The One Minute Case For Privatizing Education

[Meta Blog]

Public schools are immoral

The title “public schools” is misleading. In almost all cases, these schools are run by the government, taught with government mandated curricula and run in a top-down fashion from state and local bureaucrats. “Government schools” is a more appropriate title.

All citizens are forced to contribute thousands of dollars towards government education through taxation regardless of their usage. Parents who home school or send their children to a private institution must pay for education twice. Because the government maintains a coercive monopoly in the education market, it is extraordinarily difficult for private institutions to compete when children can be enrolled at a government school at no marginal cost.

Furthermore, parents have the right to choose a school based on its overarching philosophy and its academic focus. Instead, parents must contribute to institutions that teach sexual harassment to primary school children, present creationism alongside with evolution or pledge to leave “no child left behind” even if it stunts the education of the more motivated children.

Government schools don’t work

By financially crippling their competition, government schools can afford to offer a lackadaisical education. A shocking number of high school graduates are illiterate and an embarrassing number struggle to write complete, coherent sentences. Worst of all, students do not learn how to think. Graduates typically have strong opinions on political and moral issues but are unable to offer a cogent argument for their convictions.

Government schools can’t hire quality teachers

Government schools can also afford to maintain a sub-standard workforce. Tenure is a system that rewards teachers who have seniority and play office politics. Tenured educators have an enormous amount of job security regardless of their competence. Terminating a tenured teacher’s contract is an elaborate, costly process as teachers’ unions invariably litigate the decision. Not only does this encourage retention of mediocre teachers but this also removes the incentive for educators to continue to develop new skills.

Moreover, the current near monopoly also cripples employment opportunities for educators. Not only are positions limited, but salaries are also dictated by bureaucrats and lobbyists, not the market. Public schools cannot offer merit-based salaries to attract more qualified professionals.

Government schools can’t compete with private school

Because they are immune from market pressures, government schools can also afford to allow costs to balloon to inexcusable proportions as costs of education are included in taxes and inflation. Washington DC spends over $12,000 per student each year - the highest cost in the nation. It also happens to have the lowest public school test scores of any state in the nation. A good private school will start at $8,000- $10,000 per year - so the median income DC resident would have to pay $22,000 to send one child to private school. Nationwide, public school teachers are almost twice as likely as other parents to choose private schools for their own children, a study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found.

Privatizing education benefits everyone

A common misconception is that privatizing education will only benefit the wealthy. This is wrong. Removing government controls on schools will raise the standard of education for everyone.

Even if one insists on government subsidized education, children from impoverished backgrounds will be immeasurably better off if given a voucher to attend a private academy of their choice. This is portended by the successful programs in Milwuakee, Cleveland and Washington D.C. Although vouchers are an improvement, a direct tax credit for education would be far superior as it requires even less interference on the economy.

Further reading:

• Market Education: The Unknown History by Andrew Coulson
• The American School: Why Johnny Can’t Think by Leonard Peikoff, The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought. (Also on CD)
  
• Tax Credits for Education by Ayn Rand, The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought.
• Inside American Education by Thomas Sowell
  

Share This

View the full post.

[aleph_0]

I would further recommend Privatization in the City by E. S. Salvas. He's a mixed-economier, but he's very fiscally conservative and makes a strong case for all privatization, including vouchers for private schools.

[intellectualammo]

I would very highly recommend from the ARI's 2007 Lecture Series:

The Separation of School and State: The Case for Abolishing America's Government Schools

By C. Bradley Thompson

You can actually listen to it for free right now at the ARI's Registered User's Page.

[DarkWaters]

I would very highly recommend from the ARI's 2007 Lecture Series:

The Separation of School and State: The Case for Abolishing America's Government Schools

By C. Bradley Thompson

You can actually listen to it for free right now at the ARI's Registered User's Page.

As much as I generally like the intellectual work of C. Bradley Thompson, I perceived that the lecture exaggerated the present state of many public schools as well as laws against home schooling. With regards to philosophy, the lecture is dead on.

[aequalsa]

As much as I generally like the intellectual work of C. Bradley Thompson, I perceived that the lecture exaggerated the present state of many public schools as well as laws against home schooling. With regards to philosophy, the lecture is dead on.

I have got into many arguments over the horridness of public schools with many people and have found by their descriptions that public schools vary a great deal between districts and from state to state. A child in a wealthy suburb of chicago where high property taxes stay in district will have a very different experience from a child in a wealthy suburb of Miami where all school money is distributed on a per child basis regardless of district. Or let alone, a child from a poor suburb of chicago.

Christ, their are even public montessori schools in my neck of the woods. So they are not all bad. But I would say that they are mostly horrible. And based on my public school experience, I thought he gave them too much credit.

[intellectualammo]

Christ, their are even public montessori schools in my neck of the woods. So they are not all bad. But I would say that they are mostly horrible. And based on my public school experience, I thought he gave them too much credit.

There was a Montessori based public school where I used to live at before, too. But even so, it's still a government installation, still supporting government run schools by attendence. I still would have sent my daughter to a private one.

My question is...He called for a "mass exodus" from public schools...what does this mean for teachers? Is it moral for a teacher to teach at a government installation? Or am I taking that too far? "Mass exodus" I'd say means any or all involved with government run schools...

I should probably listen to the lecture again later tonight...

[edit to add: He doesn't say "reform" public schools, but to abolish them totally...even if they were to all go Montessori or better: VanDamme Academy-ish...abolish them anyways...privatize it all.]

Edited June 7, 2007 by intellectualammo

[aequalsa]

There was a Montessori based public school where I used to live at before, too. But even so, it's still a government installation, still supporting government run schools by attendence. I still would have sent my daughter to a private one.

My question is...He called for a "mass exodus" from public schools...what does this mean for teachers? Is it moral for a teacher to teach at a government installation? Or am I taking that too far? "Mass exodus" I'd say means any or all involved with government run schools...

I should probably listen to the lecture again later tonight...

I heard it in person but it was a while ago. I understood him to mean parents should take their kids out so as to keep them from permanent mental damage. Perhaps the recording is different.

edit: I agree with the montessori thing by the way. Only meant that to be an admission that they are not all bad in terms of technique. I should add though that many important changes must be made to montessori methodology to make it legal for a public institution. One being the prohibition of any glass objects in the classroom for young children.

Edited June 7, 2007 by aequalsa

[intellectualammo]

I heard it in person but it was a while ago. I understood him to mean parents should take their kids out so as to keep them from permanent mental damage. Perhaps the recording is different.

I only remembering him mentioning that as well. That is why I'm wondering what that means for the ones involved in it, or those going to teach in the schools. The way to end them, more practically is essentially doing what he is advocating, of which I emphatically agree with.

edit: to AequalsA's edit comment... Okay. Here is said public Montessori near where I used to live...I have no idea what this school is actually like, because I only looked into private ones for my daughter about three years ago.

Edited June 8, 2007 by intellectualammo