What Libertarians Do

[Beatsong]

Government never does anything better, more efficiently or more cost-effectively than private industry, ever.

As this line seems to be at the base of many (if not most) of your claims, I am sure you can base it on a plethora of good research results? Especially the superlatives "never...ever" needs backing, as there is little dispute that the private sector is often more efficient than the public.

Maybe, once you have shown your evidence, you would also indulge me in explaining how the (according to you necessarily ineffective) public schooling in Finland manages to strike the top PISA result year after year? As a Finn, I would obviously be flattered by it all being a consequence of our superior intellect, but somehow I still don't believe that's the point. And while you might want to check the numbers yourself, we are not using uncanny amounts of money on our elementary schools, either.

Try the free market. It's always better, more efficient and less costly because for one thing it doesn't have to support the overhead of a typically wasteful government bureaucracy and all the bloated bureaucrats who are most interested in padding their own incomes at public expense.

Also, no government-run agency has a profit motive to keep costs down, so they spend whatever they can get, in many cases so they won't have their budgets cut for not using all of last year's budget.

Any private business can and does easily outstrip government in every single area where services are offered precisely because of the profit motive.

In other words, I'm going to take your very clear, pertinent, real-world example about the excellent world-leading Finnish state education system, pretend it doesn't exist and just repeat my doctrine like a deaf retard as though you never made it.

[hadespussercats]

What Warren said - I'd like to see ALL schools private. I got a damn good education at a private school, but not many families could afford the $20,000+ annual tuition (and that back in the early 70s). Vouchers would allow parents without the financial means to send their kids to better schools.

Not that the Florida public school system is that bad, actually there are some pretty decent public schools. However, I think that privatizing the educational system would benefit all parties, except perhaps the officials at the teacher's union.

Sorry lak I'm open to any way of thinking about it that might improve education, but I'm seriously missing something here.

Many (not all) private schools are better than state schools for one basic reason: they have more money. They don't have access to some mysterious secret formula or education wizardry. It's not rocket science: if your spending on the education you provide works out to 20 grand per pupil, then all else being equal, you will be able to do more, better, than if you were spending 10 grand per pupil.

Which means the only way your voucher system is going to have the desired effect of raising standards for all to private school levels is if THE FUNDING OF THEM IS RAISED TO PRIVATE SCHOOL LEVELS.

And if you're going to fund them to private school levels, then YOU COULD ACHIEVE THE SAME EFFECT JUST BY PUTTING THAT FUNDING INTO THE CURRENT STATE SYSTEM ANYWAY!

Furthermore, how the fuck does all this tally with your whole libertarian low-tax thing anyway? You celebrate the fact that you got an education that cost much more than most peoples', then say that the government should make that available to everyone through your voucher system... but of course all within the context of small government and low taxes?

I fail to understand what you think a voucher system is going to change, without a truly massive change in funding that would make current libby outrage about that pinko Obama look like small beans in comparison.

I hear what you're saying, re- funding. That's a big caveat for me, too. But Warren posted information indication that the funding ratio public v. private is surprisingly close. Possibly there's a difference in management that makes a difference (I suspect selectiveness of the student body probably plays a big part, too-- since public schools by their nature need to try to meet the needs of all comers.)

I'm skeptical. But I'm feeling more open-minded about vouchers. I need to look into it more.

[Beatsong]

I hear what you're saying, re- funding. That's a big caveat for me, too. But Warren posted information indication that the funding ratio public v. private is surprisingly close. Possibly there's a difference in management that makes a difference (I suspect selectiveness of the student body probably plays a big part, too-- since public schools by their nature need to try to meet the needs of all comers.)

I'm skeptical. But I'm feeling more open-minded about vouchers. I need to look into it more.

To say that the funding ration of private to public schooling is "close" is misleading for at least two reasons. Firstly, as you point out private schools educate a far wealthier, more selected student body with massive advantages and superior support from home coming in. Thus the money they spend is how much it takes to educate just those kinds of children effectively. State schools have to deal with all the learning difficulties, behavioural difficulties and elements of poverty and disadvantage that the private schools can turn their back on. And all of that costs money. Thus the fact that private schools manage to educate their [/i]current[/i] intake on a particular budget, does not mean for one second that the same model applied to the entire country would achieve anything like the same results on the same budget.

Secondly, it's very difficult to make valid generalisations about "private schools". The very fact of them being unhooked from governmental control means there is much greater scope for variety. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK there are many private schools that are really quite awful - crap buildings, crap facilities, dinosaur teachers teaching to dinosaur methods, small minded parochial attitudes. Some of these are extremely cheap by private school standards, and would bring the average of what private schools cost down considerably. But they are not what people mean when they talk about how great private schools are and what great results they achieve. Those are the schools charging far more - like lak lak himself said of his own.

I'd love to hear what exactly is the magic secret that would make a voucher system achieve so much more than the current system with the same money. I might even be open to it if it seemed a compelling argument. But so far it seems to be based on the arrant fallacy that it will make every neighbourhood school a mini-Eton, despite a far more challenging socio-economic intake and a quarter of the budget. That's ignorant nonsense.

[hadespussercats]

I hear what you're saying, re- funding. That's a big caveat for me, too. But Warren posted information indication that the funding ratio public v. private is surprisingly close. Possibly there's a difference in management that makes a difference (I suspect selectiveness of the student body probably plays a big part, too-- since public schools by their nature need to try to meet the needs of all comers.)

I'm skeptical. But I'm feeling more open-minded about vouchers. I need to look into it more.

To say that the funding ration of private to public schooling is "close" is misleading for at least two reasons. Firstly, as you point out private schools educate a far wealthier, more selected student body with massive advantages and superior support from home coming in. Thus the money they spend is how much it takes to educate just those kinds of children effectively. State schools have to deal with all the learning difficulties, behavioural difficulties and elements of poverty and disadvantage that the private schools can turn their back on. And all of that costs money. Thus the fact that private schools manage to educate their [/i]current[/i] intake on a particular budget, does not mean for one second that the same model applied to the entire country would achieve anything like the same results on the same budget.

Secondly, it's very difficult to make valid generalisations about "private schools". The very fact of them being unhooked from governmental control means there is much greater scope for variety. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK there are many private schools that are really quite awful - crap buildings, crap facilities, dinosaur teachers teaching to dinosaur methods, small minded parochial attitudes. Some of these are extremely cheap by private school standards, and would bring the average of what private schools cost down considerably. But they are not what people mean when they talk about how great private schools are and what great results they achieve. Those are the schools charging far more - like lak lak himself said of his own.

I'd love to hear what exactly is the magic secret that would make a voucher system achieve so much more than the current system with the same money. I might even be open to it if it seemed a compelling argument. But so far it seems to be based on the arrant fallacy that it will make every neighbourhood school a mini-Eton, despite a far more challenging socio-economic intake and a quarter of the budget. That's ignorant nonsense.

You should read some more of the thread. There's been a bit of discussion about many of the issues you've raised, and some of the commentary has been really thoughtful.

[Warren Dew]

I went to public school, and did well, but my parents were always encouraging us to learn, read, experiment, research on our own time-- which makes a big difference (actually, I think there have been formal studies recently that support this.)

Yes. I figured public schools were fine because I went to them - until I had kids and really thought about it. At that point I realized that rarely did I encounter things in public school that I didn't already know. My parents did a good job.

But then, take that idea to a logical conclusion and you have us homeschooling -- which I've tended to hold in contempt. I may be changing my views on that. Still, if paying for a private school is expensive, staying home indefinitely isn't cheap-- and we'd still need to consider his social life, and his opportunity to experience or learn about things that we don't know about or can't provide.

I gained a lot of respect for homeschooling when started following a few blogs of homeschoolers. Of course, the ones with blogs might be more articulate than average. Still the sparse statistics I've been able to find seem to indicate that homeschooled children tend to do quite well - which makes some sense when you consider the very favorable teacher to student ratio.

As you say, though, homeschooling is among the most expensive schooling options.

[Warren Dew]

And I still have reservations, regarding special education/special needs, and how education is evaluated in terms of cost effectiveness (I don't think a profit-based system is appropriate.)

Most private schools, including the ritzy ones, are nonprofit institutions - not that I would have any problem with someone making a profit if it got my children better educations for less cost, any more than I have a problem with the teachers getting paid for doing a good job.

I think vouchers would do a much better job with special needs children. In many cases, the problem with special needs children is really a problem with the artificial environment of standard classroom based education, not a problem with the children themselves. A competitive voucher based system would allow some schools to specialize in kids who have different learning styles. And for the children who really aren't capable of learning at normal rates, schools which were patient enough to let them learn at their own rates might be good.

[hadespussercats]

And I still have reservations, regarding special education/special needs, and how education is evaluated in terms of cost effectiveness (I don't think a profit-based system is appropriate.)

Most private schools, including the ritzy ones, are nonprofit institutions - not that I would have any problem with someone making a profit if it got my children better educations for less cost, any more than I have a problem with the teachers getting paid for doing a good job.

I think vouchers would do a much better job with special needs children. In many cases, the problem with special needs children is really a problem with the artificial environment of standard classroom based education, not a problem with the children themselves. A competitive voucher based system would allow some schools to specialize in kids who have different learning styles. And for the children who really aren't capable of learning at normal rates, schools which were patient enough to let them learn at their own rates might be good.

Vouchers as a tool to facilitate customized schooling? Well, I guess that is the idea in any case-- just more noticeable when you're addressing special needs.

But what if the school you need doesn't exist? I mean, what if there are kids holding vouchers with no place good to go with them? In the system as it stands, the public school is at least a placeholder, or a default. If there are kids that aren't going to be served well by the schools that are available to them, who intervenes, in a libertarian system? Does the state still play a role in evaluation and placement? Starting new schools?

[Warren Dew]

But what if the school you need doesn't exist? I mean, what if there are kids holding vouchers with no place good to go with them? In the system as it stands, the public school is at least a placeholder, or a default. If there are kids that aren't going to be served well by the schools that are available to them, who intervenes, in a libertarian system?

If we're still talking about special needs, a single teacher could set up a school with a dozen kids in her class. For example, there are intelligent, well educated, high functioning auties who have an interest in teaching and would like nothing better than to teach a roomful of autistic kids. I think one would have to be in a very unusual population subset not to be able to find any appropriate school.

I suspect that with vouchers, there will still be schools that are kind of the default - the ones that decide to be big schools with a lot of kids, rather than small schools specializing in niches. They'll just have their interests more closely aligned with those of the parents and of the children than do public schools.

Even with public schools, though, what if the school a child needs doesn't exist? I know one very good public school teacher, now retired, that talks about the ultimate in a kid with learning disabilities - a child who was in a persistent vegetative state. His assistant wheeled him into the class, he sat there slack jawed and unseeing, and they wheeled him out at the end. The other teachers called him "the dead kid". What can you do? No school is going to have any success with that, public or otherwise.

For my part, I think the government has a part to play in providing standardized testing, though Seth will no doubt argue that a nongovernmental entity such as Educational Testing Service might do a better job. The government should not dictate the result of that testing; schools should be allowed to decide their own policies on whether they used the results of those tests for grade advancement or whatever. Standardized tests would, however, be very useful as feedback to the parents.

I'm on the pragmatic side of libertarian, so I'm also okay with some form of equal access regulation. I'd be okay either with voucher schools being required to accept people on a first come, first served basis, for example, or with the government providing a public alternative school that operated on the same funding basis as the voucher schools. However, if the government operated a school, they shouldn't be allowed to regulate the voucher schools, because of the conflict of interest involved.

[hadespussercats]

I'd be okay either with voucher schools being required to accept people on a first come, first served basis, for example, or with the government providing a public alternative school that operated on the same funding basis as the voucher schools. However, if the government operated a school, they shouldn't be allowed to regulate the voucher schools, because of the conflict of interest involved.

So let's say there were any number of schools in a system that had entrance requirements-- academic merit, or sports, or mathematics, or arts conservatory, or what have you. This government-run alternative school would be an option for kids that couldn't get into or didn't want to attend the other schools?

I guess what I'm wondering about is that I do think private schools' ability to control their student body size, and to have special requirements for attendance, are key elements that give those schools an edge over public schools. But I'm committed to the notion that an educated general populace is a good for everyone in that society-- which is why I worry about what might happen to kids who don't meet the standards of the private schools. But I'd rather the answer not be that those private schools just remove their standards.

[MiM]

Many (not all) private schools are better than state schools for one basic reason: they have more money. They don't have access to some mysterious secret formula or education wizardry. It's not rocket science: if your spending on the education you provide works out to 20 grand per pupil, then all else being equal, you will be able to do more, better, than if you were spending 10 grand per pupil.

Which means the only way your voucher system is going to have the desired effect of raising standards for all to private school levels is if THE FUNDING OF THEM IS RAISED TO PRIVATE SCHOOL LEVELS.

There is one other important factor too. Those parents who are willing and able to spend a fortune on sending their kids to private schools also likely value education more and give their kids more support at home. And public schools are left with most of the kids that come from homes with low value for education and lots of domestic problems. So private schools get more money and on an average get better pupils to start with. Private schools would have to be really shitty to not show better results.

[Warren Dew]

There is one other important factor too. Those parents who are willing and able to spend a fortune on sending their kids to private schools also likely value education more and give their kids more support at home. And public schools are left with most of the kids that come from homes with low value for education and lots of domestic problems. So private schools get more money and on an average get better pupils to start with. Private schools would have to be really shitty to not show better results.

In the U.S., I think the opposite is the case, especially for the high end private schools. Parents who pay a lot for private school tuition tend to be the parents who think the best way of improving their children's education is to spend money on it. Parents who instead spend time on giving their kids support at home are less likely to think that money is the solution.

[MrJonno]

Parents who instead spend time on giving their kids support at home are less likely to think that money is the solution.

The abilty to spend lots of time with kids requires lot of money, ie parent(s) working less hours to earn more

[Warren Dew]

I guess what I'm wondering about is that I do think private schools' ability to control their student body size, and to have special requirements for attendance, are key elements that give those schools an edge over public schools. But I'm committed to the notion that an educated general populace is a good for everyone in that society-- which is why I worry about what might happen to kids who don't meet the standards of the private schools. But I'd rather the answer not be that those private schools just remove their standards.

All schools could still control student body size, and I'd expect that schools could insist on standards on student attendance and progress.

Given the private school that worked so well for me had no admissions standards, and given most private schools in the U.S. weight both ability to pay and religious preference over academics, and still do better than public schools, I'm frankly skeptical that admissions standards are all that important to providing a better education. Admitting only students that are already above grade level results in an seemingly impressive result of graduating students that are well above grade level, but may only reflect advancement at an expected rate; my guess would be that placing people in a grade appropriate for their current grade level, rather than for their age, would work as well.

That said, I'd be open to being convinced. I'm not sure what the right comparison would be.

I do think that premium private schools, under my plan, would generally opt out of accepting vouchers and continue to charge steep tuitions and advertise strict admission standards. That's at least no worse than the present system. A voucher plan that allowed spending the voucher towards a higher tuition would allow you and me more flexibility to send our kids to premium schools, but at the possible societal cost of less equality.

[hadespussercats]

I guess what I'm wondering about is that I do think private schools' ability to control their student body size, and to have special requirements for attendance, are key elements that give those schools an edge over public schools. But I'm committed to the notion that an educated general populace is a good for everyone in that society-- which is why I worry about what might happen to kids who don't meet the standards of the private schools. But I'd rather the answer not be that those private schools just remove their standards.

All schools could still control student body size, and I'd expect that schools could insist on standards on student attendance and progress.

Given the private school that worked so well for me had no admissions standards, and given most private schools in the U.S. weight both ability to pay and religious preference over academics, and still do better than public schools, I'm frankly skeptical that admissions standards are all that important to providing a better education. Admitting only students that are already above grade level results in an seemingly impressive result of graduating students that are well above grade level, but may only reflect advancement at an expected rate; my guess would be that placing people in a grade appropriate for their current grade level, rather than for their age, would work as well.

That said, I'd be open to being convinced. I'm not sure what the right comparison would be.

I do think that premium private schools, under my plan, would generally opt out of accepting vouchers and continue to charge steep tuitions and advertise strict admission standards. That's at least no worse than the present system. A voucher plan that allowed spending the voucher towards a higher tuition would allow you and me more flexibility to send our kids to premium schools, but at the possible societal cost of less equality.

Food for thought.

[Seth]

Government never does anything better, more efficiently or more cost-effectively than private industry, ever.

As this line seems to be at the base of many (if not most) of your claims, I am sure you can base it on a plethora of good research results? Especially the superlatives "never...ever" needs backing, as there is little dispute that the private sector is often more efficient than the public.

Maybe, once you have shown your evidence, you would also indulge me in explaining how the (according to you necessarily ineffective) public schooling in Finland manages to strike the top PISA result year after year? As a Finn, I would obviously be flattered by it all being a consequence of our superior intellect, but somehow I still don't believe that's the point. And while you might want to check the numbers yourself, we are not using uncanny amounts of money on our elementary schools, either.

Try the free market. It's always better, more efficient and less costly because for one thing it doesn't have to support the overhead of a typically wasteful government bureaucracy and all the bloated bureaucrats who are most interested in padding their own incomes at public expense.

Also, no government-run agency has a profit motive to keep costs down, so they spend whatever they can get, in many cases so they won't have their budgets cut for not using all of last year's budget.

Any private business can and does easily outstrip government in every single area where services are offered precisely because of the profit motive.

In other words, I'm going to take your very clear, pertinent, real-world example about the excellent world-leading Finnish state education system, pretend it doesn't exist and just repeat my doctrine like a deaf retard as though you never made it.

I'm sure Finland has a lovely socialist education system. So what? Finland also has a high relative total tax burdens between a 30% income and 15-20% municipal tax rate and 28% capital gains tax. It's also a tiny country with a small population compared to the US. Throw enough tax money at education and any country can have an excellent education system. But that doesn't mean it's either affordable to the nation or particularly efficient or cost-effective. The fact remains that the free market and competition are always more efficient, cost-effective and gives better end results than government-funded anything simply because the profit motive keeps costs low, the competition keeps quality high, and keeps administration lean and effective, unlike government programs where there is no profit motive, and instead there is a motive to spend more every year, there is no competition, which means there is no incentive to keep quality high, and governments are the very epitome of bloated and wasteful bureaucracy, larding on layers of bureaucrats whose only real interest is in justifying their positions so they can keep slopping at the public trough. This is a feature of government bureaucrats worldwide, regardless of political ideology, and cannot be avoided except by taking their power and position away and turning their duties over to the free market.

So, for the deaf retards out there, any private business can easily outstrip any government program in every single area where services are offered in terms of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and quality of service. And that includes Finland.