Privatizers like to point to Sweden as their model (conveniently ignoring Chile, where the military dictator Pinochet’s advisors embraced Milton Friedman’s free-market policies). Since a conservative government came to power, Sweden has vouchers, publicly financed private schools, and for-profit schools. It is everything that ALEC, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Tom Corbett, and Rick Snyder could dream of.
But Swedish education just ran into a huge problem. Private equity firms are booming, as social and economic equity is growing.
And, oops, one of the biggest private firms went bankrupt earlier this year, causing many legislators to wonder if the nation is on the wrong path.
“STOCKHOLM (Reuters) – When one of the biggest private education firms in Sweden went bankrupt earlier this year, it left 11,000 students in the lurch and made Stockholm rethink its pioneering market reform of the state schools system.
School shutdowns and deteriorating results have taken the shine off an education model admired and emulated around the world, in Britain in particular.
“I think we have had too much blind faith in that more private schools would guarantee greater educational quality,” said Tomas Tobé, head of the parliament’s education committee and spokesman on education for the ruling Moderate party.
In a country with the fastest growing economic inequality of any OECD nation, basic aspects of the deregulated school market are now being re-considered, raising questions over private sector involvement in other areas like health.
Two-decades into its free-market experiment, about a quarter of once staunchly Socialist Sweden’s secondary school students now attend publically-funded but privately run schools, almost twice the global average.
Nearly half of those study at schools fully or partly owned by private equity firms.
Ahead of elections next year, politicians of all stripes are questioning the role of such firms, accused of putting profits first with practices like letting students decide when they have learned enough and keeping no record of their grades…..”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane, Boston Review has this piece that addresses public v private schools. I wanted to get a link posted on your blog – this is the first one on my email list.
http://bostonreview.net/us/snyder-public-private-charter-schools-demographics-incentives-markets?utm_source=Newsletter%3A+Dec+10%2C+2013&utm_campaign=Dec+10+Weekly+Newsletter&utm_medium=email
LikeLike
“The idea that private equity firms and large corporations would run hundreds of schools was a far cry from the individual, locally-run schools envisaged at the start.
“This was something that was not … even considered in one’s wildest dreams,” said Staffan Lundh, who handled school issues in the prime minister’s office at the time and now leads evaluation at the National Agency for Education (NAE).”
I hear this in Ohio from well-intentioned reformers, and it’s frankly hard to believe. Ed reformers in Ohio apparently never, ever DREAMED that lobbyists would buy the statehouse and we’d end up with our thriving “cybercharter sector”, for example. I mean, really. What did they think was going to happen when they completely deregulated publicly-funded, privately-owned schools?
It’s the wild west here. They can’t re-regulate in Ohio, MI, PA and FL now. It’s too late. 3/4 of the statehouse are completely captured and the governor is long gone. PA and OH are expanding the charter industry, even as the indictments and chaotic closings and openings mount.
They just gave another huge subsidy to a politically-connected cybercharter. It’s completely out of control. We won’t be able to measure the damage of cybercharters in this state for a decade, let alone the damage we’ve done to existing, strong public school systems, yet the frantic, reckless feeding frenzy continues:
http://www.plunderbund.com/2013/12/08/ohios-largest-taxpayer-funded-charter-school-ecot-receives-bonus-check/
LikeLike
There’s more about Ohio’s mega-cyber-charter: http://www.plunderbund.com/2013/12/10/ecot-founder-living-very-well-off-ohios-school-funding-dollars/
LikeLike
Does anyone remember the housing bubble in this country? From my vantage point, we are headed in the same direction. This one will be the education bubble. Unscrupulous individuals raping the system all for their own profit. Wasn’t it George W. Bush who said something like “You can always trust business to do the right thing.”?
LikeLike
Clever, but apt.
LikeLike
Chiara…welcome to our world. California has the most charters of any state in the nation (about 1800), and Los Angeles has the most of any city/county, with now close to 300 in our county. Not only do we, the taxpaying public, fund these questionable businesses, but we are also battling LAUSD’s Supt. Deasy who demands again this week another round of purchases of the vastly overpriced iPads, costing another $100 Million. This, despite that the public oversight Construction Bond committee, and Board member Monica Ratliff and her iPad committee instructed him to slow down this purchase.
Some of us are delving into studies going back to 2000, where the school board voted not to allow cell towers near schools, and more recently, not to allow WiFi in schools because of scientific reports about brain cancer as a result of radiation (I posted many sources on this issue the other day). We have found much credible professional literature showing that particularly small children, K – 2 (and up to grades 4 and 5), whose brain paths are still evolving, are the most likely to develop this cancer. Hospitals such as St. Jude’s, City of Hope, and LA Children’s Hospital, report great increases in this deadly cancer in small children.
It is an unending struggle to hold back the forces of greed that ALEC and their members like Eli Broad and his self determined master-mind billionaires impose on America’s children for their own power and enrichment. Diane’s many posts on the imposition of Common Core starting at grade level Kindergarten, with its study and testing using iPads, and the intertwining of Pearson soft ware, all mandated by Obama/Duncan, and rapidly, combine to endanger the health and welfare of students.
Now we are held to the PISA reports stats to play ‘follow the leader’ to the potential of going right over the cliff. Yet some here, repeatedly, only want to know why we object to the math methods and outcomes of teaching 6 year olds algebra. Short sighted it seems to me. This is a bit off topic but it is all part of the ugly whole.
LikeLike
Reminer…this is Ellen Lubic writing as Woof.
LikeLike
Did you mean to write as social and economic “inequality” is growing rather than social and economic “equity”?
I know that inequality is growing at a fast rate there (partly because they have more room to “grow”)
LikeLike
Maybe, to destroy all these nasty edupreneurs sucking off the public pig, we’ll have to go back to unfunding education altogether, let people keep their $6000 per year school taxes and buy education privately. But that would be so unAmerican, right?
If teachers hadn’t gone liberal, and liberalism had gone corrupt (another name for which is communist), public education might have continued to work more or less. But liberalism has become uncompromising (except for union corruption) and wants the best education available for every kid in the country. It thinks that education is a “right.” Dewey thought so. Diane has adopted Dewey’s position (see the epigraph of her book), but there is an unacknowledged premise in that position, a premise which is a false, namely that an education (and health care) is a “right” of every citizen.
Instead of debating the effects of trying to achieve that end, we ought to be debating the far more fundamental question of what a human right is. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is useless because almost every right there imposes a duty on someone else to provide those services and any right which imposes a duty on another is not a legitimate right. That’s my proposition. That is what we should be debating on this blog, not charters vs. public schools.
Only with sound philosophy, will we ever be able to restore sound public policy and with sound public policy, sound public education funding. As long as the public education lobby argues from false premises, the field is abandoned to the edupreneurs, who may be individually corrupt and venal—who would not become so when rent seeking from the public sector—but don’t confuse real capitalism with the behavior of the characterizers. Any school based on public funds will drift toward corruption. Only a truly private, non-profit school is exempt.
But making all education private would abrogate the fundamental American promise that education would be available to all and NOT be the prerogative of the elite only. That’s part of the entire anti-aristocratic ethos of America. And it worked until teachers were no longer under the control of local boards and paid for by local taxes. In the interests of equity and redistribution states began funding schools in part. Everyone ignored the theft and redistribution involved.
As the economy blew up, the schools that needed the most money got less, along with the affluent districts. But the affluent districts did not need to compensate for two or more generations of social decay in the central cities. And so we are drifting back to the oldest rule on the planet: “You can have what your daddy will pay for.” In families with no daddies (responsible male in the household), the state tries to fill in, but so far hasn’t succeeded. Did anyone say a cultural revolution is needed? Tell me about it.
LikeLike
“there is an unacknowledged premise in that position, a premise which is a false, namely that an education (and health care) is a “right” of every citizen.”
If we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how can that right be exercised if we do not have health and the knowledge education can provide?
Oh, I know, the vaunted market place will supply it with some animals more equal than others.
Yep, that’s the position of the “animals” who are more equal! To hell with everyone else, I get mine and I deserve it because I have it. Beautiful circular logic/reasoning!!
A government “of, by and for the people” is supposed to be a check on those “who are more equal” by rejecting their circular logic.
LikeLike
You ask the usual liberal rhetorical question about health care and education, but you do not address the definition of a “right.” Yours is the logic that is circular. You argue that one cannot enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness withou health care and education. Thus health care and education MUST be rights. I say you can’t enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without health and knowledge but health and knowledge are not the same as health care and education. The only real rights we have are to be left alone, I.e. NOT murdered (life), NOT imprisoned (unless convicted), and NOT deprived of the fruits of the hunt (pursuit of happiness). There MAY be others (“among them are”), but the are not named and so should be argued for rather than assumed. Any right imposes a duty on citizens. If those duties are negative, not to assault, not to imprison, not to steal, then there is only the duty of restraint. If health care is a right, the some doctor must be compelled to provide it. Rights that require compulsion of another person are automatically in conflict with rights to be left alone. Even a democratic majority can vote in such compulsions, and thus being injustice into life. An existence without the basic named freedoms begins looking like slavery unless the taxes are voluntarily self imposed. If a populace won’t fund something, e.g. Education in NC, NO ONE can compel them to. It MAY be bad policy badly carried out, but the only recourse is public debate. Railing against business greed is pure cop out from the point of view of debate. So beyond life, liberty, and ownership of one’s labor, what are some possible other “rights”? Rights that only require restraint on the part of other citizens?
LikeLike
“The only real rights we have are to be left alone,. . . ” Interesting point. So there should be no laws banning contraception? There should be no laws banning/not allowing suicide/euthanasia? There should be no law that says that a woman shouldn’t be able to have an abortion since it is her body/person who is involved? There should be complete access to any pharmaceutical or substance that a person chooses to ingest?
Are you willing to go that far with it?
LikeLike
I am willing to go that far except for suicide and euthanasia, and even there, I thought Dr. Kevorkian’s machine which left the person in total charge was better than assisted suicide. Life and death is always a tricky situation, but I see no point in banning contraception or abortion. I KNOW that killing the baby is murder, but it is at the moment legally protected killing and I’m prepared to leave it that way. The foetus should probably be left alone too, even by its mother, but infanticide is not new to the world. I utterly reject the Sharia notion that other religions are not to be tolerated. What harm can it do to be another religion. None that I can see. I’m curious about the Satanic church in Arizona that wants to put up a display on public property if Christian displays are allowed. I see keep the civic buildings and lawns innocent of denominational displays. PLENTY of private space for those, and church lawns too. In general, I think the government should be as little intrusive as possible into lives, so that anyone can live them freely. Where government should exercise police power is when one person tries to take away another’s freedom, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, even if the taker away is a parent. Compulsion of any sort is anathema except where it is defending someone against compulsion.
LikeLike
Duane Swacker: you have evidently confused the “Rheeal capitalism” of RheeWorld with the “real capitalism” of Planet Reality where the vast majority of us live.
If you’re ever in a quandary again, just remember to apply Petrilli’s Hammer to the nail of every question—
Unfettered Greed Will Answer Every Need.
Or as those who worship at the BBC sect of the High Holy Church of Testolatry would put it when it comes to education: $tudent $ucce$$ Makes ₵ent₵.
For the rest of us, not so much…
😎
LikeLike
Harlan, your description sounds like the Wild West.
LikeLike
” Any school based on public funds will drift toward corruption. Only a truly private, non-profit school is exempt.”
In what manner/fashion can the second follow from the first? In what way can a “private, non-profit” be exempt from corruption? What makes it so special as to be so completely virtuous that it couldn’t be corrupt? What proof do you have that the first is indeed true?
LikeLike
For the first consider the unionized public schools, the charters which are profit making, and the federal bureaucracy which regulates for self preservation. For the latter, corrupt private schools go out of business. Public trust is the only guarantee of successful business, and public trust is only gained by honesty, by not lying. This is not logic, but empirical.
LikeLike
“corrupt private schools go out of business”
Is that so? How many examples of “corrupt” charter and voucher schools that are still sucking off the teat of government funds would it take to disabuse you of that notion?
LikeLike
Yes, and when they go bankrupt after lying they can get bailed out by the politicians they have bought off over the years. And their executives can run off with the money they ‘earned’. Sounds like a good way to run things.
LikeLike
And who “blew the economy up” ? Or was it some unexplainable force of nature ? No, it was criminals on Wall Street and the mortgage industry. But most of them made their money and when it blew up were safe from the storm.
That’s how things work in the real world, not an imaginary free market fairy tale
LikeLike
No, purple, it was the Democrats in Congress who made possible the regulation that mortgages must be offered to borrowers not qualified under traditional rules. To deny them mortgages just because they didn’t have the power to repay was deemed racisim. And thus all those sub-prime mortgages were issued. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought them and then sold them to Wall Street which repackaged them as mortgage backed securities. Granted Wall Street knew they were phony paper, but the phony paper was created by regulations based on Democrat legislation pushing its politically correct agenda. It was well-intentioned legislation and regulation designed to increase home ownership, but like so much, all???, Democrat well-intentioned legislation, it didn’t take reality into account (ability of borrowers to pay), very much as NCLB, RTTT, and CCSS are all “well intentioned,” but because unrealistic, brings disaster in its wake. But Democrats never learn that the way to hell is paved with good intentions, and now most of us are living in hell, because of your damn Democrats.
LikeLike
@Harlan, usually I find your posts well-thought-out but blaming financial collapse on CRA doesn’t do you justice. The $s involved there were a small part of the total. It was a long & tricky route & 30 yrs in the making/unmaking of legislation/underfunding etc perpetrated by both political parties. The unmaking of the New Deal, more or less, which was our fearless leaders’ response when looking down the maw of mfg decline/globalism.
LikeLike
I disagree with almost everything you said. You sound so jaded – you seem to see no good in anyone or anything.
I believe that everyone has a RIGHT to an education. We see what the lack of this right, especially for girls, has done in countries we consider third world. We can be like Shanghai and weed out the country farmers who’ve come to the big city, or like European countries who sort out their progeny. But WE attempt to educate EVERYONE.
The only thing I agree with in your rant, is your implication that “you get what you pay for”, so if mommy can afford a nice house in an upscale neighborhood, her children will get a top notch education.
So I bought that house, but I worked in the city and I saw the disparity. Yet, those kids were still given the opportunity to learn. No bells and whistles, but classroom teachers desperate to teach them.
It’s not liberalism that’s the problem. It’s the whole poverty lifestyle. And how can you make people work who have no skills. They can’t even speak properly and these are the parents. Teaching their kids is an uphill battle.
CCSS won’t solve the problem. The attitude and culture need a “face lift”. Families need to value education. Parents need to support the teachers. The students need to actually come to school and pay attention to what the teacher says and does.
They need to think like a suburban mom.
LikeLike
They’ll never think like a suburban mom until they are suburban moms, and they never will be. Why will they never be? They can live on handouts. Suburban moms pay their own way.
LikeLike
With their credit cards. (I speak from experience.)
LikeLike
There is nothing about the free market that guarantees equality of opportunity. It is by design geared to catering to the rich, who have most of the ‘market’, i.e. money.
LikeLike
Yes, and when they go bankrupt after lying they can get bailed out by the politicians they have bought off over the years. And their executives can run off with the money they ‘earned’. Sounds like a good way to run things.
LikeLike
NONsense. Anyone with the money can buy with equal opportunity. But if you mean everyone SHOULD have equal buying power, then I’d ask WHY?
LikeLike
Harlan, that is true. I earned the money, so it is mine to spend. If you choose not to work, why should you expect to spend money (often my money).
I do believe that everyone should have the basics of food, shelter, and clothing. There are organizations that can help and government assistance (I AM willing to help). However, it is bare bones and your children deserve better.
That is why we need to add the right to education, so that the children don’t continually suffer for their parents mistakes. In the long run, society will come out ahead.
I guess I’m everything you hate, but what I say comes from the heart (and my experiences with poverty), without any thought of personal gain. In fact, I’m a part of the organization that developed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and we actually attempt to help people locally, nationally, and globally. Our current theme is Make It Happen and we do just that. Our goal is to assist women, children, and youth throughout the world. And we do it out of love for mankind.
LikeLike
I am sure you are well intentioned, but paving the road to hell with them at the same time. If people have a “right” to an education then SOMEONE must have a “duty” to provide it. How are you going to get them to devote themselves to doing so? You pay them. Where does their pay come from? Not from the student. But from the “government” and ALL money from the government comes from the taxpayer. So, the taxpayer is compelled by law to pay for someone else’s education. What if they don’t pay their taxes? The state evicts them from their home.
Now, I’m sure many deem it good public policy to pay taxes to support public education, but there is NO escaping that the majority has compelled them indirectly to that duty. If there is a positive right to something, education, health care, clean water, contraception, mosquito netting, there there CAN be no concept of voluntarism, only compulsion. If you don’t mind being in that position morally, of compelling a minority to contribute toward the provision of what you see as a right, that’s your privilege, but I’d be careful, if I were you, about insisting that something is a right when someone other than the individual in question must pay for it.
I’d prefer to call education an agreed upon public good, rather than a right. The only REAL rights, in my view are those which call upon others NOT to do something, such as assault you (life), imprison you(liberty), or take away your property (pursuit of happiness). To make education a right means that it MUST come into conflict philosophically with the right to own property. It’s easy to call for rights when someone else must pay for them. Doing so, however, is assuming that because you are in a majority, you have legitimate, not just practical, access to someone else’s money. I think that makes you a pickpocket, and you only get away with it because you have banded together with enough other thieves to carry the vote. Since it is the custom to pass things by majority vote, we put up with it, thinking that perhaps the franchise is more important than the specific corrupt bills, but that something is voted on and passed doesn’t make it right. I am just looking for an acknowledgement that in passing out rights, you are passing out other people’s money. Honesty would be refreshing. If you said, “I’ve got the power, so I’m going to do it, whether you disagree or not.” If, on the other hand, you were providing services to the poor voluntarily, with your own work (i.e. money), I would have no objection, but when you compel me to support a charity I don’t wish to, I call that theft, piracy, what have you.
I respect your desire to do good in the world. I reject your insistence that the motivation requires an injustice to me.
LikeLike
This is what my grandfather used to reply when people complained about paying for public education – “Somebody paid for yours! ”
I may be an oddball – but I don’t mind paying taxes, especially when they go for public education and public libraries. Since I continue to live in NYS, where taxes are high, you can be certain I am speaking the truth. You get what you pay for.
My problem is when people start screwing around with those same public systems I hold dear. That’s why I am on this blog.
LikeLike
I would like to debate your fundamental premise that government gives us our rights. The Declaration of Independence takes the position that there are certain rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which are intrinsic to the human being and which government neither bestows or takes away. Do you read the declaration in the same way?
LikeLike
Plus, the Declaration of Independence was based on the theories of the time, including writings which influenced the French Revolution. Just because Jefferson put it on paper, doesn’t mean they are inalienable rights. And without some sort of judicial system and laws enforced by a government, the words are meaningless.
So, as long as we are creating rights – I’m adding in education. It makes as much sense as the others.
LikeLike
If government gives you ALL your rights, then government can take them away. If there are NO inalienable rights then your position makes sense. But I wonder if you actually behave as if you believed that. If there are NO inalienable rights, then society is ruled merely by whomever is strongest. Don’t you want some inalienable rights for yourself? The right to life, for instance. Don’t you actually behave as if you had such a right? Don’t you think you have an inalienable right to defend your own life? And what about liberty? Do you want to be free from imprisonment without due process of law? The entire structure of society is based on the notion that there are certain inalienable rights. There may be some other good things we ought to do, but should we raise them to the level of rights?
LikeLike
Harlan – And that is the problem, the government can take our rights away. Look at Hitler. Look at some of the things our country is doing. Did you know that librarians destroyed records rather than give the government privileged information about a patron’s choice of books? (We call that Intellectual Freedom – the code of a librarian, the fight against restricting information in any form. That’s why they don’t filter library computers.) The Freedom of Information Act actually took away our rights and continues to be more and more invasive.
Do I believe there should be certain human rights – of course. Do I believe they can be taken away – it’s scary, but yes. And I still reserve the right to add to the list, so I add education as an inalienable right, because without education there can be no true happiness. Without education, liberty can be lost. Without education, that precious life can be cut short. I’ll concede that Public Libraries are an important perk.
LikeLike
If education is an inalienable right, who has the duty to provide it? Can they be compelled to do so by law?
LikeLike
Yes! Yes! And Yes! The same groups that now guarantee our rights.
LikeLike
So someone could be compelled to go teach? Could a doctor be compelled to treat another person? Could you be forced to kill “enemies of the state”? Sounds like a very slippery slope to me. Could you be forced to pay for religious schooling? Could you be forced to support state run Christmas pageants? Or separate bus lines for ultra orthodox Jews, no women passengers allowed? What you hate most you could be forced to do. Spy on your parents? Turn in gays. Burn books? Kill Jews in Auschwitz? A very slippery slope indeed.
LikeLike
That’s why there needs to be rules and guidelines. I’m not proposing eliminating our freedoms. I’m saying the government is encroaching on our freedom and if we let it go to the extreme your nightmare vision could come true. One of the rights they are tinkering with is education. That’s why so many of us read this blog.
LikeLike
Oh, so encroaching on our freedom just a little bit is ok then? Well, all of us do have to give up SOME freedom in order to live in a civilized society, but I still do see that you have explained why education is a right under the federal constitution. The duty of each state to provide an adequate education is included in all 50 state constitutions, but I understand the federal constitution as intending to prohibit the federal government from encroaching on what are sometimes called “God given” rights, which I presume you consider merely a metaphor. Probably you are atheist, or at least agnostic, and reason that IF there is no God, then there can be no “God given” rights, and that human beings have no special status in metaphysics, being just an accidentally produced species with no special privilege beyond what his own predatory success can confer. That is Nietzsche’s position at any rate, that religion and especially Christianity (and therefore Judaism) is a total fraud with God giving no special status to Jews and no immortality to “souls” based on individual human ethics. All that matters is power. And thus the only basis for our constitution is prudence, an awareness that human nature tends to want power, and thus the federal constitution needs to try to limit the drive for power of legislators and administrators and bureaucrats. All this is the logical consequence of your claiming that education is a right. Your position implies that no one has any rights except what a government permits. Anthropologically, you may very well be correct. If so, then there is no principle controlling society except individual self-interest. If one has the votes, one can try to promote one’s own or one’s group self interest. Thus the conclusion is inevitable that on this blog teachers are looking out for their self interest only, and that claims of altruism and of looking out for the kids are mere shams. ALL this is to be derived logically from YOUR position that there are no intrinsic or God given rights. Thus I see you as destroying your own claim to altruism. If all rights are given by government, then the “right” to an education is just something teachers claim exists because it is to their economic interest to be hired to provide it. And as a corollary, a government can also therefore take away education at will, as in NC. I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways. If education is a government given right, it can be taken away. If, however, you were to adopt the position that there are certain God given rights, we could debate whether education was one of them, that is to say an intrinsic right. As the argument stands, however, it comes down to this: Education is a right because I want a job. Or at least, that’s the way I see it. If rights are arbitrary grants of government, then when my side has enough votes to control the government, I don’t need to feel guilty about defunding education.
LikeLike
Even though a lot of what you said sounds scary, much of it appears to be true.
I do believe in inalienable rights. As far as the federal government and education, they have supported education in the past with Title Funds used to buy library books and provide resources for identified students who required additional help in their studies. Usually kids with IEPs. It’s only recently the Feds have gotten into the curriculum business and added strings to their funding. Since the states are the ones responsible for education, the federal government’s responsibility is to make sure all states are upholding their end of the deal. A little financial support is not unwelcome, but excessive control seems counter to the established “rules”.
And whether one believes in God or not, I feel we are or should be judged by our actions. And our actions should be mainly altruistic or at least for the common good. I suppose that is where the snag comes in – since I think public education is for the public good and you feel it is not (or at least not a guaranteed right). However, it is not against the law to be selfish or act in one’s own self interest. After all, we have mouths to feed, too.
Also, teachers are not martyrs. Education is a job. Many of us advocate for the children, but that is not in the job description. People need to stop thinking that teachers need to be like Mother Theresa. We are Not required to donate our time and money. Anything extra we do (and many of us do go above and beyond) is from the goodness of our hearts and not because it is expected.
LikeLike
If teachers are not saints and should not be expected to “donate their time,” then someone must pay them. If on the other hand kids have a “right” to an education, then whose duty is it to pay the teachers? I would say it is the parent’s duty to pay for his own kid’s education. You seem to think that it is the duty of a parent to not only pay for his own kid’s education but for the education of a kid whose parent is unable to afford to pay for an education. Now it may be prudent public policy for prosperous citizens to pay enough extra so that every kid in a city has at least an opportunity to go to school, but if the kid has a “right” to an education, the government cannot avoid imposing a duty on citizens not the parent of the poor kid to pay for his education too.
Don’t assume that what I actually support and do differs from your own actions. Here on this blog, however, I’m mainly interested in seeing clear arguments. I read a lot of pleas to increase funding by taxing the rich. Has that worked in California, Illinois, and New York? I just like to see effects attributed to their true causes.
LikeLike
Addressing the taxation issue: the problem is that the poor CAN’T pay and the rich have loopholes so they DON’T pay their fair share. Ultimately it is the middle class who bears the burden.
I have heard the argument that parents must pay for their own children’s education and in a way we do, by paying property taxes in the school districts where we reside. Now that my kids are out of school, I still pay my property taxes, but I do have the option to move to a neighborhood with a lower tax rate or even rent an apartment. They don’t even have school taxes in the city of Buffalo – most of the budget comes from NYS (so everyone in the state pays). I support the notion that “I am my brother’s keeper!” My tax dollars go into a pot for the public good which includes education. (There are many things in that pot I disagree with – such as our current war in Afghanistan and drone strikes. So you aren’t the only one with issues in how our money is spent.)
I have also heard the argument that our taxes in Upper New York go mainly to support NYC, and why should we support the city. Also, NYS pays more to the Federal Government in Federal taxes than they get back in benefits. Other states pay less and get more.
It’s not a perfect system, but if you believe in a free society, that’s how we roll.
Then again, some of the changes that are happening now, seem to be against everything I believe this country stands for, and, if so, it’s not the majority that’s calling the shots, but a vocal, active minority leadership. And I don’t have the power to vote them out of office.
LikeLike
Obamacare has imposed a duty on young healthy people to pay more for health insurance than they otherwise would in order to help subsidize medical insurance for older, sicker people. Does that trouble you?
Even if you rented you’d be paying school taxes through your landlord.
No one disputes that we are our brother’s keepers, but it is the government’s role to be a proxy for that moral admonition? Isn’t that almost like an establishment of religion, namely Judeo-Christian?
Who is your brother? Just your fellow citizens?
LikeLike
I am reserving judgement on Obamacare. Right now, my two younger children are covered under my insurance policy, so I have no complaints. All insurance policies distribute the wealth. The alive pay for the dead.
I am aware the price of rent includes property taxes (can’t slip anything past you).
I am a Judeo-Christian, so I think like one ( not on purpose, just my upbringing), but, yes, it’s the governments role to make sure people follow the rules/laws.
We are all brothers – they we don’t act like it – and we should watch out for each other. Otherwise, why would we be so concerned about the future of education?
LikeLike
Is it the government’s job to make citizens follow religiously promulgated ethical laws? Wouldn’t that be theocracy?
LikeLike
Harlan, I did a little more research, and Jefferson indicated that revenues should be collected and dispersed throughout the states who were then expected to provide a variety of services, specifically education (also the arts and transportation).
LikeLike
Certainly Jefferson was in favor of education of a certain kind, but that still does not mean he saw it is a “right” under the federal constitution. Supervising education nationwide is NOT one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, nor has it been established by any amendment. It is presumably then, one of those powers reserved to the states by the tenth amendment. Since the federal constitution is silent on education and all of the state constitutions mention it specifically, I conclude that education is a right granted by each state under its own constitution, but not an intrinsic “god given” right recognized by the federal constitution. And, of course, the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not carry the force of law, so it is irrelevant to our discussion except as a declaration of what some people think everyone person born on earth has a right to. I still find it difficult to understand how a right to an education does not come into conflict with a right to be left alone. If every child has a right to an education, then taxation to supply it must be a duty of the citizens, but that seems to me to be an unjust taking of property which the federal constitution specifically prohibits. The only rights that I recognize are rights that do not require someone else to DO something (with the exception of national defense and the court system), but only require other people to NOT do something, i.e. not take my life, not take my liberty, and not take my property, i.e. the fruits of the labor of my body. I suspect we shall just have to agree to disagree on this matter, and that you will work to assemble enough votes to be in the majority, and I will do the same.
LikeLike
I concede. We will each believe our own version of the truth. Happy Holidays (for me – Merry Christmas).
LikeLike
We can agree to disagree, but I do not concede there is more than one “truth” that is really true. Other people, like yourself, I see as “mistaken,” as I suspect you see me. But that we each have an equally valid formulation of truth is a relativism which I reject. I will continue to try to persuade you over to my way of looking at things, but when I say “agree to disagree” I mean only that I don’t see much chance of my arguments being effective with you so.
Although my family religious tradition happens to be Christian, I rather think the state should be neutral in such matters, so I rather prefer to say Happy Holidays out of respect for those who are more comfortable with Hannuka and Kwanza. I certainly don’t see Christianity as holding any special status metaphysically, although it was historically more influential on the culture of the country than other traditions.
I guess I’m grateful for that, but sometimes in history it has been difficult to align oneself with this one or that of the Christian sects, especially when they go to war over tolerance. Same problem with much of the Muslim world at present. Christians kind of got over fighting each other over dogma, but not Muslims. Pity though.
LikeLike
Again – we have much common ground. Let’s continue this debate in 2014.
LikeLike
Harlan, it was what Jefferson intended.
LikeLike
Harlan, I hear what you are saying about rights. In essence, we don’t have ANY rights. That’s why government was created, to provide some sort of control over the people. It’s been a long process from cave man to now. The rights you speak of did not come naturally – they were fought for in this country and continue to be an issue in others. Please note: where there is government, there is taxes. It’s even in the Bible.
In some parts of the world, education is a privilege and it us not offered to everyone. Is that the model you are condoning? Education only for those who can afford it, those with the time (whose children aren’t involved in daily survival activities) and/or money?
I suppose if you are a purist, the original constitution didn’t guarantee rights to everyone – only white landowners. We’ve made great strides to repair those omissions. However, public education has been on the docket in our country since the Dutch were in NYC and started dame schools – the first being Erasmus in Brooklyn.
Since the rights you have declared are arbitrary (ultimately rights only exist if we agree they exist) why can’t I add mine in as well. So I say – public education. It’s a sign of true civilization – not just some basic low level human condition. And, since you have to pay taxes anyway, man up, and pay your share. After all, somebody paid for you.
LikeLike
I meant to write “I do NOT see . . .”
LikeLike
Society is obligated to take care of it’s young people. We do it through our governments -locally, state wide, and nationally. Even if you are against the concept, sorry, you are expected to join us for the ride.
LikeLike
“Society” is obligated????? I thought parents were obligated. And that they took care of their children through families. I am not “expected” to join you for the ride. I am compelled to join you not for the ride but to pull the wagon. Again and again, your final reference point is that since you have the power, I MUST do as you say. Isn’t that a rather dangerous position to take because what if the power changes and YOU are in the minority rather than the majority. It happened in NC. Why is society “obligated”? Who obligates it? What IS “society” anyway? I might agree with you as a matter of prudential public policy to fund schools, but I don’t see that you have progressed beyond answering the question of Why I should do so with anything more than, “Because I say so.” It’s just an accident that you and those who think like you are in charge. It is not a question of justice, just of power. Or perhaps you can explain why it is “just” for some families who are prosperous to be taxed to support other families who are not. What is your definition or concept of “justice” in any case? I thought “justice” meant that you get what you earn, just like a grade on school work. You don’t get points put on your score taken from someone else. Why should that be the case with other work, i.e. work for money, which is stored up work?
LikeLike
Harlan, I’ve done some research and I can give you some explanations about why public education is a human right. I base my theory on discussion from the book – Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution by Professor Prokoptin published in 1904.
The need to provide for other members of society is based on human ethics due to sociable instincts. Looking at the animal kingdom, other species of birds will feed a fallen baby wren, and nursing animal mothers will suckle a baby whose mother has died. (Remember Mowgli in Jungle Book.) The law of nature and natural instinct lead to human solidarity and sociability. Morality and ethics result in a consciousness of the human connection. Our happiness is dependent of the happiness of all, plus justice and equity are dependent on the fact that we consider the rights of others equal to our own human rights. Humanity’s progressive evolution requires mankind to develop the intellectual facilities of the group as a matter of survival. Thus we are both morally and intellectually responsible for the education of our children to guarantee continuation of our species.
Of other note: in order to gain wealth and power, the enemy must break down the mutual support of the group. Doesn’t this sound familiar.
So, I don’t have to reinvent the wheel – others have already figured the whole thing out.
LikeLike
Very likely all you say is so. When you talk of “survival” however, I wonder whether you mean survival against tigers or survival against other groups. If cooperation is a law of nature, where does war come from? Professor Prokoptin wrote before WW I.
LikeLike
So Harlan, According to the book, mutual aid is an instinctual response to preserve the species. When the species is attacked by self serving, rebellious individuals seeking wealth and power, the rest of the population is forced to band together to protect the Mutual Aid institutions. I feel this refers to war and other conflicts.
LikeLike
And it is survival against nature.
LikeLike