Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.Bishop asks, "What do you think would happen if the education plank were enacted?"
The short answer is that literacy rates would rise dramatically and professional football and basketball teams might have to pay for their own training camps rather than have the taxpayer do it.
A longer answer entails the reality that a plank as sweeping as this one is would not be "enacted." We could move in a direction that has the fruition of the plank as a goal. Vouchers that refund tax money to parents who choose alternatives to the public school system is one possibility that allows experimentation with other options. It would not take long to ascertain which alternatives produce better results; in fact, there is lots of evidence that a number of alternatives to public schools produce better results.
Since I am very lazy, I have scanned and posted images below from David Bergland's Libertarianism in One Lesson (sixth edition, 1993). Very likely, the ninth edition has further information.
8 comments:
Okay, from the top:
I have no problem with schools limiting physical activity to classes and intramural sports. But those should be part of school, since physically active children learn better. (Saw the recent study on that, but don't recall where. It wasn't new info, but reaffirmation of much earlier studies.)
"Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education."
This implies that people will still be taxed to pay for education, but it won't be public. How will they be taxed? So all citizens will support private education, regardless of what is taught? Like creationism? Racism? The evils of marijuana?
Second, this tax money will be turned over to the parents, who can do whatever they want with it? No checks of any kind?
In the first box, there is a sentence which says that literacy rates were much higher prior to public education.
Where does that come from? I've never seen any claims about public education lowering literacy. I really doubt that statement.
The "Disaster of state schools" section says that for the past 30 years public education has been a complete failure. I'd be interested in what that statement is based upon. In addition, I wonder if inflation was taken into account with that "1000%" figure.
Also, it's been the past 30-40 years that the right-wingers/Repubs have been attacking public education and educators. Those attacks have included consistent massive reductions in every kind of support, not only money and materials, but emotional. It's completely unfair to expect people to continue to do good work while being consistently vilified by politicians, individuals, administrators, the media, parents, etc. That despicable behavior has taken its toll on educators and schools. The line about throwing money at education is not happening. It's been cuts, cuts, cuts.
I like the tax credit plan very much. One question: Will the public schools be able to cherry pick their students too?
Reading to the end about the benefits for poor/disadvantaged/minority children, (BTW, that is now white kids.) I find that I am wondering about admissions. Will private schools be willing to admit poor/disadvantaged students? What if they are not? With a few exceptions, most of the schools have a few "token" students such as those highlighted in the third from last paragraph. Why would they accept more such students if their classrooms are full of rich white kids?
This article appears to be written by someone who has a strong antipathy toward public schools. It makes me wonder if Bergland had some type of terrible public school experience. It is not balanced and thoughtful. It is very disdainful of public schools, describing them with disparaging, derogatory terms. After reading this, if I didn't know better, I'd think there was not a public school anywhere worth a damn, while the nation is filled with wonderful private schools and parents dedicated to developing well-educated children.
This is not going to work. It is a utopian ideal, though the writer says such is not possible. David Bergland may be a very intelligent gentleman, and some of his ideas are good, but he needs to look at education through less jaundiced eyes.
D.E., I urge you to obtain or borrow a copy of this book. Bet your library has it or can get it easily.
Just so you know, I agree with Bergland completely. I see the results of the public school system a lot, and its fruits have declined in quality significantly since I was in school.
As for your questions about specifics of whet will happen, I say, let's give every possibility a chance to prove itself. The failing systems will become apparent quickly, as will the winning ones. It would be hard to produce overall worse results than does the current system.
I think it hard to say Bergland is not thoughtful, and there is no possible "balance." Public education is declining in qualty every year, and getting more expensive while doing so.
What Bergland advocates is that the money raised by taxes for public education be allowed to stay with the parents, who will then purchase education on the free market, as it should be.
Currently, the government, and increasingly the federal government, controls curricula, not parents. The schools are varyingly successfully-cloaked government propaganda camps.
Utopia is not suggested. However, I think that you and I can agree that it is possible to improve the current education of everyone, including children. I suggest that a variety of suggestions be put into motion, and we should watch to see which ones run well.
Thanks Bob. I've been seeing statistics that show that SD's educational system is doing well. I can't answer a "Compared to What" question. I mean, what about compared to 30 years ago?
If we give Bergland's education solution a shot, and it fails, I don't know that there will be much left to salvage. It's not that schools can't be better. But I believe Bergland is going at it the wrong way.
What I'm questioning in regard to education tax money going to parents is, how do we know that's what they'll do with it. I know for sure that some parents won't do that. It's their children who will suffer.
I think you are correct about the govt propaganda camps. What's to prevent schools for becoming some other type of propaganda camp?
What I want is for schools to be open to a wide variety of ideas. Lots of schools don't do that right now. RCC schools do not teach students that there are happy, productive, honorable LBTG families. Home schoolers might teach their children that the earth is 6000 years old.
What do you think?
"We" have no choice in the matter of giving "Begland's education solution" a shot. It is being done as we speak, and has been for a long time.
Numbers are growing in the home-schooling league and in the numbers of those who shoulder both education taxes and the tuition for private schools for their children.
The results are overwhelmingly in favor of home-schooled and privately-schooled children when students from all camps are tested for literacy, comprehension and general knowledge.
So you have no problem with this:
"What I want is for schools to be open to a wide variety of ideas. Lots of schools don't do that right now. RCC schools do not teach students that there are happy, productive, honorable LBTG families. Home schoolers might teach their children that the earth is 6000 years old."
Or no problem with parents gambling or drinking up their children's education tax money?
Who do you quote here, DE?
"What I want is for schools to be open to a wide variety of ideas. Lots of schools don't do that right now. RCC schools do not teach students that there are happy, productive, honorable LBTG families. Home schoolers might teach their children that the earth is 6000 years old."
I am not concerned what the curriculum in a home shool is, as long as the students are taught to read. Once a person can read, that person has the universe, and it no longer matters what his parents have taught him.
To DE's other recent comment: Parents use money foolishly now.
I was quoting me, wanting you to respond to that statement of mine.
I just can't see this working for the best of the students Bob. There are so many holes.
It seems to me that for Libertarianism to actually, one has to assume a much higher level of human behavior than what we have. People have proven over and over that they are willing to do harm to others, (not necessarily physical) if they can.
In theory, I like Libertarianism, but in practice - not so much. The absolutism wouldn't work. The best single system seems to be a combination of the best parts of a variety of systems. I don't know of any that works well in its purest form. They all have weaknesses.
I do really appreciate all this info you have shared. You have enlightened me, but not persuaded me.
Post a Comment