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.
