Imagine spending 20k+ per student and arriving at the results these states produce!
Some of the most rewarding and educational experiences a child can have are completely free, especially those self-directed activities that occur outside in nature.
Well said. That is why I am so heartened to see that so many of the new alternative options have integrated active, outdoor time into their schedules, which thus helps foster that love of learning at all times and in all places.
Should your arguments be expanded to other municipal/state "services". I've never used the fire department, but a portion of my taxes fund them. I've never had to go to court, but a portion of my taxes fund the municipal court system, etc. If I need an ambulance, the city run ambulance department sends me a bill. Maybe the whole argument reduces to make all services fee for services provided. Those who decide to home school don't pay to subsidize someone else's children. Those with more children would pay more.
Yes, absolutely, except I would argue that no monopolies should exist in those services, either. Private ambulance services, fire departments, etc., would be the better (more moral and efficient) way forward (see here: https://mises.org/journal-libertarian-studies/privatization-municipality-provided-services), but in the interim, paying by usage is certainly preferred to the current system. Moreover, such services should charge prices like all other private service and goods providers, not bills based on a percentage of one's home value--as if that value has anything to do with service usage. For example, I pay the same price for trash service (which is privately provided by a company I chose) as my neighbor does. The trash company does not assess the values of our homes, assets, or incomes before determining our costs of service.
Regarding your last statement about children, I think even in the current exploitative system those with more children should pay more. It makes no sense and is certainly a recipe for overuse of the system to not charge larger families more for their use of the system (but simultaneously lower the taxes of those without children in the system).
Everyone in a society benefits from an educated populace. There are economic benefits from the availability of able employees and from customers prosperous enough to afford goods and services. The social benefit of living among more educated people is something we take for granted. As ragged as niceties have become of late, it would be much worse without the socialization provided by the schools.
The problem with the current system is that it subsidizes so much more than the children and families it supposedly serves. It has become a jobs program for teachers -- and increasingly for administrators. The designation of education as a government responsibility gives politicians more power as they distribute all the funds collected in its service. More importantly, it gives those with a firm grip on the Institution of Education as it exists today the power to decide curriculums.
Primary and secondary education have been billed to the public on the pay-as-you-go basis of property taxes. Now the taxpayer has been presented with the bill for higher education in the form of student loan debt forgiveness.
I agree with much of what you said, but the idea that (public) schools provide socialization unavailable elsewhere or even positive socialization in most cases is untrue in the case of the former and dubious in the case of the latter.
For example, socialization is quite natural for humans and has occurred across locations and time without compulsory schooling, so it seems unlikely that schools play any important role in that process. Moreover, much of the socialization in today's public schools is so abysmal that many parents and students are fleeing such schools because of that socialization (see the most popular reason given in this survey: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91). As I have detailed in previous articles, violent incidents involving children are greater in schools than outside of them (see the aggression section in my article here: https://mentallab.substack.com/p/d-i-s-r-e-s-p-e-c-t-public-schools?r=36t6i0).
Also, since children in public schools are neatly but completely unnaturally sorted according to age, they have fewer opportunities to learn how to relate to people across age groups--which may explain why so many young people struggle to talk to adults when they get their first jobs or have to advocate for themselves in college.
Let's additionally consider the aspect of time. In a seven-hour school day, how much time will a student reasonably spend "socializing"? Twenty-five minutes at lunch and a few minutes here and there in the hallways between classes? In my experience as a teacher, while in class, students generally are not socializing beyond perhaps surreptitiously texting each other and occasionally working in groups or pairs on a teacher-selected project of little practical value. Consider, too, that many of these interactions are fraught with insincerity as young people constantly worry about their positions within the very artificial school hierarchy (often based on social media status) and about the fact that they are essentially forced to be around these other people.
Further, why should we assume we need public schools for young people's socialization? Kids have clubs, sports teams, church groups, co-ops, jobs, neighbors, and myriad other ways to interact with people of a variety of ages and backgrounds every single day, all without a school building. In my opinion, school actually limits in many cases kids' socialization because they are surrounded by the same kids in classes, clubs, and on school-sponsored teams. In contrast, young people outside of public schools will likely encounter one group of people at a church camp, another group at basketball practice, and still another in choir or at art lessons. Such a young person will thus learn how to integrate him/herself into different social groups perhaps more effectively than will someone exposed to the same pool of peers each day and across activities all under school control.
Oh, no! How could I have written something so dumb & wrong? As you point out, that's actually a major problem with the school systems as they exist in the present. I totally take that back.
No worries. I appreciate discussions, and I think it's important to examine all aspects of these issues. Thank you for commenting and for reading my work.
Imagine spending 20k+ per student and arriving at the results these states produce!
Some of the most rewarding and educational experiences a child can have are completely free, especially those self-directed activities that occur outside in nature.
Well said. That is why I am so heartened to see that so many of the new alternative options have integrated active, outdoor time into their schedules, which thus helps foster that love of learning at all times and in all places.
Should your arguments be expanded to other municipal/state "services". I've never used the fire department, but a portion of my taxes fund them. I've never had to go to court, but a portion of my taxes fund the municipal court system, etc. If I need an ambulance, the city run ambulance department sends me a bill. Maybe the whole argument reduces to make all services fee for services provided. Those who decide to home school don't pay to subsidize someone else's children. Those with more children would pay more.
Yes, absolutely, except I would argue that no monopolies should exist in those services, either. Private ambulance services, fire departments, etc., would be the better (more moral and efficient) way forward (see here: https://mises.org/journal-libertarian-studies/privatization-municipality-provided-services), but in the interim, paying by usage is certainly preferred to the current system. Moreover, such services should charge prices like all other private service and goods providers, not bills based on a percentage of one's home value--as if that value has anything to do with service usage. For example, I pay the same price for trash service (which is privately provided by a company I chose) as my neighbor does. The trash company does not assess the values of our homes, assets, or incomes before determining our costs of service.
Regarding your last statement about children, I think even in the current exploitative system those with more children should pay more. It makes no sense and is certainly a recipe for overuse of the system to not charge larger families more for their use of the system (but simultaneously lower the taxes of those without children in the system).
Selfish plugs: I wrote previously about the roads (https://mentallab.substack.com/p/who-will-take-care-of-the-roads-why?r=36t6i0) and the different forms of taxation/payment for services (https://mentallab.substack.com/p/here-comes-the-judge-is-taxation?r=36t6i0).
Everyone in a society benefits from an educated populace. There are economic benefits from the availability of able employees and from customers prosperous enough to afford goods and services. The social benefit of living among more educated people is something we take for granted. As ragged as niceties have become of late, it would be much worse without the socialization provided by the schools.
The problem with the current system is that it subsidizes so much more than the children and families it supposedly serves. It has become a jobs program for teachers -- and increasingly for administrators. The designation of education as a government responsibility gives politicians more power as they distribute all the funds collected in its service. More importantly, it gives those with a firm grip on the Institution of Education as it exists today the power to decide curriculums.
Primary and secondary education have been billed to the public on the pay-as-you-go basis of property taxes. Now the taxpayer has been presented with the bill for higher education in the form of student loan debt forgiveness.
Ella,
I agree with much of what you said, but the idea that (public) schools provide socialization unavailable elsewhere or even positive socialization in most cases is untrue in the case of the former and dubious in the case of the latter.
For example, socialization is quite natural for humans and has occurred across locations and time without compulsory schooling, so it seems unlikely that schools play any important role in that process. Moreover, much of the socialization in today's public schools is so abysmal that many parents and students are fleeing such schools because of that socialization (see the most popular reason given in this survey: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91). As I have detailed in previous articles, violent incidents involving children are greater in schools than outside of them (see the aggression section in my article here: https://mentallab.substack.com/p/d-i-s-r-e-s-p-e-c-t-public-schools?r=36t6i0).
Also, since children in public schools are neatly but completely unnaturally sorted according to age, they have fewer opportunities to learn how to relate to people across age groups--which may explain why so many young people struggle to talk to adults when they get their first jobs or have to advocate for themselves in college.
Let's additionally consider the aspect of time. In a seven-hour school day, how much time will a student reasonably spend "socializing"? Twenty-five minutes at lunch and a few minutes here and there in the hallways between classes? In my experience as a teacher, while in class, students generally are not socializing beyond perhaps surreptitiously texting each other and occasionally working in groups or pairs on a teacher-selected project of little practical value. Consider, too, that many of these interactions are fraught with insincerity as young people constantly worry about their positions within the very artificial school hierarchy (often based on social media status) and about the fact that they are essentially forced to be around these other people.
Further, why should we assume we need public schools for young people's socialization? Kids have clubs, sports teams, church groups, co-ops, jobs, neighbors, and myriad other ways to interact with people of a variety of ages and backgrounds every single day, all without a school building. In my opinion, school actually limits in many cases kids' socialization because they are surrounded by the same kids in classes, clubs, and on school-sponsored teams. In contrast, young people outside of public schools will likely encounter one group of people at a church camp, another group at basketball practice, and still another in choir or at art lessons. Such a young person will thus learn how to integrate him/herself into different social groups perhaps more effectively than will someone exposed to the same pool of peers each day and across activities all under school control.
Oh, no! How could I have written something so dumb & wrong? As you point out, that's actually a major problem with the school systems as they exist in the present. I totally take that back.
Ella,
No worries. I appreciate discussions, and I think it's important to examine all aspects of these issues. Thank you for commenting and for reading my work.