Tunnel vision
You gotta give it to purebred libertarians, they never let their vision of how the world ought to work be distorted by any realities about how it actually works. Nowhwere is this clearer than in K-12 education, where the CATO crowd, indistinguishable nowadays from the “separation of school and state crowd,” basically doesn’t believe in any form of public education. They believe in private education, purchased in the marketplace by parents who want and can afford it for their kids from schools that are not accountable to anybody for anything except keeping those tuition payments rolling in the door. The heck with everybody else’s kids. The heck with an educated polity or transmitted common culture. Check out Neil McCluskey’s review of my book.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I read Neil McClusky’s review. I doubt I’ll read Chester Finn’s book.
Mr.Finn raises two objections to the free market vision for the education industry:
1) Accountability: Market-driven schools are accountable to parents. The most effective accountability mechanism humans have yet devised is a policy which gives to unhappy customers the power to take their business elsewhere.
2) Affordability: School may be expensive. Education is potentially cheap. It does not take 12 years at $10,000 per student-year to teach a normal child to read and compute. Much vocational training occurs more effectively on the job than in a classroom. State-controlled Civics instruction is a clear threat to democracy, just as State control of news media would be (are, in totalitarian States).
The education industry is not a natural monopoly. Beyond a very low level, there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education business as it currently operates. “Natural monopoly” and “economies of scale” are two usual welfare-economic arguments for State (government generally) operation of an industry. Even when an industry qualifies as a natural monopoly or exhibits significant economies of scale, the case for State (government, generally) operation is not decisive, and in any case, the education is not a natural monopoly and does not exhibit significant economies of scale at the delivery end. Education only marginaly qualifies as a public good as economists use the term, and the “public goods” argument implies subsidy and regulation at most, not State operation of schools.
Compulsory attendance statutes mean nothing unless some school is compelled to admit students rejected everywhere else. Call these default-option schools “the public school system”. Likely, these default-option schools would cost more, per pupil-year, to operate than would schools which assembled their clientelle by mutual agreement. Legislators could save taxpayer money if they periodically put the contract to operate default-option schools out to bid, and gave to individual parents the power to determine which schools shall receive the taxpayers’ K-12 education subsidy.
Myron Lieberman suggests that financial pressure (the looming retirement of the baby boomers) may eventually compel legislators to end the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel’s exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers’ pre-college education subsidy. An end to the State’s presence in the education industry is not likely. While charter schools, school vouchers, tuition tax credits, and subsidized homeschooling would be big improvements on the current State-monopoly school system, I prefer a policy I call Parent Performance Contracting.
http://harriettubmanagenda.blogspot.com/2005/12/proposal.html
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
PS. I believe in “public education” (i.e., government-controlled schools). I also beliieve in earthquakes, cholera, and crab lice. But I wouldn’t wish them on anyone.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Finn suggests that private schools are not accountability. This shows that his faculties of reasoning and logic have never been fully developed. A private school actually has the HIGHEST AND MOST STRINGENT form of accountability — to parents. That is, unless you think educrats, politicians and foundation presidents are more qualified than parents to make one of the most important decisions of children’s lives.
Also, to suggest that school choice harms the poor is utter nonsense and smacks of elitism. Finn should use his considerable influence to change “the real world” — so that it includes choice for all children. His efforts would better be served doing that than attacking those of us trying to restore our educational liberties.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Is there a specific reason you won’t debate the “purebred libertarians” at Cato instead of cowardly misrepresenting their views from the safety of your own blog? Whatever became of intellectual honesty?
April 29th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Check out a response (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/04/28/a-checkered-present/) to Mr. Finn’s offensive reaction (above) to Neal McKluskey’s review (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23129) of Mr. Finn’s book.
Based solely on Mr. Finn’s commentary above, I have to question whether he understands the basics of logic and reasoning. Ad hominem and intentional misrepresentation are not legitimate methods of debate.
Note that teacher’s unions are “not accountable to anybody for anything” except keeping the paychecks and dues rolling in the door. What *educational* function do unions perform that justifies the excessive power they wield in our current public eduction system?
Richard
PS. It’s “Cato”, not “CATO”. And it’s “Neal”, not “Neil”. Talk about disrespect...