Although I have long considered myself libertarian, a few outstanding issues have prevented me from a full embrace of the term. Perhaps foremost among them is the issue of public education. After all, shouldn't a true libertarian be against state education of our children? Well, after much thought over the past couple of years I have been able to resolve this paradox: I am no longer in favor of public education.
Seriously.
I would make this argument on several grounds. First, I believe that government doesn't do a terribly good job of it. Second, it forces us to confront values decisions that shouldn't be within the government purview. And third, why should it?
That government doesn't do a very good job shouldn't be terribly controversial. When people think of the best schools in the country, few think of public schools, be it grammar school or the college/university level. How many people, if money were no consideration, would send their children to public school ahead of private school? Go to the US News and World Report website and look up how many of the top 20 universities are publicly-funded. Take a gander at the percentage of students at the National Spelling Bee that hail from private schools or are home-schooled -- a full two-thirds. According to this "In 2002 a full 40 percent of the finalists in the National Geography Bee were products of home school education."
Now, who knows, maybe home-schooled children simply sit around learning spelling and geography, but I have my doubts.
Granted, a few caveats are in order. Children that are home-schooled or sent to private school are not a representative sample of the overall population. Their parents probably take a greater than average interest in their studies and push them to succeed. They have likely been raised in an environment more conducive to learning. Nonetheless, it would seem that one would be very hard-pressed to make the case that public schools do a better job than anyone else out there.
The second point is that public education forces us to make choices in the realm of politics that are better left as individual decisions. Should children be forced to say the pledge of allegiance? Should there be prayer? Should science class teach evolution or creationism? Should sex-ed advocate abstinence? Should Christmas be a holiday? Should bilingual education be used or English immersion? The list goes on.
As Jeff Jacoby says:
Lastly, what business is it of the state's to educate children? I think a lot of people would respond with something to the effect that educating our children is extremely important and must be guaranteed. Well, yes, that's true, educating children is very important. But lots of things are important. Food is important, but we don't have state-run grocery stores (although we do have food stamps, which are roughly the equivalent of education vouchers). Housing is similarly important, although we leave this up largely to the private sector (again, assisting with housing vouchers, and where we have deviated from this have largely regretted it).
There are two things that absolutely must be kept in mind here. First, simply doing something because that's the way it's always been done isn't a good reason to keep doing it. Lots of stupid things have been done just because they were always done that way. Second, one can not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Would there be problems with abolishing government-run schools? Would some children be left behind? I think the answer is unquestionably yes. But guess what, lots of kids are being left behind now. The question shouldn't be evaluated on whether is produces a perfect outcome, but whether it would produce one superior to the status quo.
This is, however, a largely academic exercise. It's obvious that government-run schools won't be abolished anytime soon, if ever. There are some steps that could be taken that do have a realistic chance (the first one largely excepted) and would be an improvement over the status quo. As I see them they are:
Best choice: Dissolution of public schools. Education and property taxes no longer linked. Responsibility is on parents to educate their children or find a school to do it for them. Tax burden is commensurately reduced to help fund this. Means-tested vouchers provided for poor families.
Second-best choice: Government-run schools are maintained but children are given access to a voucher worth the same amount as per-pupil expenditure by the local school district. Choice is provided to students to attend schools in the same district regardless of geography (i.e. home address doesn't determine which school you attend). School funding tied to how many pupils elect to attend that school.
Third-best: Same as second-best except without vouchers. Choice is provided to students to attend schools in the same district regardless of geography (i.e. your address doesn't determine which school you attend). School funding tied to how many pupils elect to attend that school.
Fourth-best: No vouchers and no school choice, but federal department of education is abolished along with national standards. Federal government takes no role in education.
Seriously.
I would make this argument on several grounds. First, I believe that government doesn't do a terribly good job of it. Second, it forces us to confront values decisions that shouldn't be within the government purview. And third, why should it?
That government doesn't do a very good job shouldn't be terribly controversial. When people think of the best schools in the country, few think of public schools, be it grammar school or the college/university level. How many people, if money were no consideration, would send their children to public school ahead of private school? Go to the US News and World Report website and look up how many of the top 20 universities are publicly-funded. Take a gander at the percentage of students at the National Spelling Bee that hail from private schools or are home-schooled -- a full two-thirds. According to this "In 2002 a full 40 percent of the finalists in the National Geography Bee were products of home school education."
Now, who knows, maybe home-schooled children simply sit around learning spelling and geography, but I have my doubts.
Granted, a few caveats are in order. Children that are home-schooled or sent to private school are not a representative sample of the overall population. Their parents probably take a greater than average interest in their studies and push them to succeed. They have likely been raised in an environment more conducive to learning. Nonetheless, it would seem that one would be very hard-pressed to make the case that public schools do a better job than anyone else out there.
The second point is that public education forces us to make choices in the realm of politics that are better left as individual decisions. Should children be forced to say the pledge of allegiance? Should there be prayer? Should science class teach evolution or creationism? Should sex-ed advocate abstinence? Should Christmas be a holiday? Should bilingual education be used or English immersion? The list goes on.
As Jeff Jacoby says:
Americans differ on same-sex marriage and evolution, on the importance of sports and the value of phonics, on the right to bear arms and the reverence due the Confederate flag. Some parents are committed secularists; others are devout believers. Some place great emphasis on math and science; others stress history and foreign languages. Americans hold disparate opinions on everything from the truth of the Bible to the meaning of the First Amendment, from the usefulness of rote memorization to the significance of music and art. With parents so often in loud disagreement, why should children be locked into a one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best model of education?By casting such decisions into the political domain we become further divided from our fellow citizens. This is, incidentally, also a great argument for federalism and making as many decisions on the state and local level as possible, so that "blue states" and "red states" can each do their own thing.
Nobody would want the government to run 90 percent of the nation's entertainment industry. Nobody thinks that 90 percent of all housing should be owned by the state. Yet the government's control of 90 percent of the nation's schools leaves most Americans strangely unconcerned.
Lastly, what business is it of the state's to educate children? I think a lot of people would respond with something to the effect that educating our children is extremely important and must be guaranteed. Well, yes, that's true, educating children is very important. But lots of things are important. Food is important, but we don't have state-run grocery stores (although we do have food stamps, which are roughly the equivalent of education vouchers). Housing is similarly important, although we leave this up largely to the private sector (again, assisting with housing vouchers, and where we have deviated from this have largely regretted it).
There are two things that absolutely must be kept in mind here. First, simply doing something because that's the way it's always been done isn't a good reason to keep doing it. Lots of stupid things have been done just because they were always done that way. Second, one can not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Would there be problems with abolishing government-run schools? Would some children be left behind? I think the answer is unquestionably yes. But guess what, lots of kids are being left behind now. The question shouldn't be evaluated on whether is produces a perfect outcome, but whether it would produce one superior to the status quo.
This is, however, a largely academic exercise. It's obvious that government-run schools won't be abolished anytime soon, if ever. There are some steps that could be taken that do have a realistic chance (the first one largely excepted) and would be an improvement over the status quo. As I see them they are:
Best choice: Dissolution of public schools. Education and property taxes no longer linked. Responsibility is on parents to educate their children or find a school to do it for them. Tax burden is commensurately reduced to help fund this. Means-tested vouchers provided for poor families.
Second-best choice: Government-run schools are maintained but children are given access to a voucher worth the same amount as per-pupil expenditure by the local school district. Choice is provided to students to attend schools in the same district regardless of geography (i.e. home address doesn't determine which school you attend). School funding tied to how many pupils elect to attend that school.
Third-best: Same as second-best except without vouchers. Choice is provided to students to attend schools in the same district regardless of geography (i.e. your address doesn't determine which school you attend). School funding tied to how many pupils elect to attend that school.
Fourth-best: No vouchers and no school choice, but federal department of education is abolished along with national standards. Federal government takes no role in education.
6 comments:
Who wants homeschooling when this is what you get? http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/ic/blogs/preps/uploaded_images/1-768275.jpg
This is a tough issue - as you stated it's tough to reconcile economic principles with the morality of providing a quality education for everyone (although you could make an economic argument that the kids would be better off without public schools, though I think this argument is so politically far-fetched that it's not even worth talking about).
I don't agree with Jeff Jacoby's comments because the issues of public school prayer, etc. aren't really what the kids care about; rather, they're what the media focuses on. I went to a public high school. The Indigo Girls were scheduled to play at an assembly until the "bubbas" in my town learned they were lesbians, and pressured the principal to cancel the show. This was the biggest externally-visible controversy while I was at school, but it didn't affect my education. In math class, biology, etc., it doesn't matter if we say the pledge of allegiance for 30-seconds during homeroom. So, in my view Jacoby is citing things that don't really matter.
Further, without public schools I think we'd be more segregated. Again, if we take Alabama as an example, I can guarantee that we'd have almost completely white/asian vs. black/hispanic schools (although this situation currently exists to a large extent). I'm glad I went to a public school. I was lucky to be in a community that ran the school well, though.
continued...
Finally, to the question of "is it our obligation to educate", I definitively say "yes." A few examples from a high level:
- Why are Americans out of shape? Because they don't know that McDonalds is bad for them (very relevant to today's healthcare discussion). Of course there is also big degree of personal responsibility here that we can't ignore.
- Why are many people racists? Because they've never known someone from another race.
- Why did so many people take out loans they couldn't afford? Because they had no financial sense.
So, these are just three examples of where public education could (COULD) make a big difference. Public education doesn't have a shining record, but there are also many success stories (my high school being one). I'm just not sure if the alternative is any better; it's certainly riskier.
You're absolutely right when you say "one can not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Would there be problems with abolishing public education? Would some children be left behind? I think the answer is unquestionably yes. But guess what, lots of kids are being left behind now. The question shouldn't be evaluated on whether is produces a perfect outcome, but whether it would produce one superior to the status quo." I think the jury is out on this one...
To your "best choice" comment - couldn't agree with you more. This is THE problem in Alabama. But what's the right answer? I can't wrap my head around that one...
A very tough issue, indeed.
Thanks for your comments Dave. However, with regard to your comments about McDonald's, racism, and finance, it is worth noting that the first and third are problems even with a public school system, so obviously the current approach isn't working terribly well.
(Incidentally I think that people are perfectly aware that McDonald's is bad for them -- it's just that, like smokers, they don't care)
As for racism and the need to socialize our children as a justification for public education I find it a pretty speculative argument. I'm not sure that privately schooled children are known to be more disposed towards racist beliefs -- simply not sure if there is much literature on the subject. There are plenty more means to become involved in the community other than schools -- think sports teams, Boy Scouts, etc.
And really, if your parents are so racist as to prevent you from attending a racially harmonized school, I doubt that public education will overcome that. Has busing been a success in promoting racial harmony? (serious question -- I don't know)
I think that parents ultimately want the best education possible for their child, and an end to the current public education system would result in parents sending their kids to the best school they could, regardless of its racial makeup.
Dave -- one more item to consider:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753078523935615.html#mod=loomia?loomia_si=t0:a16:g4:r1:c0:b0
Creationism being taught in TX public schools. That's not a distraction like school prayer, this gets to what is taught, which in turn depends on who wins elections...
Unbelievable. My favorite line from the article is "The conservative Christian reviewers... are skeptical of the professional historians' emphasis on multiculturalism." Do we forget that Jesus (a Jew, if I'm not mistaken) was a minority in his time? For the first three centuries of it's existence Christianity was a fringe religion. Wow.
After reading the article and thinking some more, I agree with you - these kind of debates can have an influence on classroom learning (at least in cases like this). But, what's the alternative? Many private schools, given absolute control over their curriculum, would skew history lessons even further. I'm thinking of those "six flags over God" mega-churches - what's to stop those same people from creating equally large, narrow-minded schools (basically madrasahs for Christians) that churn out even more uneducated (or at least unquestioning) young people? I can say with certainty that in AL, MS, etc., a lot of people would take that chance. The documentary Jesus Camp gives a pretty staggering portrayal of how schools like these could gain popularity.
You're probably right. Some kids would no doubt attend fundamentalist Christian (or Islam, etc.) schools. But again, I think the question needs to be answered by what approach is best, not which is perfect. We can't let education decisions be dictated by extremist hypotheticals. Under the status quo, while most kids aren't taught fire and brimstone, they don't learn much about anything else either.
I also want to return for a minute to the socialization argument as a justification for public schools. Currently the public school you attend is typically determined by your geographic location, which in turn decides your school district and school. It's a really crazy and nonsensical linkage in which schools pick the students rather than the reverse. If anything I would submit that it means you are more likely to go to school with people from your neighborhood or of similar backgrounds. By eliminating this connection, such as through vouchers, we can give kids a better taste of the real world (assuming that this should even be a goal of education).
Just perform this thought exercise: kids in DC that use vouchers to attend Sidwell Friends (of which there are at least two) -- the same school the Obama children attend -- does that expose them to more or less diversity than if they had attended a DC public school with other typically inner city kids?
Post a Comment