public schools?

[WalterMitty]

if public schools were abolished, how would poor kids get an education?

[John Dibble]

I would imagine charitable organizations and individuals(such as the Catholic Church) would open a number of free or cheap private schools and create a number of scholarships(since much of the tax burden on public schools would be lifted, people would have more money to be charitable with). I would also imagine the number of tuition based private schools would increase drastically, and would compete with eachother, thus lowering prices. Many of these schools may also have lower costs for tuition for students of lower income families(I think some private schools do this), or local government would subsidize these schools to pay for such students.

[The Dowager Mod]

How dare those greedy overpaid teachers keep sucking up our tax money!

[John Dibble]

Texasgurl isn't biased or anything...

The question was a serious one - what would happen IF(big if) public schools were abolished. So instead of bashing Bush how about you think of an answer?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A laudible notion, but if it were true, there would have been no need to start public schools in the first place.  There are two real choices, public subsidy of education (by have state-run schools or vouchers or whatever system you wish to use to distribute the subsidy) or by having the children of the poor by and large being unable to get an education.  I truly doubt that we've somehow grown more charitable as a society since public financing of education began so that charity alone would finance the education of the poor.

[opebo]

How would poor kids get an education?

The streets..

The school of Hard Knocks..

Its not like their getting much an education as it is.

[John Dibble]

GM,

I'm not saying charitable schools would pop up all over, just a few. I think more privately run, tuition based schools would occur, and would likely be subsidized for low income students at the least. Education is considered far more valuable than it was before public education was implemented, so I think enterprising capitalists would build private schools all over the place.

I also think we'd see an increase in community homeschooling.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

John,
You have a more charitable view (pun intended) of human nature than I do.  There will be some charity, but a lot of kids will fall through the cracks.  I forsee a lot of children going to work in menial dead-end jobs if we abandoned public financing of education.  It would help to solve a good portion of our illegal immigration problem, since we would no longer need to import an underclass working for substandard wages, but such a solution seems worse to me than the problem.

[David S]

On this one I tend to break ranks with other Libertarians. I favor the voucher system proposed by Milton Friedman. At least in this way you could create a more competitive free market in the school system, instead of the government run monopoly we currently have. The completely private system would probably leave the poor kids out. Even a cold-hearted bastard like me has a struggle with that.

[muon2]

GM,

I'm not saying charitable schools would pop up all over, just a few. I think more privately run, tuition based schools would occur, and would likely be subsidized for low income students at the least. Education is considered far more valuable than it was before public education was implemented, so I think enterprising capitalists would build private schools all over the place.

I also think we'd see an increase in community homeschooling.

Yes, and the logical extension of community homeschooling will be exactly what it was in the pioneer Midwest. Around here in the mid-1800's the first farmers homeschooled and banded together to homeschool. When a critical number became involved they mutually agreed to be taxed as a means to pay for a full-time teacher. Thus, school districts were formed.

And, anyone who bought land in the district they formed understood that the land was in a school district. The existence of the district added value to the land. This is in principle no different than any other contractual agreement that binds parties when they exchange land for money or other commodities. The land had restrictions known to the buyer - one of which was that the land was in a school district.

[ilikeverin]

Texasgurl isn't biased or anything...

The question was a serious one - what would happen IF(big if) public schools were abolished. So instead of bashing Bush how about you think of an answer?

Does Nunavut have a good school system?

If not, British Columbia, maybe.

[Kodratos]

Until the seventies I believe the Catholic Church ran all schooling in Spain. If they can provide education for a nation of 40 million I'm sure they can handle a sizable portion of students in this country. Other than that, the middle and upper class will be able to afford the private schooling because thier taxes would be dramatically reduced. The only part of society this would be a problem for is the poor. This is one issue I definately agree with the Libertarians on.

[swarch]

On this one I tend to break ranks with other Libertarians. I favor the voucher system proposed by Milton Friedman. At least in this way you could create a more competitive free market in the school system, instead of the government run monopoly we currently have. The completely private system would probably leave the poor kids out. Even a cold-hearted bastard like me has a struggle with that.

Vouchers are a good transition scheme, but the problem is that government attaches all kinds of rules that stifle innovation, and the Supreme Court gets involved in whether it's OK to use vouchers at schools that teach religion. Eliminate the meddling and vouchers would be tolerable.

When public schools were created, the nation wasn't anywhere near as wealthy as it is today. Welfare didn't exist. Today we're far better off, so the economy can suffer an inefficient welfare system. We should privatize education and welfare over time, only entertaining the idea of stopping if it became clear that charity and other voluntary solutions had run their course and there was still a shortfall. With respect to education, possibilities beyond charity include student loans, scholarships, and ROTC-style programs operated by businesses.

[ilikeverin]

I like public schooling because at least you know that poorer students are getting some sort of education, while without them, you'd have to assume or hope that someone would give them any education.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I would imagine charitable organizations and individuals(such as the Catholic Church)

I went to Catholic schools for 8 years, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. (Well, maybe I'd wish it on my WORST[/i] enemies, but I wouldn't wish it on my sort of bad enemies.)

[John Dibble]

On Catholic School - well, like it or not, it's better than not learning to read or write.

Now, I'd like to say what I said earlier is not my actual position on what to do about our school problems, I was merely answering the posed question - it was what I thought would happen if public schools were abolished.

My actual position on what to do about the schools is much more realistic, and doesn't abolish them. What I think needs to be done is to get the federal government and to a large degree the state governments out of the process. Leave the school system to local(county) government. With the federal government out of the system, we don't get ridiculous things like No Child Left Behind, and other nonsense. The schools in one area are not the same as others, so you can't apply the same standards and practices to them, and the federal government is too large scale to do this. The state government should only serve to give a little extra funding now and then, but should not provide as much as they do(individual states will determine what basis this funding is given). Now, this leaves more to the local governments. The local governments are better able to micromanage their assets, so they can be more efficient with the money. Also, since federal and state government have been taken out of the process for the most part, local school board officials can be held more accountable for bad school performance(they have nobody else to blame it on), so they will have a greater motivation to make the system work, otherwise they get voted out of their jobs. Vouchers and other such things could be handled by the local governments, and intercounty voucher systems could be negotiated as well.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

On Catholic School - well, like it or not, it's better than not learning to read or write.

I have my doubts about that.

[John Dibble]

On Catholic School - well, like it or not, it's better than not learning to read or write.

I have my doubts about that.

Ok, so you have doubts that lacking the basic abilities to get a decent job is superior to not going to Catholic School to attain said abilities. You live in a crazy world, bandit.

[muon2]

On Catholic School - well, like it or not, it's better than not learning to read or write.

Now, I'd like to say what I said earlier is not my actual position on what to do about our school problems, I was merely answering the posed question - it was what I thought would happen if public schools were abolished.

My actual position on what to do about the schools is much more realistic, and doesn't abolish them. What I think needs to be done is to get the federal government and to a large degree the state governments out of the process. Leave the school system to local(county) government. With the federal government out of the system, we don't get ridiculous things like No Child Left Behind, and other nonsense. The schools in one area are not the same as others, so you can't apply the same standards and practices to them, and the federal government is too large scale to do this. The state government should only serve to give a little extra funding now and then, but should not provide as much as they do(individual states will determine what basis this funding is given). Now, this leaves more to the local governments. The local governments are better able to micromanage their assets, so they can be more efficient with the money. Also, since federal and state government have been taken out of the process for the most part, local school board officials can be held more accountable for bad school performance(they have nobody else to blame it on), so they will have a greater motivation to make the system work, otherwise they get voted out of their jobs. Vouchers and other such things could be handled by the local governments, and intercounty voucher systems could be negotiated as well.

Actually John, that is an extremely realistic position. Based on my experience, I would have the business, planning, and staff contractual aspects in a region no larger than the region served by a typical community college. The region can't be too small, or business decisions become too costly, due to inflexibility of the resource pool. I would then create school board districts for each separate building to oversee the adminstrative staffing and curriculum implementation.

I agree that the state should have a role. I see two functions, one is to provide an insurance of financial stability, so that if a region has too few resources to draw on a foundation-level of support is guaranteed. I think there is also a role for the state (and perhaps the nation) in providing minimal equivalency standards. This is necessary since families move and there needs to be a way to transfer students from one school to another and have some sense that grade levels mean roughly the same thing.

[ilikeverin]

My actual position on what to do about the schools is much more realistic, and doesn't abolish them. What I think needs to be done is to get the federal government and to a large degree the state governments out of the process. Leave the school system to local(county) government. With the federal government out of the system, we don't get ridiculous things like No Child Left Behind, and other nonsense. The schools in one area are not the same as others, so you can't apply the same standards and practices to them, and the federal government is too large scale to do this. The state government should only serve to give a little extra funding now and then, but should not provide as much as they do(individual states will determine what basis this funding is given). Now, this leaves more to the local governments. The local governments are better able to micromanage their assets, so they can be more efficient with the money. Also, since federal and state government have been taken out of the process for the most part, local school board officials can be held more accountable for bad school performance(they have nobody else to blame it on), so they will have a greater motivation to make the system work, otherwise they get voted out of their jobs. Vouchers and other such things could be handled by the local governments, and intercounty voucher systems could be negotiated as well.

I like most of that except for vouchers and lessening of federal money.  If we provide more money, then the schools will have more choices, no?

[muon2]

My actual position on what to do about the schools is much more realistic, and doesn't abolish them. What I think needs to be done is to get the federal government and to a large degree the state governments out of the process. Leave the school system to local(county) government. With the federal government out of the system, we don't get ridiculous things like No Child Left Behind, and other nonsense. The schools in one area are not the same as others, so you can't apply the same standards and practices to them, and the federal government is too large scale to do this. The state government should only serve to give a little extra funding now and then, but should not provide as much as they do(individual states will determine what basis this funding is given). Now, this leaves more to the local governments. The local governments are better able to micromanage their assets, so they can be more efficient with the money. Also, since federal and state government have been taken out of the process for the most part, local school board officials can be held more accountable for bad school performance(they have nobody else to blame it on), so they will have a greater motivation to make the system work, otherwise they get voted out of their jobs. Vouchers and other such things could be handled by the local governments, and intercounty voucher systems could be negotiated as well.

I like most of that except for vouchers and lessening of federal money.  If we provide more money, then the schools will have more choices, no?

Not necessarily. Often, more money means doing more of the same. Creating choices requires people who are willing to think differently, and sometimes adversity can do that better than plenty.

[John Dibble]

My actual position on what to do about the schools is much more realistic, and doesn't abolish them. What I think needs to be done is to get the federal government and to a large degree the state governments out of the process. Leave the school system to local(county) government. With the federal government out of the system, we don't get ridiculous things like No Child Left Behind, and other nonsense. The schools in one area are not the same as others, so you can't apply the same standards and practices to them, and the federal government is too large scale to do this. The state government should only serve to give a little extra funding now and then, but should not provide as much as they do(individual states will determine what basis this funding is given). Now, this leaves more to the local governments. The local governments are better able to micromanage their assets, so they can be more efficient with the money. Also, since federal and state government have been taken out of the process for the most part, local school board officials can be held more accountable for bad school performance(they have nobody else to blame it on), so they will have a greater motivation to make the system work, otherwise they get voted out of their jobs. Vouchers and other such things could be handled by the local governments, and intercounty voucher systems could be negotiated as well.

I like most of that except for vouchers and lessening of federal money.  If we provide more money, then the schools will have more choices, no?

Actually, most schools use very little federal money. In the county I went to school in, federal funding accounted for about 1% of total expense. I also find that many people think that if you throw money at something it will make it better, but this is a flawed concept. Give the worst teacher in the world the best equipment and books for the subject, and that teacher would do worse than the best teacher in the world using only chalk and a blackboard. Same goes for school boards - some just suck at using money the right way. It is my opinion that schools and school boards need to act like businesses and businessmen - trying to produce the best quality product(good students) at the lowest possible price.

On vouchers, I'm actually neutral - I don't think there's enough data on them to make a case one way or the other. I am merely saying if a school district wishes to implement them, they should be able to do so in a flexible manner that suits their needs.

[John Dibble]

I agree that the state should have a role. I see two functions, one is to provide an insurance of financial stability, so that if a region has too few resources to draw on a foundation-level of support is guaranteed. I think there is also a role for the state (and perhaps the nation) in providing minimal equivalency standards. This is necessary since families move and there needs to be a way to transfer students from one school to another and have some sense that grade levels mean roughly the same thing.

I agree with this, and was going to say something like it, but decided not to. To decide statewide standards, the school boards of all the counties in a state should get together every few years and determine the basic standards. This keeps the school boards accountable, because if someone else did it they could blame shamefully low standards on someone else. For VERY basic federal standards, the afformentioned gathering of schoolboards would elect representatives among themselves(perhaps the ones for the county that has been doing best by the state standards, to ensure quality) for a similar federal gathering. Once again, since this is composed of local officials, they are still kept accountable.

[swarch]

<snip>
I agree that the state should have a role. I see two functions, one is to provide an insurance of financial stability, so that if a region has too few resources to draw on a foundation-level of support is guaranteed. I think there is also a role for the state (and perhaps the nation) in providing minimal equivalency standards. This is necessary since families move and there needs to be a way to transfer students from one school to another and have some sense that grade levels mean roughly the same thing.

Government doesn't need to set standards. Private schools would provide them because consumers would demand them. There are many things that industries standardize on their own, everything from the size of screws to the protocols that underpin communication networks.

[ilikeverin]

<snip>
I agree that the state should have a role. I see two functions, one is to provide an insurance of financial stability, so that if a region has too few resources to draw on a foundation-level of support is guaranteed. I think there is also a role for the state (and perhaps the nation) in providing minimal equivalency standards. This is necessary since families move and there needs to be a way to transfer students from one school to another and have some sense that grade levels mean roughly the same thing.

Government doesn't need to set standards. Private schools would provide them because consumers would demand them. There are many things that industries standardize on their own, everything from the size of screws to the protocols that underpin communication networks.

So nice to know I'm a commodity to be bought and sold.