School Choice... WINNING.

Miscellaneous General
41

My wife homeschools our children, and has for many years. The only regulation that homeschoolers must abide by in my state is an annual notification that my kids are being homeschooled for the upcoming school year, with their names, ages and home address. The only other educational regulation that we must abide is the same that all forms of education must abide within the state, which is to teach the subjects “English, Mathmatics and Civics” on an annual basis for ages 6 to 16. And Civics seems to be flexible in any public school I’ve ever seen. All the other regulations that other educational institutions must abide are byproducts of strings attached to taxpayer funds. Homeschoolers are often offered “access” to these same federally and state funded programs, but I know of none that have ever agreed to the conditions.

All regulation is not equal.

42

School choice is definitely a step up from what we have and I’m glad to see it becoming more popular over here in the states.

“Another problem with this outcome is when this system of pseudo-“private” schools fail like the current public schools the blame will be put, like nearly everything else, on capitalism and rendered as a failure of the “private” market”

How well a child does in school is highly dependent on the childs SES and their parents which is why children from well off parents always do better in school compared to less well of children.

43

Vouchers are not school choice. They are choice in state schooling.

44

Ok

45

Wow, there are a lot of socialists in this thread.

I believe in an unregulated free market, total respect of property rights, and as minimal a government as is possible (All the way up to no government at all), I hate altruism and I believe that individuals are inherently unequal and that socialist calculation is impossible, as well as that all attempts to restrict trade are inherently negative, I hate the state, nations, and democracy. Friedrich Nietzsche is my favorite philosopher and the best essay I ever read on politics/economy/philosophy was civil disobedience, the best book, for a new liberty.

Would you describe these views as socialist?

Also, I have to say that throwing around the word “socialist” in this sense is a bad idea because:

  1. I’m pretty sure you know no one who has advocated these programs on this thread are socialist

  2. Throwing the word socialist around makes you look like an ignorant tea party member, people don’t respect it and it looks foolish

  3. It makes people angry and its disrespectful, and in most cases unfounded. Even if you prove we believe something socialists believe so what? What have you accomplished?

What government in the history of the world has ever implemented an “ideal program”? Government programs are implemented by politicians, who are by definition robbers and liars; they will never implement anything close to your “ideal program.”

Even an imperfect system put into action would be better than what there is now, furthermore Belgium has instituted a fairly good voucher program so there’s a fair chance of success.

An unregulated government voucher. Another self-contradictory idea.

Something that both of you need to understand is that there is no such thing as an unregulated school system in America, private schools are regulated to a similar extent that public schools are, the only thing is that they are better at actually teaching people useful skills and becoming more active and valuable individuals (SEE EDIT)

No plan … absolutely no plan, that introduces perverse incentives that did not previously exist into a private system can be said to be “step in the right direction”, or a “like market solution”, or whatever. It’s more like a step towards a complete destruction of whatever freedom is left.

Assertion and an incorrect one at that. The charter school system would create freedom and freedom of choice for parents, reflecting their market preferences for schools

There’s nothing more destructive and corruptive to the institution of private property then to have the government start picking up the tab for alleged “private” services.

Besides possibly having them keep the industry almost totally under their direct rather than indirect control and deriving people of any choice

They are trivial enough. You can figure them out on your own.

Thanks for that. There are also really good arguments for vouchers, you could figure them out on your own, or you could look at my post, but you apparently didn’t.

In the name of giving more choice to current government school [poor] students, you are proposing to destroy whatever private sector there is left. Why? Because ..

Because that private sector is pretty much destroyed as much as it will be under this situation and this will lead to a larger private sector of a similar caliber (regulated, not controlled)

People!!, Markets do not work on vouchers! They work on money. And for that you need private property, period!! Get it out of you head that there are other ways.

Vouchers become a form of money, they do not work optimally in the way markets do, people will not spend money on their most valued want, this could be considered as a failure, and that’s a good argument, but it doesn’t work if THAT MONEY IS GONE ANYWAY. Either way your down by X dollars, in one situation you have a limited selection of where the money goes, in the other you will get worse results and you have no choice anyway.

Let’s get something straignt here pal, I don’t owe you anything. You got that!?

I think we all understand that, but it would be appreciated if you didn’t make assertions about people who believed something and who had explained this belief, without actually critiquing the belief or providing a good answer to it.
If I said “socialism is the best economic system”, you wrote a critique of this, I pointed out something unrealistic and not directly important to your point, and then go on to say that “socialism is the best economic system, you can just work it out for yourself”, would you respect this viewpoint?

No one demands anything of you, but it would nice if you could back up in a major way or explain yourself, you have done only limited explanations here, and have not properly addressed any criticisms or advocacies (See above)

Please provide an actual explanation for why anything above is wrong, otherwise I will take my current viewpoints as correct and I will conclude that you can’t back up your claims. I am not demanding anything, I am just telling you what I will do because this is logical, if you can actually prove me wrong then please do so, I would like know if I am indeed just missing something very obvious here.

Thank you.

I am sorry, upon reareading I realized the absurdity of this statement, what I meant was that the private school system is regulated in such a way that it pretty much resembles the public ones in cirriculum style, it is just superior at what it does and is somewhat more original, however state schools such as magnet schools have shown that state schools can, under proper circumstances, be just as original and provide nearly as quality an education, and a charter system will have entrepreneurs attempting to reach the more original and better in any way that they can.

46

Well sorry, it is socialism. I’m trying to point that out and maybe get some people to question their fundament beliefs. If socialism is government ownership of the means of production, then what is this massive entitlement program which guarantees every child with thousands of “free” dollars with which to spend on their education?

How do you plan on rolling back this new enlistment program? After it’s created and each student is promised a $100,000 (or whatever it is) education by the government, how do you then undermine this ideology? The idea that the government “owes me something” is one of liberty’s biggest enemies; advocating state vouchers only encourages it.

Vouchers will likely improve schools, but only temporarily. For example, one of the worst parts of the public school system is the teacher unions, which have supported tenure, guaranteed raises, and huge pensions and benefits. Now private schools have largely avoided unions and everything that comes along with them. But suppose a completely voucher system were created, how likely is it that teachers and union leaders will push for all voucher approved schools to be unionized? This seems incredibly likely, even free market businesses like Wal-Mart are under huge pressure to unionize, what will happen to these private-public hybrid companies? After vouchers entice almost every school to become overrun by inefficient unions, where then do parents and students turn for a quality education?

47

Oh yes… I have seen the light!

(Pending my complete disregard for the empirical evidence that indicates school vouchers have freed schools from government control and, thus, have improved student learning.)

You’re arguing with people that probably agree with you: we all would probably prefer complete privatization, but moving from government monopolization to school vouchers with the “slippery slope” risk is still an improvement.

48

To this point, I think it’ll be easier to eliminate mandatory-attendance laws if people pay more for their own children’s schooling. Those laws also benefit the teachers’ unions, as it gives them much greater job security.

49

An improvement in what? The education of public school students in the short term? Yes. But an improvement in the long term, an improvement in the advance of liberty, an improvement in undermining entitlement attitudes? I don’t think so.

Fundamentally, when you advocate for vouchers you are saying “I think the government should pay for everyone’s schooling.” Don’t you see how making this statement undermines everything about libertarianism? How can you advocate against any government program after you have admitted the benefits of government paid for schooling?

50

No. Our advocating of vouchers is qualified. We aren’t advocating them over the idea of eliminating all government involvement in schooling. All we’re saying is that we prefer vouchers over the present system, along with reasons for that preference.

On another note, do you use public roads? If yes, then congratulations - you’re a socialist by your own definition.

51

You prefer statist policy A over statist policy B. Good for you, and it would be all fine if most voucher supporters would simply leave it at that and not claim that this is somehow a step towards more freedom and free markets.

52

I’d like to add that, while both the present system and a voucher system are statist policies (in the anything-or-nothing sense of “statist”), I do think that a voucher system can be less statist than the present system. With vouchers, parents aren’t tied to a local government school district by default. The consequence of this would seem to be more choice. However, it’s still an unabashedly statist policy, since it does nothing about mandatory-attendance laws and it still involves forcible confiscation and redistribution of wealth. My point in preferring a voucher system over the present system is that government-operated schooling is worse than other forms of schooling, so it should be eliminated. A voucher system could be a step in that direction, provided that it simultaneously de-funds government-operated schools.

53

Your prediction is based upon what?

Here is the evidence:

  1. School vouchers, where used, often work: schooling is de-monopolized and learning improves.
  2. Better education is linked to more libertarian beliefs (cf. Bryan Caplan).

Concluding from those two facts, we could actually hypothesize that school vouchers will more likely lead to greater economic literacy and, hence, greater freedom. The arrow could point in exactly the opposition direction you are predicting.

And, frankly, believing that school vouchers, inevitably, lead all schools to be like public schools is ungrounded fearmongering; the sort of “you’re all a bunch of socialists!” dogmatism that has little connection to data.

Your worst-case scenario: all schools, incentivized to grab vouchers, conform to all government controls.

My worst-case scenario: your prediction occurs, and then self-interested entrepreneurs realize that private schools–free from government regulation–can provide better education; hence, they can attract consumers, since some parents and students will forgo vouchers for the sake of high-quality education. Thus, we end where we begin: most schooling public, but some private.

54

I found this commentary by Rothbard on a similar debate:

Rothbard:

It behooves any revolutionaries, educational or other, to consider all problems and consequences before they start tearing up the social pea patch. The voucher revolutionaries, instead of curing problems caused by public schooling, would make matters immeasurably worse.

Vouchers would greatly extend the welfare system so that middle-class taxpayers would pay for private as well as public schooling for the poor. People without children, or parents who homeschool, would have to pay taxes for both public and private school. On the crucial principle that control always follows subsidy, the voucher scheme would extend government domination from the public schools to the as-yet more or less independent private schools.

Especially in regard to the suburbs, the voucher scheme would wreck the fairly worthwhile existing suburban schools in order to subject them to a new form of egalitarian forced busing, in which inner-city kids would be foisted upon the suburban schools. A most unwelcome “education revolution.”

Moreover, by fatuously focussing on parental “choice,” the voucher revolutionaries forget that expanding the “choices” of poor parents by giving them more taxpayer money also restricts the “choices” of the suburban parents and private-school parents from having the sort of education that they want for their kids. The focus should not be on abstract “choice,” but on money earned. The more money you or your family earns, the more “choices” you necessarily have on how to spend that money.

Furthermore, there is no need for “vouchers” for particular goods or services: for education vouchers, food stamps, housing vouchers, television vouchers, or what have you. By far the best “voucher,” and the only voucher needed, is the dollar bill that you earn honestly, and don’t grab from others, even if they are merely taxpayers.

How in the world did conservatives and libertarians allow themselves to fall into this trap, where in the name of “political realism” they not only abandoned their principles of liberty and private property, but also found themselves expending effort and resources on a hopelessly losing cause? By taking their eye off the ball, off the central necessity for the rights of private property. Instead they ran after such seemingly “realistic” goals as helping the poor and pushing egalitarianism. Vouchers lost big because people wanted to protect their communities against state depredations. The voucher advocates got precisely what they deserved.

If the voucher fans are not irredeemably wedded to the welfare state and egalitarianism, how can they pursue a course that would be “positive” and realistic, and yet also cleave to their own professed principles of liberty and property rights? They could: (1) repeal regulations on private schools; (2) cut swollen public school budgets; (3) insure strictly local control of public schools by the parents and taxpayers of the respective neighborhoods; and (4) cut taxes so people can opt out of public schools.

Let each locality make its own decisions on its schools and let the state and federal government get out completely. But this also means that the voucher policy wonks–most of whom reside in D.C., New York, and Los Angeles–should get out as well, and devote their considerable energies to fixing up the admittedly horrible public schools in their own urban backyards.

source: http://murrayrothbard.com/Vouchers_What_Went_Wrong.html

55

As I’ve pointed out before, I would only prefer vouchers if they’re paid for by money that would otherwise go to the public schools. This would help to de-fund the latter. If this didn’t happen, and vouchers simply raise the overall tax burden, I’d prefer the status quo.

I’m not in favor of forced busing, period.

Again, if the money used for vouchers was taken from the pool of money that goes to public schools, the above wouldn’t happen.

Although I’m in favor of all of the above, I think it’s debatable how realistic they are, politically speaking.

I would oppose any federal voucher system, because I oppose any/all federal control of schooling.

56

I’ve looked at Rothbard’s quote in this thread and that is probably what is motivating a lot of this conflict. I don’t think Rothbard is talking about the very same thing I’m talking about.

Let’s not forget that the government school monopoly in low-end education is itself as “destructive and corruptive to the institution of private property” as you can get. What role do you think those public schools play in weakening private property rights? It’s huge. Vouchers which do not permit opt-out - which GooPC brought up - would obviously be a step in the wrong direction. Vouchers would be just another excuse for redistribution but I don’t see any reason to believe they will result in more redistribution than the government school monopoly already does. The point of vouchers is that a non-wealthy parent (can’t afford to escape the government schools by sending their child to a private school) can take the revenues away from the government-operated school and spend them elsewhere. While this is still a subsidy of the poor on the backs of the middle-class as Rothbard notes, it has the effect of breaking up the government school monopoly which, I believe, is an even bigger subsidy. It’s like saying that we should not prefer food stamps to outright Soviet communism. Surely, redistribution through vouchers or coupons is less intrusive than outright ownership and operation of an industry by the government??

I detect in Rothbard’s notes on this that he’s simply cynical about the claims of voucher proponents that redistribution would remain flat or go down if a voucher system were in place rather than government monopoly schools (vouchers would probably result in the overnight closure of some of the worst government schools). I share that cynicism but then the correct comparison is between future government school revenues and vouchers. I don’t see any reason to believe that government school revenues will not balloon just as fast as the costs of any voucher program but I do see reason to believe that a voucher program would at least significantly increase the quality of education which the beneficiaries of the government’s redistribution are receiving. Yes, I prefer a government-aligned cartel of education producers to a government monopoly of education production. As I pointed out earlier, it’s not unlike food-stamps (a comparison Rothbard makes, as well) … would you rather have one low-end mega-food chain owned and operated by the government or have the government issue food-stamps which people can take to other grocers? Yes, it has perverse consequences, but the consequences are certainly less perverse than those already in place.

Edited to add: If you think of the government school monopoly as essentially a broken window, there can be no doubt that the same level of redistribution to a market of competitive education producers would be preferable to redistribution to the government school monopoly. I guess I need to see the explanation of how vouchers necessarily result in increased redistribution. So long as the government is taking my money, I prefer that it go to some good use rather than be sent up in smoke. If it goes to some good use, then I still benefit in a very indirect way that I will get to trade with the beneficiaries of my money, which makes me wealthier than if my money had simply been burnt. The government school monopoly is essentially sending my money up in smoke. I’d rather see it go to at least some use if I’m going to lose it either way.

Clayton -

57

Clayton, I think we’re on the same page. :slight_smile:

58

I think Rothbard is contradicting his own view that governments never get smaller except by revolution or conquest… the government has already succeeded in achieving this level of redistribution, the only politically possible solution other than waiting around for systemic collapse is to attempt to alter the form of redistribution to be less destructive, if that’s possible (and it often is).

Clayton -

59

I don’t see how vouchers could do anything but reduce the number of truly free schools. The emergence of public-private schools will draw students from public schools (good!) but how could they not also draw students from the free market schools?

Just as a clarification of exactly what you support, if given the following choices, which one would you support more?

  1. School taxes remain the same, but vouchers are implemented.
  2. School taxes are lowered, everything else remains the same. Public schools suffer from a tighter budget but parents have more money with which to explore truly free education.
60

I would support the latter more. However, I don’t think education is truly free as long as it’s regulated by some level of government.