Public Education.

[jth_ttu]

I know Ron Paul supports Private Schools and Home Schooling, but Im not sure what his entire stance is. Does he advocate abolishing Public Education completely?

[MRoCkEd]

He would support dismantling the Federal Department of Education. While he as a U.S. Congressman has no power over what states do, it is safe to say he doesn't want government education to exist at any level.

[jth_ttu]

I agree with eliminating the Federal Department of Education, but I have to say I disagree with eliminating state education systems. I am against most government programs, but this is one I believe is a neccesity. As flawed as public education is, how can we guaruntee that children will get any education without a public education system on a state level. Many parents are irresponsible and wouldnt educate their children if it werent for the government. Someone please refute my opinion.

[Kludge]

As flawed as public education is, how can we guaruntee that children will get any education without a public education system on a state level.

School vouchers. Pay for students' tuition (up to a reasonable amount). Slightly increase funding to students who go to school outside their "district" to better reward schools which parents prefer (as currently done with "School of Choice" programs). Allow lesser funding to home-schooling parents for schools supplies given students pass basic exams.

[jth_ttu]

I think vouchers are a great Idea, but with vouchers government still has a major role in education.

[Kludge]

I think vouchers are a great Idea, but with vouchers government still has a major role in education.

Yes, the way vouchers are implemented will determine whether or not the government will just turn private education into de facto public education by mandating they meet requirements for their funding. This is currently the method in which the federal government mandates states without actually making a mandate. Devil's in the details, but I think a comprehensive voucher system which bars the federal/state gov't from interfering in how schools educate is an achievable goal. Technology grants (and other categorical education grants) as they are lead to a lot of waste I've witnessed first-hand, just coming out of high school. Many teachers have projectors, in-class computers, and electronic whiteboard devices which track their pen movements to use with the projector (which is very cool, BTW) is rarely, if ever, used by the teachers who spent hours in training. I believe it would be best to grant money based simply on how many students attend and then allow the school board to appropriate money where it belongs. Legislation beyond that would need to be watched by voters and blocked, but government will likely eventually take over again and the whole system will again need to be reset.

Recently, the government has started requiring all students attend the school for a full day. For small schools, AP classes are often done online. There is no reason students should spend 40+ minutes per day, often without work [I ended up just clicking Wikipedia cross-references most days], taking up space in a computer lab when it could be done at home. This wastes the school's money, as it needs to build more computer labs and hire babysitters, and it wastes the students' time.

"Count Day," of course, is an absolutely ridiculous way to determine how much money a school should receive. Teachers are implementing "daily points" (points which cannot be made up if you miss the day) for Count Day to encourage students to attend. Schools throw parties on that day. Pizza parties, fiestas, handing out candy.... They waste the entire day. The State probably wastes more money than it saves while adding stress to local schools.

Being government, they have also made a number of other awful policy choices (such as some states requiring public school teachers be due-paying Union members), many of which are listed on the Mackinac Center (http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7962)'s website. So many options are out there on education, but the government seems committed to the same over-reaching bureaucracy which destroyed the USSR from the inside. Ron Paul certainly does not support the status quo on education, a policy created by authoritarian Democrats AND Republicans, and I imagine he'd support a number of alternatives wherein the responsibility to educate is given to school boards while funding comes from state governments.

[Danke]

...but government will likely eventually take over again and the whole system will again need to be reset.


So, why would we not want Government out of it completely again?

P.S. That had to have been the longest Kludge authored post ever! (or at least serious one).

[angelatc]

So, why would we not want Government out of it completely again?

.

Because there's not enough charity in the world to send all the inner city kids to school.

[jth_ttu]

So, why would we not want Government out of it completely again?

P.S. That had to have been the longest Kludge authored post ever! (or at least serious one).

As much as I would like to see the government out of education, I dont think it is possible without seriously hurting the country. Unlike roads, healthcare, the mail, and other government programs; in education you are trusting that parents will make the right decisions for their children. If government had no involvement in education, some negligent parents wouldn't educate their kids and all. Vouchers are one of the least intrusive ways of the government running the education system.

[Kludge]

So, why would we not want Government out of it completely again?

P.S. That had to have been the longest Kludge authored post ever! (or at least serious one).

I doubt it would be politically sound. There's a lot we can do on the local level. We can campaign hard for frugal school board members who are willing to outsource or cut services (so many are offered which have NOTHING to do with education) to save money. I was very happy when the school board made it policy to turn off central heating for the school. They even won an award for energy conservation (http://blog.mlive.com/citpat/2008/09/western_school_earns_energy_co.html). An educated-oriented education system can be done on the local level, even if they have to put up with absurd state/federal government burdens. We can work on that getting federal gov't funding out of education later, maybe after we end the imperialist foreign policy. I think it would be a fair compromise to get the government out of determining how and when schools educate in exchange for allowing federal funding to continue if this is the only practical way to get education reform through politics without dedicating all our resources to it.

[heavenlyboy34]

As much as I would like to see the government out of education, I dont think it is possible without seriously hurting the country. Unlike roads, healthcare, the mail, and other government programs; in education you are trusting that parents will make the right decisions for their children. If government had no involvement in education, some negligent parents wouldn't educate their kids and all. Vouchers are one of the least intrusive ways of the government running the education system.


Yes, but those children of negligent parents would simply take work in unskilled sectors or perhaps be an apprentice to someone. Not everyone is cut out for school, ya know.

"Lincoln, hardly a slouch as writer, speaker, or thinker, packed fifty weeks of formal schooling into his entire life over the twelve-year period between 1814 and 1826. Even that little seemed a waste of time to his relatives. "


-John Taylor Gatto, from the book "Dumbing Down America".

As you look into the history of education, you'll see that the post-war American model is bass-akwards to how children actually learn. Just my 2 cents.

[dannno]

Because there's not enough charity in the world to send all the inner city kids to school.

The "inner city" is caused by the Fed. The Fed brings dollars into epicenters of economic activity while decreasing the wealth of those who live outside of the city. This causes more people to move to the city which decreases the wealth of others in the city with their same skill set, as cities become over-run with people clamoring for Fed dollars. That's why there are so many poor people in cities, well, that an the inherent inefficiency of a non-free market.. Without the Fed, and with true liberty, cities would be smaller, less dense and more people would live in rural areas and farm. Instead of giant agribusiness coming in and taking over farming, the farmers themselves would be able to expand and utilize this technology so that they can grow more crops without as much human labor.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes, the way vouchers are implemented will determine whether or not the government will just turn private education into de facto public education by mandating they meet requirements for their funding.

You need go no further than that. Federal government involvement of any kind is a mistake, including vouchers. "Public" education is best handled at the local level. Even the State level is too big.

[.Tom]

There's plenty of ways to learn. Coercive education has no place in a free society. You can learn plenty of things without formal education.

The market will always adapt.