My point is that what some are advocating is not really a "private" school system, but a "for-profit" one.
When I say "private" I mean voluntary. A private school can be $30,000 a year tuition or a free tuition school for the needy. The common element is that money changes hands freely (ie. the parents won't go to jail if they refuse to pay).
The troubles we humans face take root in the fact that we were born into a world of scarcity. This is not the garden of Eden. We have to work to attain our ends. The fact that someone might starve or spend his life illiterate is a reality due to nature. All too often though, as these problems arise, people are prone to call on the mythical entity of omnipotent government to fix them. The problem is that no such magic genie exists. Government is simply a collection of individuals with the same abilities as any other humans. They have to think out and devise a plan of action to confront these problems just like the rest of us (opposed to waving a magic wand as many seem to believe).
Seeing that ones in government do not necessarily hold more wisdom or know-how than the rest of us, then why should we entrust them solely with the task of solving these problems? Why should we be forced at gunpoint to contribute money to that particular group as the savior of man and solver of all of his problems? What is the difference between that sort of thinking and forcing support of one firm in an industry as the solver of man's need for the product of that industry? Would we entrust such a group as the sole solvers of man's scientific questions? What if it were to fail, would that mean that we need to give the current group more money? Or maybe we just need to vote new people into this problem solving group.
This point brings me to my overall philosophical objection to the complete privitization of education. Private schools are at the mercy of, what Bastiat would call, their consumers--an appellation which makes me shudder, but whatever. In an aggressively laissez-faire society, schools would be under tremendous pressure to inflate grades, to focus on appearances, not substance, and to teach merely what is "useful" instead of that which is "superfluous." So you could kiss goodbye grammar, theoretical science, logic, history, geography, music and theater and poetry. These things are barely taught now, but if we adhered soley to a capitalistic vision of education, they would disappear altogether. The market, for the most part, demands obedient, uncritical technocrats, not lovers of wisdom and beauty.
If the government were to provide all of its citizens with food like it does education, we'd all be eating rations of government cheese, or worse, Soylient Green. In our free market, we have all sorts food to choose from. There are so many variations and brands to choose, all one has to do to is walk down a grocery store aisle, except that the free market has even provided us with different types of grocery stores of varying prices and tastes. We haven't even mentioned restaurants. The vegan, the meat-eater, the vegetarian, the food snob, etc whatever their niche, all are served well by our market system.
The point is that one group (government) providing the answer means that there is pretty much a one-size fits all answer. People talk about the gap between the city schools and the affluent suburbs like it is that big a difference. It is a big difference in quality, but it is the same product offered anywhere in the country. Generally it's 8am-3pm, passive learning by students sitting at desks and changing rooms at the bell, the 3 Rs, etc, etc.
Your claim that markets would weed out subjects that aren't "useful" is preposterous considering that it is government schools that are cutting these programs due to funding costs. It is in the market where these students can get private lessons or books to make up for this shortcoming. The free market would provide all sorts of different education specially tailored to each child. Sure, some parents might go only for the test scores the same way some dieters only look at the nutrition labels, but that would be up to them.
Like the free market in food (a necessity even more important than education!) and every other good, there would be all sorts of choices and options from the most common to the smallest niche. Some schools would probably cater exclusively to certain subjects or areas. If your son is a genius in physics, why force him to waste time reading Maya Angelou in a boring English class? Evolution vs Creationism, God in school, sexual education, etc are no longer political issues because they are no longer connected to politics. You chose which ones you want to support, not politicians.
What is the real reason we have a public school system? According to steve:
as democrats and capitalists replaced knights and priests, as Western society moved into cities, and we realized we could generate more wealth with our minds than with our hands, the idea of universal education became more alluring. Public schools were founded, in this country, to provide the kind of education the elites had, so that they could be good, critical, and virtuous citizens--and yes, productive participants in a capitalist economy. But we live in completely different world today. My point was that, in a completely for-profit educational regime, the pressure would be on these schools to create merely efficient cogs in the capitalist order, not the intellectually independent, morally and spiritually enriched citizens as originally intended.
The last sentence is the one that is ironic. Our system of education is based on that of the Prussians. The purpose of theirs was to mould an obediant and united populace. Horace Mann and the founders of the common school movement went to Germany in the 1800s to
copy this system.
Tell me again how a free market in education where the child and parents choose whatever path is best for the child is more likely to lead to regimentation and make "efficient cogs" of people than a compulsory system that is based on obedience and passive learning of state legislature approved ideas (no evolution for Kansas)?
As for getting rid of property taxes, I just can't sign off on that one. The point was made by Urban Elitist that renters wouldn't benefit and people with low property taxes wouldn't benefit very much. That alone creates a problem. Factor in parents that would use their savings for drugs or a new plasma before spending a dime to educate their children and the idea just doesn't smack me as a good one.
Renters would benefit. Think of a taxes as a cost in the production of their housing unit. Eliminating this cost has the same effect as a reduction in the cost of timber or brick. With lower costs, the apartment owner can charge less and still make a profit. Competition for renters will accrue this cost saving to renters.
People with low property taxes won't benefit as much as those with high property taxes, but they still will benefit from that money. In the event that poor people rush out and buy lottery tickets, rims, crack, or X-box 360s without the benevolent tax collectors holding them back, what would you do to help their children? I assume there is unanimous consent that people on this board want their tax money to help educate the children. How many would donate their saved property taxes to a tuition free school like I linked to above, or a scholarship fund or a specific child? I particularly like the last option because the results are the most obvious. You are donating your money to help a child (let's say from the Northside) and get to see the results. You can even help see him through college, whether it's paying the whole tuition or just helping out with the books and school supplies. This not only helps the child (through education and the additional role model), but it builds a bridge between neighborhoods and tightens our community. I bet we would see a drop in car break-ins and animosity, etc because of these community bonds. If it turns out that one of the directors of the tuition free school or scholarship fund is siphoning off funds for personal use or just providing lousy education, you can take your money to another charitable organization and parents can take their child to a better school in such an event. You and parents don't have that option under the current system.
I don't know about you guys, but I think this type of charity is ten times more effective and rewarding than having your earnings taken, grinded up like confetti by the Public School System and spit out amongst tens of thousands of students and the comedy routine known as the Board of Education!
)
)
