In
my post on social and fiscal conservatives "vince" responds in the comments:
i'm dubious about "reduced government interference." it's a weighted term that carries implications.
the federal government's interference is warranted many times, and thank goodness for that.
there's a reason why we ditched the Articles of Confederation and created a strong central government (the Federalists/John Marshall prevailed.)
in fact, this "government can't do anything right" meme is dumb, and false. the government has done some good stuff:
* GI bill
* civil rights in the 60s (unless the Alabama state troopers were gonna escort black kids to college?)
* All those wars we won
* interstate highway system
so spare me!
A few points:
- I said the central organizing principle of the Republican party should be opposition to government power and the defense of individual liberty, not "reduced government interference". While my language may have been inelegant and imprecise, what I mean is that the party should be inherently skeptical of granting power to the government and should place a premium on maintaining individual rights and liberty. Of course government interference is sometimes warranted. This blog advocates libertarianism, not anarchy.
- The issue is not that "government can't do anything right" but rather the government almost always does a worse job than the private sector. Private schools typically offer better education than their public sector counterparts. Fedex and UPS are more efficient than the US Postal Service. The only tasks the government should be entrusted with are those which cannot be performed by the private sector.
- The government protecting individual rights in the 1960s is exactly the reason we have a government. No one is advocating the government get out of the protection business, so I don't see the point here.
- Interstate commerce and providing the necessary infrastructure is another key reason the government exists. I also wouldn't hold up government infrastructure projects as models of efficiency, considering how funding is often determined more by political influence (ahem, Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens) than actual need.
- Wars are inevitably examples of massive government waste and inefficiency. Just look at World War II, which was the "good war". Many historians agree that the battles of Peleliu and Iwo Jima were completely unnecessary, costing the U.S. over 35,000 killed and wounded. Many similarly believe the invasion of the Philippines was conducted more to appease MacArthur's ego than achieve strategic goals and hasten an end to the war. No one disputes sacrifices by the U.S. military, but I hardly see these wars as evidence greater responsibility should be given to the government.
- The GI Bill is simply a form of compensation to members of the military. Originally known as the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, it was designed to help members of the military -- many forced into service during World War II -- readjust to civilian life. I will also note the GI Bill is not an example of the government effectively rendering a service but something more akin to a voucher program. I don't see how it augers in favor of more government power.
20 comments:
How do you reason that private schools offer a better education than public ones?
They achieve equal or better results at lower cost.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3231
"The most recent figures available from the U.S. Department of Education show that in 2000 the average tuition for private elementary schools nationwide was $3,267. Government figures also indicate that 41 percent of all private elementary and secondary schools -- more than 27,000 nationwide -- charged less than $2,500 for tuition. Less than 21 percent of all private schools charged more than $5,000 per year in tuition. According to these figures, elite and very expensive private schools tend to be the exception in their communities, not the rule."
In contrast public schools tend to spend far more per pupil.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
Colin,
Nice of you to respond to a reader's points. I like that you actually address areas where government is actually good, unlike other libertarian blogs that make it sound like government only creates problems.
Also - I know that the government usually performs worse than the private sector in sum, but that can't be the only factor. Surely there are people who couldn't afford a private education or old people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get any help without Medicare. Could the private sector address these people?
Some people say "they shouldn't have to" but I wouldn't want to live in that kind of country. Libertarians don't often bring this up.
Colin, I appreciate the response.
Both articles touch on price per pupil, not necessarily quality of education. While your point is supported that private schools operate at a lower cost, there is nothing that shows they are any better. But then again, that depends on what "quality" means and that was not defined...not that I think it can be.
To expand on Jeff's point, the CATO article raises a question about access. OK, so private schools cost less per pupil, but who picks up the tab? I'm not sure how a poor family could send their children to a private school at $2,500 a head. Unless of course, they had a voucher...
which one could argue goes against libertarian principle. Afterall, you are taking tax money from one individual and redistributing it to someone else in the form of an educational subsidy. If I'm a true libertarian, I don't want any of my money going to support anyone else, be it an education, a doctor's visit, or 200 acres of soybeans. Correct?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your charge that private schools are better managed. Management principles can, AND SHOULD, be applied to improve our educational system. But I don't believe that the bottom line can be used as an indicator of quality in education. At the end of the day, you are educating people, not pushing products.
Jeff,
As to whether people experiencing hardship could be addressed through a libertarian system, I think the answer is yes. If the government relieved itself of many the responsibilities it has taken on it would require far less tax revenue and could let people keep more of what they earn.
If we could educate children for $3K a year instead of $9K a year, that represents a massive tax cut.
I will note that Americans are already the most generous people in the world based on per capita charitable giving. With more disposable income it stands to reason they would give even more to help the poor. What's more, without the government serving people it would make charity more a duty of each citizen rather than taking the attitude of "Why should I help that person? My taxes already pay for that."
Now, under a libertarian system could you find people in dire straits that are left uncared for? I have little doubt. But you can find such people under current circumstances too. Government housing is typically rife with social disorder and in poor condition. Government schools often provide poor education (especially to the poorest students) and have many more physical altercations than private schools -- they aren't even safe.
I don't think a libertarian society would be a perfect one where everyone is cared for, but I think it would produce better results than the current system.
Thanks for your comments.
Atticus,
With regard to your first point, yes, strictly speaking vouchers are a violation of libertarian principle. Operating within the confines of what's politically possible, however, they are perhaps as close to the ideal as can be realistically hoped for.
To me private schools are superior to public ones simply because people are willing to pay money on top of their tax revenue to attend them. Why would you pay more money for a good that is either equal in value or inferior?
Also, if private schools are either equivalent or worse than public schools, why do teacher's unions oppose them so vociferously? After all, if public schools are superior they should have nothing to worry about from competition.
We also see here in DC parents protesting to maintain the school vouchers that the Obama Administration is set on killing. If public schools are no worse, why are they so upset about their children losing the money to afford private school tuition?
Education is a product -- look up the University of Phoenix if you have any doubt -- and people time and time again seem to be choosing private schools as the superior option.
People pay more money for a good that is either equal in value or inferior because of the price-quality perception. That is, the thought that higher price equals higher quality. For example, people are willing to pay more for brown chicken eggs than white ones because they are perceived to be better. In reality, there is no nutritional difference.
Your claim that DC voucher program opposition is evidence of private school superiority falls short. It has more to do with politics than anything else. Republicans support vouchers. Democrats don't. Therefore, the Obama Administration opposes. Period.
As for the teacher's unions, it is no surprise that they oppose it...they oppose everything including Michelle Rhee's innovative reforms (including a brilliant teacher evaluation system) in the DC school district. It speaks to their fear of change rather than the quality of public education.
Since you are familiar with the University of Phoenix, you are probably aware of their recent accounting issues. If not,
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/10/28/business-business-and-professional-services-us-apollo-group-ahead-of-the-bell_7054821.html
This is particularly striking:
'The (Government Accountability Office) said many proprietary schools admitted unqualified students who had a greater tendency than other students to drop out, let students stay enrolled despite a lack of academic progress and also misrepresented themselves to prospective students.'
They seem to be less concerned about their students/customers than their bottom line. Not a big surprise from a so-called "for-profit university".
I'm not sure you meant to suggest the University of Phoenix is a "superior option" to universities like Michigan, Virginia, UCLA, or UC Berkeley? I may be wrong, but I think you would be hard pressed to find many graduates of those public institutions that would trade in their education for University of Phoenix's "product".
Atticus,
You are suggesting that everyone who attends private school over public school is a fool that is simply spending more money out of a false perception. I don't buy it. Here in DC people choose private schools because they are demonstrably superior to public schools, a contention that a raft of statistics will support.
As for DC vouchers, you completely miss my point. I know full well why the Obama Administration opposes vouchers -- politics. My point was why parents were so fervently in favor of them. After all, if there is no difference in quality between public and private schools then losing a voucher should be no big deal. Instead parents are outraged their children have to return to failed public schools.
My point about the University of Phoenix was simply that education is in fact a product. I don't even think that's a controversial statement. To believe anything else is to kid ourselves.
No, that is not what I'm suggesting. You asked why people pay more for a good that is equal or inferior in quality. I answered with a basic marketing principle...and since education is apparently a "product" I think you would agree it appropriately fits.
Also, it was that "raft of statistics" I was initially inquiring about, not the public reaction to the DC voucher pilot program.
Yes, you are attributing the success of private schools to marketing. That simply rings false, that people are willing to pay thousands of dollars more for a good that is not demonstrably superior. Does Barack Obama send his children to private schools because he is a sucker for slick marketing? Or the nearly half of Congressmen who send their children to private schools?
In any case here are some stats on DC public schools per wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Public_Schools
Analyzing test results from the 2004–2005 school year, the Progressive Policy Institute found that 54 percent of D.C. charter school students were reported as proficient in math, compared with 44 percent of students in traditional schools. Charter students also scored higher than their counterparts in reading.
Beyond DC, this Education Department report says private schools are safer than public schools:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002313.pdf
Here is another Education Department comparison:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp
In grades 4 and 8 for both reading and mathematics, students in private schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools. The average difference in school means ranged from almost 8 points for grade 4 mathematics, to about 18 points for grade 8 reading. The average differences were all statistically significant. Adjusting the comparisons for student characteristics resulted in reductions in all four average differences of approximately 11 to 14 points. Based on adjusted school means, the average for public schools was significantly higher than the average for private schools for grade 4 mathematics, while the average for private schools was significantly higher than the average for public schools for grade 8 reading. The average differences in adjusted school means for both grade 4 reading and grade 8 mathematics were not significantly different from zero..
Besides this, I would argue that it is really incumbent upon supporters of public schools to demonstrate their superiority. After all, if they can't then there is no compelling reason for them to exist.
Lastly, again, even if you assume private and public schools are the same in terms of education quality, private schools come out ahead owing to lower costs. After all, if you can achieve the same outcome with less money it would defy common sense to pursue the more expensive course.
Colin,
It is my understanding that DC charter schools are public. So, you are comparing apples to apples, albeit a different variety.
As for the Department of Education study, you may have passed over the part in the 'Cautions in Interpretations' section that states "private schools are “schools of choice.” Without further information, such as measures of prior achievement, there is no way to determine how patterns of self-selection may have affected the estimates presented."
Basically, we don't know if these private school students would have excelled even if they attended public schools. Moreover, if you look at most of the numbers after adjustments for student characteristics (although we don't know which they selected), many of the differences are statistically zero.
It strikes me strange that you acknowledge the need to "operate within the confines of what is politically possible" and then suggest that the public schooling system should be dismantled if supporters cannot make their case. I haven't heard that as a serious mainstream consideration anywhere.
What I have heard is a call for reform, which is what is being done in many failing school districts right now...including DC and PG County. Organizations like the Broad Foundation and Education Pioneers are working to revamp the systems using former business professionals and b-school grads. You know, real softy liberal types. While there is unfortunate push back from teacher's unions, things such as the "value added assessment" are beginning to gain traction. With time, these reforms will serve to pull our public districts out of whatever mess they are in and ensure public schools are once again fit to educate the masses.
Yet again, even if the statistical difference is zero, then it's a win for private schools as they achieve the same result for less money. Thus they are superior.
Dismantling government-run schools represents the ideal, but not it is not politically possible.
The second best solution is the use of vouchers for every student towards the school of their choice.
As for DC's experiment with various reforms, I wish them good luck but remain very skeptical.
The problem with this approach, however, is that children remain in failing schools while the reforms are made. Why not immediately grant them vouchers? If the public schools improve, the children can return. In the meantime they have an alternative to public schools.
BTW, here are some more stats on public and private schools:
http://www.capenet.org/Outlook/Out12-01.html#Story1
http://www.capenet.org/Outlook/Out12-01.html#Story2
http://www.capenet.org/Outlook/Out12-99.html#Story2
You are going to pull stats from an organization promoting private schools??????? Strong move.
http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=520&parentID=481
Touché, I guess?
Did you even read the links?
The first one links to data from the College Board. The second and third links are to data from the National Center for Education Statistics.
Your link doesn't work.
Ah, got the link to work. And again -- even if I assume the argument that public school and private schools perform exactly the same, this is still an argument in favor of private schools given that they cost less and produce more bang for the buck.
Yes, I did. They cherry pick studies from the College Board and the National Center for the Education Statistics. C'mon, it's not like CAPE would select data to counter their cause.
The NAEP study on science is the one you already cited..where the difference was statistically insignificant. The College Board data and the NAEP study on civic ed. both raise the question (again) about the background of the students. As I mentioned earlier, we don't know if these private school students would have excelled even if they attended public schools.
To the point on reform, how exactly do you plan to accommodate every public school student that is immediately given a voucher to attend a private school? It is logistically impossible to move every single public school student out of the system today in order to fix it tomorrow.
As I mentioned earlier, we don't know if these private school students would have excelled even if they attended public schools.
Why not give them the chance? When are they are given access to private schools, such as through vouchers here in DC, parents and children seem to like them.
To the point on reform, how exactly do you plan to accommodate every public school student that is immediately given a voucher to attend a private school? It is logistically impossible to move every single public school student out of the system today in order to fix it tomorrow.
Wait, if every single public school student was provided access to a voucher why would they leave for private schools? Isn't your contention that no difference exists?
That's a pretty damning indictment if you believe that, when given the opportunity, literally every student would bolt for a private alternative.
Wait a minute, don't go Colbert on me!
I don't claim students would, you do. You suggest private schools are so far superior that given the opportunity, students would flee public schools to private ones. And, that's why it is incumbent upon you to explain how it could be pulled off. Otherwise, I don't see that as a viable option.
To be clear: I don't think public school kids would cut-n-run to private ones.
I don't believe every student would bolt, but a great deal would. The evidence is the limited voucher program already in place, where demand has outstripped supply (interestingly for a good you contend is not superior).
I imagine that if vouchers were offered to every student that many, but not all would leave. This would create some short-term problems as private schools would experience a sudden influx of students, and there might not be places for all of them.
I imagine that after some time, however, additional staff would be recruited to help with the additional students.
As I understand it, DC has more facilities than it knows what to do with, they might able to assist with the process by auctioning them off to schools looking to expand.
Post a Comment