Public Funding of Education

[GGT]

From a WSJ community discussion in the Libertarian group. Interesting reading the comments.
Add your own!

(Thanks to Draco for bringing up privatizing education in another thread here. )

Public funding of education?

I think virtually all libertarians can agree that a system of privately run schools competing with one another would be preferable to the current system of publicly run monopoly school systems. But what about the funding? In a pure libertarian world, your money is yours to do with as you please, so you would choose whether to send your child to an expensive school, an inexpensive school or no school at all depending on your preferences and financial abilities.

But another common libertarian principle is equality of opportunity, not equality of results. Shouldn't even poor children or children of neglectful parents have the opportunity for an education? Libertarianism is largely based on the idea that we should all succeed or fail based on our merits, namely our abilities and our work. From the perspective of the child, what did the wealthy kid do to merit an education that the poor or neglected child did not do?

http://online.wsj.com/community/grou...ion#identifier

[Loki]

Equal opportunity is not a libertarian priority. I think the author is confusing liberalism with libertarianism.

[GGT]

Maybe he meant it in the sense of Life, Liberty, Pursuit of HappiNess.....lowercase l not capital L...?

[Loki]

Last I checked, the Declaration of Independence was not a libertarian document. If you want libertarianism, read Nozick, not Jefferson.

[GGT]

Last I checked, the Declaration of Independence was not a libertarian document. If you want libertarianism, read Nozick, not Jefferson.

Hey, tell the guy from WSJ who wrote that entry.

Anything to say about public education?

[Loki]

I think education brings about a huge positive externality, which means it's in the government's interest to fund it. I don't really care if that funding is for public or private schools, as long as parents have choices and there's accountability.

Libertarians don't really care about externalities by the way.

[GGT]

I think education brings about a huge positive externality, which means it's in the government's interest to fund it. I don't really care if that funding is for public or private schools, as long as parents have choices and there's accountability.

Agreed Last thing we need are millions of ignorant kids turning into ignorant adults.

Libertarians don't really care about externalities by the way.

The resident libertarians can chime in about that, and if they think children occupy a special category from adults.

[Draco]

Agreed Last thing we need are millions of ignorant kids turning into ignorant adults.

Then again a lot of kids that graduate from public schools are still as ignorant if they hadn't even gone there. I'm speaking from experience though, and my observations in my city. I went to a public school that wasn't considered to be that good, but it wasn't that bad, and there were quite a few students in my year level who were just plain stupid/ignorant. Bumping into some of them 5 years after we finished proves my point, it's as if they never even had an education and I'd be willing to bet money on the fact that many of them don't even know how to write properly.

[GGT]

Anytime

As for the topic. Whilst I think that all forms of schooling should be privatised (and thus alleviate taxes), I'd be fine with the government introducing a voluntary tax for public education, where anyone can agree to have a portion of their pay taxed for public education. Then again, I'd rather go through a private organisation (such as a charity).

We already have "voluntary tax for public education", but it's called a tax-deductible charitable donation dedicated to parochial or private schools. Just like the fund raiser for Catholic schools in your linked video. I don't see too many uber-wealthy people voluntarily sending checks to the US gov't earmarked for General Public Education.

Related to this topic is a very good show about public schools in America in the 80s, presented by Milton Friedman. He compares public schools funded through taxes and those funded by parents. It's worth watching, there's a few parts to it, just look on the right hand side

Just what we need now, WWMD (what would Milton do).

I only watched the first part, but if you didn't notice the lily white Westin HS grads and parents in Vermont, compared to blacks going through metal detectors with police on hand in Mass., you missed a hugely important factor in how American school district lines are delineated and funded; Property taxes and home values.

It doesn't take a genius to see the flaws in that.

[Draco]

We already have "voluntary tax for public education", but it's called a tax-deductible charitable donation dedicated to parochial or private schools. Just like the fund raiser for Catholic schools in your linked video. I don't see too many uber-wealthy people voluntarily sending checks to the US gov't earmarked for General Public Education.

Well it was just a suggestion. The video also mentions a private charity which was doing rather well.

Just what we need now, WWMD (what would Milton do).

That's funny but you can't deny his reasoning. He got the noble prize in economics if that means anything to some of you.

I only watched the first part, but if you didn't notice the lily white Westin HS grads and parents in Vermont, compared to blacks going through metal detectors with police on hand in Mass., you missed a hugely important factor in how American school district lines are delineated and funded; Property taxes and home values.

It doesn't take a genius to see the flaws in that.

I did notice that in one school everyone was black, whilst in the other everyone was white. I know that there's more to it than that though. Still, Milton Friedman makes some interesting points (particularly in the second part, which I encourage you to watch) when he talks about how parents took the initiative to fund schools, such as in Harlem and the Bronx (well that one got its funds through a charity).

[Nessus]

I think education brings about a huge positive externality, which means it's in the government's interest to fund it. I don't really care if that funding is for public or private schools, as long as parents have choices and there's accountability.

Libertarians don't really care about externalities by the way.

As Lewk there demonstrated, the current US culture believes that education afforded to everyone is worthless contrasted with either education that is bought, or education that is given by loving (fundamentalist Christian) parents. Public education in general is a large hindrance to free-roaming capitalism; it hinders child labour and makes consumers more likely to be aware of what exactly they are consuming.

In an ideal capitalist society, there would be public education only to a very basic literacy level, if that, and a right to home-school your kids to your wallet's content. And then some private schools to educate the children of the ruling elite. You don't need anything but basic literacy to be a cashier or waiter. The major capital owners have been working for over 20 years to destroy the middle class as an institution, and eroding public education is a major part of that. Arguing about the quality of public education when it is in the hands of those wanting to dismantle it seems like a very silly proposition.

[Loki]

As Lewk there demonstrated, the current US culture believes that education afforded to everyone is worthless contrasted with either education that is bought, or education that is given by loving (fundamentalist Christian) parents. Public education in general is a large hindrance to free-roaming capitalism; it hinders child labour and makes consumers more likely to be aware of what exactly they are consuming.

In an ideal capitalist society, there would be public education only to a very basic literacy level, if that, and a right to home-school your kids to your wallet's content. And then some private schools to educate the children of the ruling elite. You don't need anything but basic literacy to be a cashier or waiter. The major capital owners have been working for over 20 years to destroy the middle class as an institution, and eroding public education is a major part of that. Arguing about the quality of public education when it is in the hands of those wanting to dismantle it seems like a very silly proposition.

That's a strawman. Lewk supports vouchers, which basically allows poor people to send their kids to private schools for free (or almost free). He might oppose what is being taught in public schools (or how it's taught), but he has no problem providing a subsidized education.

Except a modern economy depends on highly skilled workers. The rest of your post is insane conspiracy to be honest, not much better than what we see from kat. Not only is it blatantly false, but it assumes that these evil capitalists are willing to screw themselves just to stick it to the common man.

[Nessus]

That's a strawman. Lewk supports vouchers, which basically allows poor people to send their kids to private schools for free (or almost free). He might oppose what is being taught in public schools (or how it's taught), but he has no problem providing a subsidized education.

Except a modern economy depends on highly skilled workers. The rest of your post is insane conspiracy to be honest, not much better than what we see from kat. Not only is it blatantly false, but it assumes that these evil capitalists are willing to screw themselves just to stick it to the common man.

Why is it insane? (I know I am, but let's stick to the posts here!)

The GOP financial policy has been geared at destroying the middle class for over a decade now. The children of those living off investment capital can more than adequately sate the need for management and middle-management, and the labour most needed is that working in the service industry. Selling bic macs and coca colas. Then there's nursing and so on, but you can teach them basic arithmetic in their first year because that's already being done. But mostly, no one with money needs an educated, well-fed and voting middle class.

You are mistakenly assuming that big capital somehow sees what's best for a nation, let alone working for those interests. If they need technical expertise beyond what their own sons and daughters can provide, they can buy that from India or China. Nothing says that engineers have to be educated in the US. It's cheaper and more efficient to import knowledge and expertise.

The only thing large capital needs is a customer base, and surprise surprise you don't need more than basic literacy to want to buy an iPod or a Mac.

The example of Lewkowski is a useful one, because despite the fall of communism capitalism as an ideology cannot shrug its own heritage just like that! The idea of public education for all is the worst kind of socialism there is, along with feeding the elderly and the incapacitated, and capitalism can only agree to it inasmuch as it helps its own worker base, as you already admitted. My point is, capitalism as an ideal resents the idea of an educated middle class, let alone an educated working class. What on Earth would propel Wal-Mart or McDonalds to lobby for better basic education? I can see a whole slew of things that'd motivate them to do the reverse.

[Loki]

The GOP financial policy has been geared at destroying the middle class for over a decade now. The children of those living off investment capital can more than adequately sate the need for management and middle-management, and the labour most needed is that working in the service industry. Selling bic macs and coca colas. Then there's nursing and so on, but you can teach them basic arithmetic in their first year because that's already being done. But mostly, no one with money needs an educated, well-fed and voting middle class.

What is the middle class and how has the GOP tried to destroy it?

You are mistakenly assuming that big capital somehow sees what's best for a nation, let alone working for those interests. If they need technical expertise beyond what their own sons and daughters can provide, they can buy that from India or China. Nothing says that engineers have to be educated in the US. It's cheaper and more efficient to import knowledge and expertise.

No, I'm assuming they care about their own profits. The highest value added is on products created by a highly skilled populace. Coincidentally, the GOP has not supported importing a horde of foreigners to replace American engineers, which goes against everything you've been saying. The reality is that both parties want to create jobs at home, and even your greedy capitalists prefer having a skilled domestic work force than to rely on a handful of foreigners who are unlikely to fill more than a fraction of the needed skilled jobs.

The only thing large capital needs is a customer base, and surprise surprise you don't need more than basic literacy to want to buy an iPod or a Mac.

In order to consume, people have to earn money. The more they earn, the more they can consume. In order to earn more, they have to have skills. Again, this discredits your own argument.

The example of Lewkowski is a useful one, because despite the fall of communism capitalism as an ideology cannot shrug its own heritage just like that! The idea of public education for all is the worst kind of socialism there is, along with feeding the elderly and the incapacitated, and capitalism can only agree to it inasmuch as it helps its own worker base, as you already admitted. My point is, capitalism as an ideal resents the idea of an educated middle class, let alone an educated working class. What on Earth would propel Wal-Mart or McDonalds to lobby for better basic education? I can see a whole slew of things that'd motivate them to do the reverse.

Your point is blatantly wrong. Capitalism is dependent on constant increases in productivity. That allows for more production, and therefore income, which in turn creates more consumption. Capitalists want as many people as possible to be skilled, because that creates vastly larger markets for their goods. Your strawmanned capitalists would go bankrupt due to a lack of demand for their goods.

[Dreadnaught]

Why is it insane? (I know I am, but let's stick to the posts here!)

The GOP financial policy has been geared at destroying the middle class for over a decade now. The children of those living off investment capital can more than adequately sate the need for management and middle-management, and the labour most needed is that working in the service industry. Selling bic macs and coca colas. Then there's nursing and so on, but you can teach them basic arithmetic in their first year because that's already being done. But mostly, no one with money needs an educated, well-fed and voting middle class.

You are mistakenly assuming that big capital somehow sees what's best for a nation, let alone working for those interests. If they need technical expertise beyond what their own sons and daughters can provide, they can buy that from India or China. Nothing says that engineers have to be educated in the US. It's cheaper and more efficient to import knowledge and expertise.

The only thing large capital needs is a customer base, and surprise surprise you don't need more than basic literacy to want to buy an iPod or a Mac.

The example of Lewkowski is a useful one, because despite the fall of communism capitalism as an ideology cannot shrug its own heritage just like that! The idea of public education for all is the worst kind of socialism there is, along with feeding the elderly and the incapacitated, and capitalism can only agree to it inasmuch as it helps its own worker base, as you already admitted. My point is, capitalism as an ideal resents the idea of an educated middle class, let alone an educated working class. What on Earth would propel Wal-Mart or McDonalds to lobby for better basic education? I can see a whole slew of things that'd motivate them to do the reverse.

That's a rather Marxist view of economics, insomuch as you see an economy as a zero-sum game. And that capitalism just needs people to buy shit. It needs educated people to develop and market shit. Worth reading about how some of the larger food companies employ tons of people just to sell food.

But you're also mischaracterizing "capitalism". The promise of free/subsidized education is a hallmark of developed society. Vouchers (which I also support) doesn't negate that at all.

[Illusions]

He might oppose what is being taught in public schools (or how it's taught), but he has no problem providing a subsidized education.

You have to look at it this way. Lewk is practical. He knows that its far more likely to get vouchers passed than it would be to completely remove subsidized public schooling. What he really wants is for more people to be able to remove their kids from the public school system, and put them into homeschooling or private schools that could reflect the parent's ideology. What he doesn't want is for these people to be disadvantaged compared to their public school counterparts when doing so.

[LittleFuzzy]

You have to look at it this way. Lewk is practical. He knows that its far more likely to get vouchers passed than it would be to completely remove subsidized public schooling. What he really wants is for more people to be able to remove their kids from the public school system, and put them into homeschooling or private schools that could reflect the parent's ideology. What he doesn't want is for these people to be disadvantaged compared to their public school counterparts when doing so.

Quick correction. He doesn't want the parents of those kids to be disadvantaged. The only accomplishment to date made by opposition to vouchers is to ensure that only the wealthy in a particular district can send their kids to private school. The primary principle of opposition to vouchers "keep funds from being taken from the public system" has always been inaccurate, and *unsurprisingly, since the logic behind it simply doesn't reflect reality* hasn't shown us any improvement in those districts.

[oldmunchkin]

Personally, I think a good education thru an Associates Degree should be free to all. There should be NO private schools, no religious schools, no home schooling in elementary (K-12) education. That way, every person who comes out of that level of schooling is equal to every other person who just came out of that level of education. Teachers should be paid a salary comparable to their experience. Tenure should be abolished! Teachers should teach the subject, not teach to the test. Those tests that are designed to make sure some schools fail, should be abolished. Teachers should be held accountable for teaching the subject/grade level, and there should be "final exams" at the end of each school year. Teachers who obviously aren't getting the subject taught (too many failing grades from too many students) should be fired! If a child doesn't know the material from the current year, they should be "held back" until they learn the material. We have quit doing this because we might hurt Jr.'s feeling, then Jr. going to get a job and can't add 2+2, but he has terrific self esteem. If we followed these few things, students would come out into the real world, with an Associates Degree, and the ability to "take a hit" without going to cry to Mommy! There would also be a level playing field from each year's graduates, since no one had a better education because Daddy has money to pay for a fancy private school!

[Lewkowski]

Personally, I think a good education thru an Associates Degree should be free to all. There should be NO private schools, no religious schools, no home schooling in elementary (K-12) education. That way, every person who comes out of that level of schooling is equal to every other person who just came out of that level of education.

Insanity. Private schools typically provide a better education then public schools. Home schooled children tend to have more civic involvement, less criminal issues and are more likely to go to college.

You are talking about the Soviet solution to equality. Bring everyone to the lowest common denominator.

There would also be a level playing field from each year's graduates, since no one had a better education because Daddy has money to pay for a fancy private school!

Maybe we should ban Pre-K too. Or how about we ban extracurricular children learning programs like "My Baby Can Read." I simply can not believe that you think we should LIMIT education simply so some kids aren't smarter then others. Which is freaking absurd since different people are born with different abilities.

[oldmunchkin]

Insanity. Private schools typically provide a better education then public schools. Home schooled children tend to have more civic involvement, less criminal issues and are more likely to go to college.

You are talking about the Soviet solution to equality. Bring everyone to the lowest common denominator.

No, I am talking about bringing public education up to the bar with private education. If all there was to choose from was public schools, the quality of teachers would improve in a hurry! All those fat-cats who want to pamper little Jr. and Jrette. would have to make sure the proper amount of money was sucked into the public system, instead of taking away funding then bitching about how horrible education is.

Of course private schools give better education...hell that's where the money is. If those schools were closed down, and the teachers put into public education, the levels there would go up, making education a good thing again.

In my experience, those home-schooled kids are being educated at home for very few reasons. 1. The kid is such a troublemaker the normal educational system has kicked him out. 2. The kid whined and cried to Mommy and Daddy about how picked on he was, so they gave in to their spoiled child and let him stay home. 3. Mommy and Daddy are caught between not being able to afford private school and not wanting their baby to be in public school because the schools are so bad. See, in my scenerio, the troublemaker would just have to learn to conform to normal society, wouldn't be able to whine around and get his own way, and Mommy and Daddy wouldn't have to feel guilty for not being able to afford private schooling for the kid.

Maybe we should ban Pre-K too. Or how about we ban extracurricular children learning programs like "My Baby Can Read." I simply can not believe that you think we should LIMIT education simply so some kids aren't smarter then others. Which is freaking absurd since different people are born with different abilities.

No I don't think we should ban Head Start...but for the most part, it is a public system and not a private system. Any and all extracurricular programs are a good thing, because they help the "slower" kids catch up to the others.

And, I didn't say we should LIMIT education, I said we should completely get rid of the inequality of the current system. We would have SMARTER kids overall by getting rid of the cherry-picked schools and the shit that drags down public education.

[Lewkowski]

Oldmunchkin:

No, I am talking about bringing public education up to the bar with private education. If all there was to choose from was public schools, the quality of teachers would improve in a hurry! All those fat-cats who want to pamper little Jr. and Jrette. would have to make sure the proper amount of money was sucked into the public system, instead of taking away funding then bitching about how horrible education is.

You do know that if someone pulls their kids out of a public school the school system doesn't lose any money. In fact if you are worried about things like class size, in the current system kids being home schooled and sent to private schools HELPS public schools have smaller class sizes.

Of course private schools give better education...hell that's where the money is. If those schools were closed down, and the teachers put into public education, the levels there would go up, making education a good thing again.

Again you are looking at BANNING an education preference for children. Thats sick.

In my experience, those home-schooled kids are being educated at home for very few reasons. 1. The kid is such a troublemaker the normal educational system has kicked him out. 2. The kid whined and cried to Mommy and Daddy about how picked on he was, so they gave in to their spoiled child and let him stay home. 3. Mommy and Daddy are caught between not being able to afford private school and not wanting their baby to be in public school because the schools are so bad. See, in my scenerio, the troublemaker would just have to learn to conform to normal society, wouldn't be able to whine around and get his own way, and Mommy and Daddy wouldn't have to feel guilty for not being able to afford private schooling for the kid.

#3 is pretty common. #1 and #2 are silly reasons you pulled out of your ass. People home school their kids for a variety of reasons. The most common items are due wanting to educate their kids based on their own values, (religious instruction) the reason you mentioned about giving kids a better education then public schools but being unable to afford private school and then finally special needs children who the public schools often don't handle well.

No I don't think we should ban Head Start...but for the most part, it is a public system and not a private system. Any and all extracurricular programs are a good thing, because they help the "slower" kids catch up to the others.

So Mr. Evil Fat cat "selfishly" wants his kid to have the best education, a better education then others for example. Under your system he can not go to a private school. Are you now going to stop Mr. Big Shot from hiring private tutors? Enrolling the child into day cares with an educational bent when he very young? After all according to you the most important thing is an equal playing field. Are you planning on banning everything that might give the rich guys kid a leg up?

And, I didn't say we should LIMIT education, I said we should completely get rid of the inequality of the current system. We would have SMARTER kids overall by getting rid of the cherry-picked schools and the shit that drags down public education.

Public schools are a mess and it is NOT because of private schools. What you want to do is take the kids who are actually learning and succeeding and forcing them into the same academic cesspool that others have to deal with. Instead of trying to help people out of the cesspool through a voucher system you want to drag everyone into the same shit hole.

[Ominous Gamer]

Insanity. Private schools typically provide a better education then public schools.

Come on Lewk, we already went through how this claim was complete bullshit. I'm willing to bet that thread is still within the top couple of pages too.

Home schooled children tend to have more civic involvement, less criminal issues and are more likely to go to college.

More bullshit, but lets try a citation before we call you a full fledged dumbass again.

EDIT:
Page 4 of D&D

Therefore private schools, by their very existence logically have to have superior quality.

bullshit, it could only mean that the private school forces a curriculum that the government doesn't. ie, every private school with a religious connection.

Not to say that all public schools are better then all private schools but we can definitely say some public schools are better then some private schools.

FTFY

[Lewkowski]

Come on Lewk, we already went through how this claim was complete bullshit. I'm willing to bet that thread is still within the top couple of pages too.

More bullshit, but lets try a citation before we call you a full fledged dumbass again.

EDIT:
Page 4 of D&D

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002013.pdf

Feel free to read it all but this was the money quote.

Achievement tests in reading, mathematics, and science show higher average
scores for private school students. In addition, private schools tend to
require more years of core academic subjects for high school graduation
than do public schools, with some variation across school types. Graduates
of private high schools have on average completed more advanced courses
than public school graduates in science, mathematics, and foreign language.
Finally, students who had attended private school in 8th grade were twice as
likely as those who had attended public school to have completed a bachelor’s
or higher degree by their mid-20s, and far less likely to have had no
postsecondary education.

[Ominous Gamer]

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002013.pdf

Feel free to read it all but this was the money quote.

you have a causation correlation problem. What you're linking to shows that students who attend private schools perform differently than those who attend public schools, but you're not showing it as a result of private schooling. You could mark this up to a number of different things, to families that can afford private schooling being more willing and able to spend time outside of school for educating or homework, or families that are able to afford private school also being able to afford private tutoring. Not to mention what the report already admits:

Private schools overall have fewer students than public schools, and minorities are a lower percentage of the student population

I also couldn't find where the report showed anything that reinforced two of your other claims as well.

Home schooled children tend to have more civic involvement, less criminal issues

Fuck, even the pdf you appear to be misreading tells us in the conclusion that the results they are showing are because of the families, and not the schools.

Private schools have advantages from the outset that many public schools cannot match, stemming from the choice by students and their families to participate in private education

In the last thread Loki brought up the problem of discipline. Private schools don't suffer nearly as badly from this as public schools. If a private school sees that a student is disrupting a class, or risks bringing down the overall test scores, they can simply stop accepting their money and remove them from the school. Your easily confused mind (by submitting that pdf) is supporting what is basically the private schools' ability to cherry pick its survey and test results.
On the other hand, public schooling has to go through a sometimes lengthy and expensive expulsion process, and they can't do it simply because the student is falling behind.

You've already admitted before that there doesn't appear to be any age to young, any action to minute, for you to support writing someone off as a worthless and lifelong screwup, but thankfully, thats not how education works.

[Ominous Gamer]

Maybe we should ban Pre-K too.

Pre-K and VPK (pre-pre-K) ae both free in Florida.

[Dreadnaught]

There should be NO private schools, no religious schools, no home schooling in elementary (K-12) education. That way, every person who comes out of that level of schooling is equal to every other person who just came out of that level of education.

No, I am talking about bringing public education up to the bar with private education. If all there was to choose from was public schools, the quality of teachers would improve in a hurry! All those fat-cats who want to pamper little Jr. and Jrette. would have to make sure the proper amount of money was sucked into the public system, instead of taking away funding then bitching about how horrible education is.

There should be NO private housing. That way, every person who comes out of that home is equal to every other person to just came out of that type of home.

I am talking about bringing public housing up to the bar with private housing. If all there was to choose from was public housing, the quality of housing would improve in a hurry! All those fat-cats who want to pamper their little asses would have to make sure the proper amount of money was sucked into the public system, instead taking away funding then bitching about how horrible housing is.



Big city public schooling districts spend more per capita than almost any other educational system, yet deliver the worst results in the country.

[Being]

Insanity. Private schools typically provide a better education then public schools.

You're really not the person I'd listen to when it comes to education.

[Draco]

(Thanks to Draco for bringing up privatizing education in another thread here. )

Anytime

As for the topic. Whilst I think that all forms of schooling should be privatised (and thus alleviate taxes), I'd be fine with the government introducing a voluntary tax for public education, where anyone can agree to have a portion of their pay taxed for public education. Then again, I'd rather go through a private organisation (such as a charity).

Related to this topic is a very good show about public schools in America in the 80s, presented by Milton Friedman. He compares public schools funded through taxes and those funded by parents. It's worth watching, there's a few parts to it, just look on the right hand side:

[Dreadnaught]

Beyond this silly idea that education undermines capitalism, private schools have to follow tons of laws. They are also almost universally accredited on a regular basis based on a number of metrics and curriculum standards.

[Being]

Beyond this silly idea that education undermines capitalism, private schools have to follow tons of laws. They are also almost universally accredited on a regular basis based on a number of metrics and curriculum standards.

You mean they have to meet the same criteria as public schools?