I had to read this recent Mark Hare column (Rochester, NY newspaper) twice to be sure of what I was seeing. I didn't expect to see Mr. Hare endorse one of Milton Friedman's most notable ideas: education vouchers. (pic via Wikipedia)
"The best way to eliminate "theft of education" is to let parents buy their kids a public education with vouchers that are good in any school district, not just the one they live in."Let's read on:
"School districts across Monroe County employ investigators charged with finding students who are illegally enrolled in a school outside their home district. I don't fault school districts for policing the residency of students. Schools in New York spend an average of $15,000 per child per year, and the taxpayers in Brighton or Greece shouldn't be picking up the tab to educate kids from elsewhere."Whoa, here we go. If taxpayers from the towns of Brighton or Greece should not be picking-up the tab to educate kids from say Henrietta or Rochester, why should one's other neighbors? Where is the line?
I see no moral case for forcing someone to pay for the education of another's children. Should there be a distinction between neighbors that are next door, 5 doors down, two blocks away? I see no difference.
And if we are incensed at the idea of taxpayers in the next town paying for a local kid's education, what are we to make of federal education money coming from Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, Colorado, Maine?
And a little more:
"My concern is that every child gets a chance for an excellent public education."If history has taught us anything it might be that 'excellent public education' might very well be an oxymoron. ;-)
Well, how might we solve the problems?
"The most common proposed remedy for poor-performing urban schools is to infuse them with more money ..."That's certainly the most commonly proposed remedy, but I'm not convinced it's the best. A better solution might be to get the govt. out of the education business altogether. Should we expect better results when we thrown more money at schools run by the NEA and govt.? The same people that bring us FEMA, the Iraq war, the USPS, Walter Reed VA hospital, and the DMV? In fact, it often seem like there is an inverse relationship between districts that spend the most money and outcomes.
And I don't buy the poverty angle as a cause. Many thousands, even millions of students did very well in decades long ago with standards of living far below what we would consider lower-middle-class today, and with nary a computer in sight. Why would we expect a student to get better grades and learn more simply by sitting him/her next to student from a wealthy family?
Anyway, I'm glad to see Mr. Hare appreciate the value of competition. Our children deserve no less.
Related links:
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton High? by Walter Williams
Black Education by Walter E. Williams
Black Education II by Walter Williams
Thomas Sowell - "The Education of Minority Children"
3 comments:
I am a casual reader, and not as comfortably versed in socio-economic theories, practice, or realities as I should be to comment about this but I do want to throw out these comments for follow-up by you or your other readers:
When you state, "I see no moral case for forcing someone to pay for the education of another's children," I am a little confused. Perhaps if you could define "moral" to us, in your own words or understanding, it might help me see it the same context as you and explain my point of view better. I think the context you use of "forcing others" changes ANY aspect of an action to be non-moral. But then taxes are voluntary: you can always move. :)
I think we would agree that the main benefit for public funding of education is that it sets the foundation (rather than saying "lowest standard") for the members of the community to have for education (especially including those not currently able to finance it externally to the tax-funded education system). This education increases their potential for leading stable, productive, legal lives in the community, and therefore benefits the community. It's more of a "business" reason that a moral one, perhaps. However, there is certainly a moral aspect to the cause. I can't articulate it well, but I believe it is there. It's not purely selfish "pay it forward" thinking that has childless persons helping to pay, via taxes, for others' children.
As for your other point about where to draw the line on that aspect, perhaps that is why we have a federal DOE: to ensure that as one nation we have a foundation. Members of a town, county, state fund education through taxes because these communities, although there might be more emigration now-a-days, see relatively little change in population from those who grew up there. Therefore, we reap what we sow...
Now how to solve the poor management of money for the results is bigger than just the education-tax-DOE system. It's about family stability, economic security, and the values that we as a society place on education and the subsequent priority we give it. Until the gestalt of all that begins to change, we will not see any drastic changes to the results.
Hmm. Robert's comment deserves an entire, additional post in repsonse.
I just wanted to say that this fisking of an article is one of your best posts, ever. I rarely comment, but I've been here for quite a while. I enjoy more commentary and opinion than simple sentences to introduce an interesting link.
Matter of fact, I came over to Firefox to make this comment. For some reason, Blogger does not play well with Opera (my primary browser).
More of this please, Speedy. I've seen you on various websites that I visit, follow you on Lifehacker, and always enjoy reading what you have to say. Just because I rarely comment, please don't take that as a slight.
BTW, are you on KnifeForums?
Let these words sink in:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this ... United States of America."
This is the simple, one-sentence Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Everything falling into the realm of public discourse is subject to the principle defined by this statement. Everything.
As such, then ... if you let those words sink in (as, indeed, you must) ... you should quickly discover the Amateur Economist's ideas on education are absurd. Indeed, they are dangerous by the divide they propose erecting.
"Divide and conquer" is classic strategy used by those backing the British Empire ... the very enterprise the United States was formed to oppose.
Don't get it wrong. The United States does not stand as a nation facilitating an equal equity stake. Yet, in all ways a People can organize itself so that every person's claim to an abundant equity stake is most effectively facilitated ... this is what a government of, by and for the People is made to accomplish.
And such matters as basic as eduction ... banking and finance ... insurance ... health care ... rightfully belong in the purview of government.
Financial Sprockets — Get in the Spin
Post a Comment