From Libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:
A typical argument advanced by defenders of the government (public) school establishment against school choice is that it will “divert funds away from public education and will ultimately have a catastrophic effect on public schools,” as this recent letter put it.
To which my answer is—So?
The entrenched public school establishment—the teachers unions, public school administrators, school boards—do not own the public purse. Those dollars belong first to the taxpayers, each as individuals. To take by force a taxpayer’s money, allegedly for education, and then deny that person the right to direct it as she chooses is a cruel fraud.
The dictatorial monopoly we call the “public schools” exists as it is only by force of taxation and compulsory school attendance laws.
…
This guy has a biased opinion and then he twists himself into a pretzel to justify this ridiculous opinion through the lens of Objectivism.
“The entrenched public school establishment—the teachers unions, public school administrators, school boards—do not own the public purse. ”
Does this individual not understand what Public institutions are? Public Schools are those that receive Public Money. If they do not receive Public Money than they are not Public Schools. Public institutions come into existance because there is a need for a service that is not being addressed by Private enterprises. They don’t develope in a vacuum. “The Government” doesn’t just sit around all day and twirl its collective mustache wondering ‘How can we juice the Public today? Heh Heh Heh’. Education in America used to be nothing but independent private and church based institutions that did not have a cohesive educational goal, nor offered educational opportunities to every citizen. So the government stepped up to build that system.
“To take by force a taxpayer’s money, allegedly for education, and then deny that person the right to direct it as she chooses is a cruel fraud.”
This is consistant with everything taxes are taken for. Society would not function if each and every taxpayer needed to provide their input on expenditures. This is why we elect Senators and Representatives.
“The dictatorial monopoly we call the “public schools” exists as it is only by force of taxation and compulsory school attendance laws. Why should that be? Why should an entrenched and powerful political faction have sole power to impose their educational philosophy, teacher training, and school administration methods on the rest of us?”
This is exceedingly simple to answer: Society has decided this is how our tax money and priorities will be used. See above. I get that Objectivism is all about fostering and feeding the selfish tweenager inside all of us, but the better question to ask here is; How? How would that be? How would Mr. LaFerrara’s viewport work in the real world? Like Antebellum America? Which is the real reason we have the Public education system we have today?
“The question every public school apologist should be asked is; Don’t you believe that, given the choice, taxpayers and parents would voluntarily send their children to your schools, and voluntarily pay for them? The answer is obvious. ”
The answer is obvious: They don’t have to. The Public provides the service pid for by our tax dollars. If tax payers and parents want to voluntarily use a difference service, they can go find it and pay for it separately.
“The taxpayer and the parent should have first claim on how her education tax dollars are spent and on the course of her own child’s education, respectively.”
They do.
“A public school that parents willingly choose not to send their child to should lose its public funds, and if that school must close or merge with another public school to survive, so be it. No public school has an inherent right to exist if liberated parents “vote with their feet”—their tax dollars.”
Yes, I’m a fan of Capitalism too. Despite being a fan of that economic model, I understand that society’s use of tax money do not follow capitalistic rules. Mr. LaFerrara is a retired gentleman, he has had far longer than I to come to understand this basic fact.
“More tellingly, the reference to “a true democracy” as the fundamental reason for government schools spills the beans as to the true purpose of the government schools—political indoctrination.”
I have to believe Mr. LaFerrara went out of his way to misunderstand the quote he referenced at the beginning of his old man’s rant. He quoted:
“A true democracy requires an educated public and the public school system is the most effective way to achieve that goal.”
It’s fairly concise and unambiguous that “True Democracy” requires an educated population to join in democratic practices. Being educated encourages participation. The flip-side; Being ignorant justifies your lack of engagement in the process thus ceding your ability to exercise your rights. The person Mr. LaFerrara quoted argues that a public school system is the most efficient system that we know of to educate the population. Mr. LaFerrara, however, ignores the meaning of this statement and rants about the evils of coerced taxation rather than addressing the point of this arguement. If, Mr. LaFerrara, there’s a better option than public schools to educate the populace and create a better Democracy… perhaps instead of knocking down strawpeople, you should make an arguement on why you think your way is better.
“A free market is the only genuine mechanism for holding educators accountable, by virtue of the ability of parents to leave one school for another and the freedom of education entrepreneurs to offer a diverse array of competing alternatives.”
Mr. LaFerrara needs to really sit down and think about “Free Markets” and how they actually function and in what cases. In what world does he think we live in? Yes, I know this man is likely 50 years or more removed from his own personal experience in Public School. But how does this Free Market work in the context of Schools? Mrs. Smith teaching her 3rd Grade Class may win State or National honors for her work. But because there’s a public perception that the area the school resides in is unsafe, Mrs. Smith must suffer despite her best efforts at teaching your kids?
I also have to briefly address ‘Educational Entrepreneurs’. WHAT? Maybe it’s just me, but I’d rather that our children benefit and profit from their education. I can vote out a school board. I can’t vote out the CEO of Little Wonders K-12, LLC. Where’s the freaking accountability there?
“The universal school choice movement is the answer.”
All those words Mr. LaFerrara typed failed to actually prove, or even attempt to prove, this assertion.
“I can vote out a school board. I can’t vote out the CEO of Little Wonders K-12, LLC. Where’s the freaking accountability there?”
This point is almost universally ignored or glossed over in conservative and libertarian arguments for privatization — and not just of education. When they do not ignore it, they simply advise people to vote with their wallets, as if that is always feasible or effective. For me, this is one of the top problems with right-wing ideology, both in the danger that it represents and the foolishness that it requires. It is truly troubling how conservative propaganda has managed to convince so many people that the government is just about always the problem and the market is just about always the solution.
Anyway, if LaFerrara truly believes that every individual should be able to choose how his tax money is spent, then he should abandon the libertarian label and embrace what he truly is: an anarchist.