Accelerated Achievement" curriculum, K-12 basics on one CD is $100. Not $100 per year, _just_ $100. Even adding in the cost of a computer to read the disk ($199 new plus display) and the Saxon math books at $50/year (new), it's clear that home-schooling does not require the investment in raw money that most seem to fear.
In fact, I think the "wealthy" are more likely to have DVDs, video games, TV, MS-Windows and other distractions that retard the educational process.
Teaching someone to read is the one absolute starting point. Once that is accomplished, they can teach themselves.
The educrats certainly know that, which I believe is the reason that reading is being dumbed down and deliberately obfuscated. I agree with Vin Suprynowicz, who entitled a chapter of his book "Send In The Waco Killers", "Burn The Schools."
What, me bitter? Yep. Public school delenda est.
Published: April 7, 2008 11:08 AM
"it's clear that home-schooling does not require the investment in raw money that most seem to fear."
It's not the money, it's the time.
I see nothing wrong with letting parents choose private institutions to provide an education while the public provides vouchers to pay for it. The halfway approach has at least some chance to become reality and therefore is better than the all or nothing approach that will not pass for the reasons given by the author himself.
Published: April 7, 2008 11:56 AM
#########################################
To: lewrockwell@mac.com
Subject: I Have a Dream; Re: Public Education
Message:
###############################################
April 5, 2008
To: Lew Rockwell, lewrockwell@mac.com
Subject: I Have a Dream; Re: Public Education
##############################################
Hi, Lew:
Reply to richard.brule@gmail.com, if you wish.
Re: abolishing public schools, http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/public-schools-abolished.html
For many years, I've been trying to find educators who
would build an education system for children based upon
individualized, self-taught learning; that is, a system
that would need very little use of teachers and
administrators.
It's a computerized system, in which all studies are
programmed for graduated advancement, depending on an
individual's needs--depending on an individual's speed
with which he/she is able to absorb the lessons.
I've written to Linda Taylor several times over the years
about it. But she believes teachers are critical to a
child's educational advancement (reading between the lines,
as she hasn't rejected the idea).
Maybe you would think about beginning such a system for
teaching kids, as my approach is in line with
libertarianism (maybe Mises could begin an in-house
investigation of the idea and build such a program,
for selling to the public)
Here's a copy of
one of my many
letters on the
subject:
=======
FYI: http://www.rense.com/general65/learningtobestupid.htm
June 1, 2005
Hi, Linda:
Re: your report, http://www.lewrockwell.com/taylor/taylor102.html
The public school system CAN'T be reformed,
only avoided.
I think we need a self-teaching form of
instruction, to be sold as software and/
or hard-copy educational material.
I had mentioned that a technical school in
Nebraska had set up such a self-learning
program in the Seventies, where one class-
room monitor (instructor) was managing
students who were learning subjects at
their own pace, by following a computer-
ized, question/answer/analyze, build-as-
you-succeed form of curricula.
All subjects had been formatted to allow
a student to go - to learn - as fast as he/
she wished, or was able.
Here's the first paragraph from a math
program at the school:
"You are about to take a course in PERCENTAGES using
Programmed Instruction. YOU WILL BE TEACHING YOURSELF
[my emphasis], at your own rate of speed. This is
not a test but a learning experience."
Linda, that's the future of education for
parent who can't afford to home school,
or who are unable to home school for
whatever reason.
There isn't a subject that cannot be
formatted to the SELF-TEACHING method
of PROGRAMMED INSTRUCTION.
It may be already out there, but
I haven't seen it. Have you?
The school shut down in the late
Seventies for lack of accreditation,
which I believe had to do with the idea
of removing any need for teachers, except
as classroom monitors; a shocking idea:
the creation of curricula which do
not require but one teacher: ONESELF!
Some of the most gifted men and
women throughout history have
been self-taught.
I wish I had the wherewithal to write
up such a program of self-study in-
stuction for public school curricula.
I'd make a fortune selling it.
Any thoughts?
Best,
-Richard
=======
Published: April 7, 2008 12:44 PM
Teaching someone to read is the one absolute starting point. Once that is accomplished, they can teach themselves. The educrats certainly know that, which I believe is the reason that reading is being dumbed down and deliberately obfuscated.
Public schooling is not about education. I received a better education outside of school than in all of the years I spent in school combined.
Schooling is about three things: (a) indoctrination, (b) warehousing young people, and (c) installing a massive government presence in every neighborhood.
At accomplishing those tasks, schools excel.
Published: April 7, 2008 12:52 PM
It's not necessary to abolish public schools outright. The only necessary first step is to end the compulsory education requirement.
Published: April 7, 2008 1:52 PM
And perhaps the best part would be finally getting rid of those obnoxious school buses with those blasted roving stop signs (typical government solution) commanding everyone in their path not to move.
Published: April 7, 2008 2:10 PM
It's not necessary to abolish public schools outright. The only necessary first step is to end the compulsory education requirement.
But the "compulsory" part is the whole point! It's the sine qua non. It's the raison d'etre.
I mean, I wouldn't even mind the existence of government, if I could opt out of it. It's the compulsory part that transforms government into the State.
Published: April 7, 2008 2:32 PM
Speaking of home-school from an economic standpoint, the overwhelming cost is not curriculum, it's the fact that someone has to stay at home.
In price terms, you're probably right. I will not contradict anything you say. Here are some more thoughts on the matter...
Consumers choose goods based upon both price and quality. In order to provide a good quality education, the parents likely will need to do more than just be there to supervise (with kind apology but disagreement with the self-education advocate). Educations are facilitated by teachers who are both educated themselves and able to effectively pass on that education. To gain these attributes may be quite expensive - in both money and time required.
People who are poor tend to be uneducated. So even overcoming the costs of homeschooling (including foregone income outside the home), the quality of their project may be low. Children so educated may not be able to compete in the marketplace.
This is of course speaking in generalities. What's more, I may be wrong.
I am certain though that people come up with great solutions when they collaborate to discover shared needs. Entire communities prosper when their children grow up to become educated adults. The insight that a place such as mises.org brings is that such solutions are arrived at much better when they done in voluntary cooperation.
Published: April 7, 2008 2:57 PM
What If Public Schools Were Abolished?
It's nice to dream, but first ask why they were created?
Answer: To make obedient non thinking Socialists.
Abolish Public Schools? No Socialist would allow it.!
Problem solved...education completed.
Democracy fulfilled.
Published: April 7, 2008 4:44 PM
Hmm... I think this article conceded too much in saying the poor would initially be without education; what they're getting now can hardly be said to count as one anyway... it's good otherwise.
Published: April 7, 2008 6:11 PM
I consider this one of the three more important issues facing our present day society. While the dialog here is well reasoned, passionate and of great import, I believe it is for naught. Unless and until we adjust our theory of education in the United States, we will continue to reap the mediocre fruits of the mundane.
As a point of departure for continued discussion, I highly recommend the classic treatise by AJ Nock, The Theory of Education in the United States. After reading and re-reading the book several times, I've come to the conclusion that Nock's primary thesis i.e. the theory governing "education" in America is fundamentally flawed, is absolutely spot on. He goes on at length (every word bearing directly on his clarity of thought) to lead the reader through his arguments.
Of primary importance is his assertion that not all members of our society are "educable" thereby destroying any possibility of attaining the stated outcomes (equalitarian, democratic, a literate citizenry) of the "education" system. Secondarily, Nock asserts a distinction with a huge difference, namely that true education is and should be the realm of the republic of letters. Nock lamented that most of our of colleges and universities have regressed to mere institutes of training, with little in the way of the Great Tradition, aka education.
Training is not education and very few people are educable in the Great Tradition. However, most people are trainable and training (accounting, business management, social studies, etc., etc.) is what is being "sold" as education in the state funded colleges and universities.
It appears from this discussion thread that a lot of the focus is on the financial side of the issue with little thought given to asking and answering the question "Is our theory of education in the United States flawed?"
After re-reading Nock's little treatise and studying it very intently, I believe our current theory is flawed and no amount of tinkering or money or "free market economics" will obtain the stated objectives in our current theory. We must develop a new theory to affect needed changes for educating and training our citizenry.
Published: April 7, 2008 7:48 PM
I consider this one of the three more important issues facing our present day society. While the dialog here is well reasoned, passionate and of great import, I believe it is for naught. Unless and until we adjust our theory of education in the United States, we will continue to reap the mediocre fruits of the mundane.
As a point of departure for continued discussion, I highly recommend the classic treatise by AJ Nock, The Theory of Education in the United States. After reading and re-reading the book several times, I've come to the conclusion that Nock's primary thesis i.e. the theory governing "education" in America is fundamentally flawed, is absolutely spot on. He goes on at length (every word bearing directly on his clarity of thought) to lead the reader through his arguments.
Of primary importance is his assertion that not all members of our society are "educable" thereby destroying any possibility of attaining the stated outcomes (equalitarian, democratic, a literate citizenry) of the "education" system. Secondarily, Nock asserts a distinction with a huge difference, namely that true education is and should be the realm of the republic of letters. Nock lamented that most of our of colleges and universities have regressed to mere institutes of training, with little in the way of the Great Tradition, aka education.
Training is not education and very few people are educable in the Great Tradition. However, most people are trainable and training (accounting, business management, social studies, etc., etc.) is what is being "sold" as education in the state funded colleges and universities.
It appears from this discussion thread that a lot of the focus is on the financial side of the issue with little thought given to asking and answering the question "Is our theory of education in the United States flawed?"
After re-reading Nock's little treatise and studying it very intently, I believe our current theory is flawed and no amount of tinkering or money or "free market economics" will obtain the stated objectives in our current theory. We must develop a new theory to affect needed changes for educating and training our citizenry.
Published: April 7, 2008 7:50 PM
I suggest Seattle would be a great test school district. Since deseg in the '80's the school district lost 40,000 white kids. Half the children in Seattle go to private schools. The school levies usually pass. The taxpayers are happy to vote money as long as the school district kids don't sit in the same classes as their kids.
For 40 years the goal of every Seattle school board has been to equalize the test scores between the black and white kids. They have run out of white kids so the concept has become . . . a dream.
Published: April 7, 2008 8:15 PM
When one says the poor would have less opportunity under a private education system than they currently have with the government education system, it is implicit that the government system is actually educating. The fact that the majority of high school graduates are functionally illiterate (cannot fill out an employment application, cannot balance their checkbook or make change, etc.) clearly tells us that there is currently very little difference between being totally uneducated and being educated in government schools. From that dismal starting point, *any* opportunity the poor might have in a free market educational system would be better than the status quo.
As for affordability, in a free market educational system know that there would necessarily be supply to meet every demand, i.e. one would expect low-cost "Wal-mart" schools to appear and cater to the lower economic classes. And for those few who truly cannot afford to pay for their children's education, I'm sure charity would step in and help.
Finally, I would agree with an earlier commentator that money is not the issue among most of the "poor", who somehow find the cash to have cell phones, cable TV, beer, cigarettes, and fast-food despite the fact that I and others are forced to pay for their housing, food stamps, children's education, government bus transportation, and virtually everything else.
Published: April 7, 2008 8:42 PM
+Economic and Political Freedoms are necessarily coupled. Compulsory education is one of the biggest takers of freedom, rather than the biggest giver of it. Question in point: Why do we object to state-run T.V.?
+At the very least, wouldn't it be possible to try to lower the national standards? Make it so that, instead of 10+ years of compulsory education, it's 4? And then have the market do the rest? I think whittling down the required number of years might be a good first step.
Published: April 7, 2008 9:05 PM
Here is where I diverge from Chodorov: I believe that public education is the root of all evil. For without public education and its associated mind set, there likely would be no income tax.
Consider:
1. Public goods and wealth transfers: Students learn to believe that as long as something is defined as a "public good," voting to support the associated wealth transfer is the right, honorable, ethical, what-have-you, action to take. Parents begin to think that it's OK to vote in a manner that forces their neighbors to pay (what should be) personal bills. Sure these very same folks rail about federal and state wealth transfer programs, but they have no issue with putting it to their neighbors.
2. Public schools create dependent constituencies: Each activity that becomes a supposed public good has a dependent constituency. In my local district, tax dollars now pay for the school's bowling teams. Since, in Ohio, local residents vote on operating levies, schools get to pit dependent constituencies (net tax-receivers) against net taxpayers. To sell their levies, schools threaten to cut or defund programs, such as bowling. Now, the parents who benefit from tax-funded bowling support the levy. This creates a mind set that democracy is simply the action of fighting for majority status in order to receive a bigger piece of government tax receipts.
3. The growth of government: Public schools continue to subsume activities that were once considered private. This can be as innocuous as the PTA-sponsored Father-Daughter dance or local volunteering activity. In all cases, public schools are becoming more and more that the center of the community, But, public schools are nothing other than government. As the schools grow, so does government. And, so does the view of the proper activities of government.
4. Government employees voting themselves pay raises: Our district just passed a new levy, over one quarter of the yes votes can be attributed to school district employee or their spouses.
5. Control of subsequent generations: I go back to an old article from The Teachers College of Columbia University. The author of the article -- published in the 1930's -- dreamed of a socialist utopia. He noted that the transition would be difficult, but he placed the role of indoctrination on the public school. It is the public school that must pound the ideas of slavery into minds that dream of Liberty. This is exactly how nations turn toward madness.
Conclusion: Public education is the rot that is leading us toward socialism.
Published: April 7, 2008 10:40 PM
Some numbers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/04/07/the-real-cost-of-public-schools/
Published: April 8, 2008 12:18 AM
I just wanted to add a few comments...
sorta re: Joe Stoutenburg
"There will, of course, be widespread hysteria about the poor too, who will find themselves without any schooling choices other than homeschool."
I still think even libertarian leaning people under appreciate the very large role churches would likely play in the charity side of free market education. We already have a large system of Catholic schools already in place in America. It would not take too much for this system to expand massively to take on more poor students. I know in my area we already have a good number of local (non-Catholic) church run preschool and daycare centers. These would very likely provide a model for many churches to open their own small schools. Of course this would be anathema to many atheists who are big on the separation of Church and State (and therefore school), but are perfectly happy with the current education system which turns the State into God.
I also don't see any mention in the comments on child labour laws. Schooling and keeping children out of the workforce go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Get rid of schools but still force children out of the workforce and you're looking at a huge problem.
Published: April 8, 2008 1:13 AM
I was actually wondering what the barebones minimum educational requirement for children in the modern world is? Despite what futurists might have claimed most jobs don't require any fancy qualifications and mostly require people being personable and hard-working. The only required skills I can think that are a must-have in the modern world are basic numeracy and literacy. Therefore schooling need only take around five years. It would be up to parents towards any further education.
Published: April 8, 2008 1:35 AM
Nelson, "I see nothing wrong with letting parents choose private institutions to provide an education while the public provides vouchers to pay for it."
Well, isn't that special? I guess since it's ok with you to take my money for your preferred system, then I will just have to pay.
Obviously you went to a public school.
Oh darn, I forgot the sarcasm tag.
Published: April 8, 2008 8:33 AM
Despite what futurists might have claimed most jobs don't require any fancy qualifications and mostly require people being personable and hard-working. The only required skills I can think that are a must-have in the modern world are basic numeracy and literacy.
Driving. Taxpayers pay for that too, along with bowling.
Being dependable is 99% of employability. Not using drugs or excessive alcohol, showing up each and every day on time, not malingering and not stealing or being an anti-social criminal. A basic level of personal hygiene counts for a lot. Having a genial and moderately cheerful demeanor are a huge bonus. You don't need formal schooling to do any of these things.
And to the extent that anyone is interested in reading novels or history books or Human Action in your spare time, really, what's stopping you?
Published: April 8, 2008 8:54 AM
Nelson, "I see nothing wrong with letting parents choose private institutions to provide an education while the public provides vouchers to pay for it."
Curt Howland, "Well, isn't that special? I guess since it's ok with you to take my money for your preferred system, then I will just have to pay."
I think this is the classic 'perfect being the enemy of the good enough', or at least the 'good enough for now'. They're already taking your money for a system that we know doesn't work. At least a voucher system could be a step forward, no matter how small.
I completely agree that people should have to pay for their own children, and if we weren't being taxed like crazy for an inefficient and broken system, most people could probably afford to pay for their own children. But unless something is done to break the cycle (e.g., vouchers), then nothing will ever change, no matter how broken it gets.
Perhaps once we have vouchers, then we can get some competition, then we can lower the taxes, and eventually lower the taxes to a point where tax money only goes to the "poor" and most people are paying for their own kids directly, without state interference. It probably won't work, or the process could be corrupted in some new way, but to just do nothing and complain about it is even less effective and a waste of time.
Published: April 8, 2008 8:57 AM
"Conclusion: Public education is the rot that is leading us toward socialism."
Jim... good points,,,, however we are already there.
Published: April 8, 2008 9:38 AM
Rothbard pointed out the problemswith school vouchers in "For a New Liberty" p. 165-166, specifically critiquing the voucher plan advocated by Milton Friedman:
I think that Rothbard's reasoning here is spot on.
Published: April 8, 2008 9:43 AM
Keith, "At least a voucher system could be a step forward, no matter how small."
I could not disagree more. Vouchers put the hand of government directly into the private schools as well. Anyway, even further, since the state already dictates testing, certifications and other such.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune."
In that regard, vouchers are a step _backwards_ away from liberty, because more of the avenues to get away from the state are closed off.
Will a homeschooling parent be "allowed" to cash their own voucher? No, or maybe yes, but only if they follow a state-approved program, with random visits for verification by Social Services. Whoops, there goes the last place the state could be avoided.
The root of the problem is coercion. Coercion to take the money in the first place. Coercion in dictating attendance. Coercion in prohibiting the young from working.
Vouchers cannot break the cycle, because they make the cycle stronger. It becomes harder to argue against the state's involvement, since the state can claim they have already "given in on vouchers" and now it's time for us to give up something.
So long as coercion continues, the problem can only get worse. Put a nice ribbon on it and call it a puppy, it doesn't make it smell any better.
Published: April 8, 2008 9:45 AM
Gee, is there anything that Rothbard missed? I gotta read that book some time.
Published: April 8, 2008 9:50 AM
I posted a link to this article in a couple of homeschool fora I read. When I was challenged to support the idea, this is how I replied:
---------------------------------
On Monday 07 April 2008, John Do'h was heard to say:
> Even schooling at half-the-cost is too expensive for many people.
> So, should they all be left with no alternative but homeschool?
The question is addressed in the article by pointing out how, with a demand
for "inexpensive" alternatives, such alternatives will be created.
Sure $5K/child/year is too much for some people. But that assumes that no
alternatives exist. Since there are homeschool curricula right now that cost
1/10th or 1/20th of that amount, or even much less, who can say what a bright
entrepreneur will do if allowed to?
For example: The "Accelerated Achievement" curriculum costs $100. Flat. K-12,
Not including math books. So let's say I set up an "open school" where I
supply a computer and CD for each student, and whatever hard-copy books like
math textbooks I can find cheap, and then do nothing more than keep the peace
and answer questions. BTW, on Wednesday I've hired a magician who wants to be
the next Teller to come in and give a show, and show how some of the tricks
are done for those students interested. :^)
Gee, I could handle a lot of kids at all ages/abilities, and even give
discounts for kids who help out by being assistant "teachers" and helping
answer the questions for the less able students.
It's a well known fact that the best way to learn something is to try and
teach it. So, I encourage learning through teaching.
The "One Room Schoolhouse" of the 21st century.
The poor? Well, churches and civic organizations have been providing day-care
services for their members, why can't they do what I just said I could do?
Or how about those of us, including yourself, sponsor less fortunate kids?
Much more morally defensible than using coercion to make other people pay for
something just because I want it.
> There may be ways to deal with that issue - for example, public
> funding of tuition for poor families, though that option wouldn't
> appeal to libertarians like the author of the article (which I
> suppose is why he didn't suggest it and I gather he'd rather they all
> left town).
Follow the money. Public funding means that we're right back having
politicians and bureaucrats decide what and how the children are to be
taught, and the price would go right back up to what the taxpayer can bear.
Since that is exactly the opposite of the reason given in the article to get
rid of the public schools in the first place, you'd be right.
As far as "all left town", not at all! Good, experienced teachers will finally
get paid what they're worth, since they wouldn't be restricted to the union
scale at the same time their less able coworkers have their wages kept
artificially high.
---------------------------------
Published: April 8, 2008 10:54 AM
I fail to see how the introduction of voucher systems that allowed even limited parent choice with respect to certain "government-approved" schools could be anything but an improvement over the current system of public schools, or lead to greater government power over purely private alternatives.
In some states where the state constitution expressly requires or has been interpreted to require the public funding of education, vouchers may be the sole permitted alternative to publicly run schools. In any event, the introduction of competition could only be an improvement, and help to drive down costs, improve education and reduce politicized battles over curriculm.
As for existing private schools and home schoolers, why would they not remain as vibrant as they are today? Parents and schools alike would be remain free to reject government vouchers and any strings attached.
Published: April 8, 2008 11:21 AM
TT, "I fail to see how the introduction of voucher systems...."
Astounding. It's been explained several times, you still don't get it? What part of "He Who Pays The Piper Calls The Tune" don't you understand?
"the introduction of competition could only be an improvement"
You haven't introduced competition. The money is still taken, at gunpoint.
In order to introduce actual competition, the coercive element must be removed.
Published: April 8, 2008 12:43 PM
I agree that private charities/churches could step in to a greater degree. They probably would. Being voluntary arrangements, I would have no dispute against them. However, in my own opinion I think that job training (in contrast to education with thanks to Robert for his fine distinction - more on that latter) should be removed from the realm of charity. Is it charitable to pay for something that will benefit you? In that respect, funding someone else's training should be viewed as an investment if that funding comes with an agreement for future employment.
Regarding Robert's call for a new theory, I could hardly agree more. As evidenced by my prior comments, I clearly confuse the matters as much as anyone. The current mantra of education as a right dilutes the meaning of being educated. Indeed, training is not a right, but at least it is more broadly attainable.
Published: April 8, 2008 1:37 PM
"The key thing is that the customer would be in charge."
Well, there's the problem. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the customer is usually an idiot. The only thing that has saved the populace from being more ignorant and illogical than they already are is mandatory public education - warts and all.
Granted Rothbard's type of thinking is ironic proof that public education could be doing a lot better. But let's at least pretend we've learned a little bit from history. To wit: the transition wasn't followed far enough into the future. After the introduction of these compartmentalized, sectarian schools, like any free market sans government regulation, it wouldn't take long before there were only a handful dominating the others, violently vying for adherents and supremacy (a.k.a, monopoly). We'd find ourselves headed straight back into the Middle Ages in no time. Religion, by any other name, would once again become the only authoritative source of knowledge (soon to be renamed "the mysteries") controlled by priests in league with monopolist aristocrats.
Speaking of the elite, who exactly is this so-called civic elite supposed to be? Sounds suspiciously like those gawd-danged intellectual elite fellas. Of course, it's easy to be a critic. But has anyone besides our friends, the religious nuts, actually proposed an alternative to our awful "civic values" (which are what again? I'm thinking Rothbard finds fault in liberty, justice and the common welfare, the mainstays of civic education...?) Let's not kid ourselves, without public education, faulty as it is, it'd still be "all religion, all the time" in this country - which I'm sure is an ulterior agenda here.
Listen, you want a free market in education? Take a look around you: The free market of hundreds of years of restive, social evolution got us here. Currently, the educational model of the Western world has out-competed all others (i.e., provincial, static and superstitious) while forcing them to adapt it, too, or die off.
What possible educational model would have produced a society as intellectually free, egalitarian and inventive?
Published: April 8, 2008 7:03 PM
Hasn't Dominick Armentano refuted this monopoly myth enough times already? There is no "natural" tendency to monopoly in the absence of regulation (although the opposite does not hold.) Each market has its proper structure. It is fiction to believe it'd turn into some "monopoly", of which neoclassical charlatans have so much fear. No, we already have a monopoly provider of education, that is reminiscent of the "Middle Ages" (not really, since they're misrepresented too.) Nor do I consider "religion" to be much to be feared, when compared to the myths propagated in public schools...
Published: April 8, 2008 7:44 PM
Well, hifi sure has come up with an original, insightful idea - people are idiots and must have enlightenment shoved down their throats at gunpoint.
Published: April 8, 2008 7:51 PM
Curt:
1. TT, "I fail to see how the introduction of voucher systems...."
Curt: Astounding. It's been explained several times, you still don't get it? What part of "He Who Pays The Piper Calls The Tune" don't you understand?
TT: Calling me an idiot is NOT an explanation. The state making vouchers available forces neither parents nor schools to accept them.
2. TT: "the introduction of competition could only be an improvement"
Curt: You haven't introduced competition.
TT: Certainly vouchers do introduce competition, by breaking the monopoly on who provides state-funded education.
Curt: In order to introduce actual competition, the coercive element must be removed.
TT: While the taxes funding public education remain coercive, coercion will be lessened as far as consumer choice is involved, no?
3. Curt: The money is still taken, at gunpoint.
TT: Obviously you're right about this, which is the deepest problem with any kind of state funding. But I don't think I'm arguing with you about that.
The point is whether vouchers are a step in the right direction and whether, in states that have constitutions requiring public education, the best that can be ever expected unless constitutions are amended.
Care to actual make your case, instead of shouting your conclusions?
Published: April 8, 2008 9:14 PM
I have one comment to make about political technicalities. Usually the school board is in charge of the schools, and it is a separate political animal from the city and the city council. The school district may have different political boundaries as well. So it would be the school board that would declare the "non-existence" of the school in the scenario described.
Some school districts have dissolved themselves, but it has been to merge into bigger districts. It would be possible for a school board to vote for selling the property of the school district (fully legal, and lots of previous examples). It could reduce the school district's share of property taxes to zero, since adjustment of taxes is entirely within the school board's jurisdiction. The school board could continue to meet even if it was not overseeing property and employees and budgets. So it isn't such a large step as it might seem.
These actions are possible and legal, but not likely unless the board members ran on these platforms during their campaigns, and people voted for them knowing such.
Published: April 8, 2008 9:30 PM
For those of you who advocate gradual change (such as vouchers) as an acceptable compromise on the way to complete liberty, I would suggest that you read Murray Rothbard's "The Case for Radical Idealism" at http://www.mises.org/story/1709 . In this article he makes a strong and passionate argument supporting radical and immediate change, and damning compromise.
Published: April 9, 2008 2:37 AM
Quote from Hifi: "Maybe you haven't noticed, but the customer is usually an idiot. The only thing that has saved the populace from being more ignorant and illogical than they already are is mandatory public education - warts and all."
You're either in favor of liberty or you're not. You can't have it both ways.
Why not simply take this view to its logical conclusion. The state should be deciding who can and can't have children. If the state is going to be the parent, then be the parent.
Published: April 9, 2008 6:37 AM
Maybe you haven't noticed, but the customer is usually an idiot. The only thing that has saved the populace from being more ignorant and illogical than they already are is mandatory public education - warts and all.
Thank you for your candor, Hifi. Most statists usually try to hide this line of reasoning behind a veil of propaganda about democracy and civic duty blah blah blah.
Now that you have revealed what everyone here already knew -- that the true rationale for government-run schools is fundamentally elitist, neo-aristocratic, authoritarian and paternalistic -- maybe we can convince more people to help us dispose of criminals like you.
Published: April 9, 2008 8:28 AM
Maybe you haven't noticed, but the customer is usually an idiot.
Right here we have the core of paternalist, interventionist thought. Of course YOU will make the right choices in your child's education. You are one of the enlightened ones, far superior to the common trash of unevolved beings who should be begging you for advice on how to conduct their pathetic lives. Yep, no cognitive bias to be seen here.
Granted Rothbard's type of thinking is ironic proof that public education could be doing a lot better.
Wait, you're saying that the government did a poor job of indoctrinating Rothbard? Masterful observation. I agree.
After the introduction of these compartmentalized, sectarian schools, like any free market sans government regulation, it wouldn't take long before there were only a handful dominating the others, violently vying for adherents and supremacy (a.k.a, monopoly).
Funny you should mention that, the grocery stores in my area had a violent shootout last week. Killed a few dozen customers too. Still can't figure out which one is going to force the others out of the market and achieve a monopoly on the food supply. To be honest, I wish the government would step in and restore order and then nationalize food stores. Food is too important to human survival to leave to the free market's depradations.
We'd find ourselves headed straight back into the Middle Ages in no time. Religion, by any other name, would once again become the only authoritative source of knowledge (soon to be renamed "the mysteries") controlled by priests in league with monopolist aristocrats.
Yep, cause that's how Americans lived before public education got going in the 1840s. Wait, you didn't know that early America was a feudal theocracy? Where have you been getting your history, people?
What possible educational model would have produced a society as intellectually free, egalitarian and inventive?
Consider homeschooling. Surely, it can't perform up to the level of the system you're praising as the perfect, inventive...oops, look again:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
Test scores aren't everything, but they show something, don't they?
As a further exercise, contrast the overall quality of K-12 public schools with the overall quality of colleges and universities in the United States. Which of the two would you consider to be more in line with the free market (less regulated)? Which of the two would you consider to be higher in quality? Which offers more choice to students? Which is more relevant to a person's career? How can four years be so much more valuable to a person than thirteen?
And here's some more interesting reading about how public schooling came to be the mess it is today:
http://4brevard.com/choice/Public_Education.htm
Hifi, I propose that the evidence is conclusively against you and that you should reconsider your ideas about public education. Maybe you are yourself a part of the public education system? If so, cognitive bias will be a huge obstacle to accepting the truth. Try to work through it. Truth is its own reward.
Published: April 9, 2008 11:02 AM
Christy Ann wrote "Some school districts have dissolved themselves, but it has been to merge into bigger districts."
This tactic is truly a classic form of deception used by local members of the State machine (aka the school boards) to further confiscate, consolidate and transform "social power" (of the people) into State power. Unfortunately, as individuals within society become de-sensitized to the anti-social aspects of State power, they begin to mindlessly accept the dictates with little thought of consequences.
AJ Nock wrote about this very thing in his masterpiece, "Our Enemy, the State". Nock summed it up as follows and I think it speaks directly to the breadth of intervention by the State in all matters of social control, including the form and function of "public education".
"Thus the State “turns every contingency into a resource” for accumulating power in itself, always at the expense of social power; and with this it develops a habit of acquiescence in the people. New generations appear, each temperamentally adjusted – or as I believe our American glossary now has it, “conditioned” – to new increments of State power, and they tend to take the process of continuous accumulation as quite in order. All the State’s institutional voices unite in confirming this
tendency; they unite in exhibiting the progressive conversion of social power into State power as something not only quite in order, but even as wholesome and necessary for the public good."
I've recently witnessed the very thing Christy mentioned in her post. I live a medium sized, mid-western city and the State machine is moving to consolidate 12 local school boards to a "Learning Community" with several stated objectives. Of critical importance to the State is "pooling and redistribution" of tax revenues to provide more equitable distribution of available resources. Oh, and by the way, adminstrative costs of the "Learning Community" will be added to the tax burden of all property owners. As far as I can tell, a large percentage of the tax paying citizenry believe this State action to be "...wholesome and necessary for the public good." AMAZING!
Published: April 9, 2008 1:43 PM
( Th e/o se ) are brave thoughts.
In this scenario, "education" would morph into something that more directly addreses personal and family developmental processes liberating individuals.
It has been tried, successfully. http://cafr1.com/April-04.html
The difficult part is getting people to understand that we can start over and do a better job by avoiding past mistakes. Probably 62% of reluctance is based on simple fear of the unknown. Perhaps 17% apathy and ostrich-ism.
But there has always been a core population that has been successful at transfering sophisticated family business operations technology to the next generation, rarely with input from the public system.
They share not many values of the public religion because they do not partake of poverty, wage-slavery, dysfuntionality or social disorganization. Rather, they are benefactors of the public religion inasmuch as that belief system perpetually sustains their wealth and power.
Some resistance to total transformation will be seeded in this group, perhaps no more than 17%. Resistance based not on fear, but on a perception of self interest in maintaining a status quotient.
Published: April 9, 2008 6:18 PM
Ideally, we could have the best of both worlds. The Internet gives parents the chance to home-school their kids as they like, so you could be taught at home, though mothers might not like being with the kids all the time. Alternatively, parents could send the spawn to a local school, either private or public, because school gives kids a chance to meet other kids, and to integrate into the community. With the internet giving such a broad choice of teachers, perhaps public schools will become libraries designed for kids, who can learn at their own pace.
As for different types of schools, google 'Montesorri'. Their learning seems better than the usual public school.
Published: April 9, 2008 8:22 PM
"montessori" is the method.
Published: April 13, 2008 3:52 AM
Nicely written - and this is actually what I expect will happen, but it will take a long time.
I agree with everything you wrote, except this: "Where there is a demand, and obviously people demand education for their kids, there is supply." If that were true, unschoolers wouldn't be as happy as we are! And if/when this kind of change does come about, we certainly won't be "demanding education" from elsewhere when it's so clearly and beautifully happening in our own homes.
Please see my article "Nurturing Children's Natural Love of Learning" at http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/unschooling.html .
Jan Hunt, M.Sc., Director
Natural Child Project
http://www.naturalchild.org
Co-editor, The Unschooling Unmanual
"Change the world - nurture a child."
Published: July 18, 2008 9:54 AM