Public Education is a Socialist Monopoly

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Flo, Thanks for the correction. While I like Gatto, I'm wary of his unattributed factual assertions. He makes several provocative assertions in his Underground History of American Education that I'l like to believe but won't take on faith. The Switzerland assertion came from a Liberty article. I should have checked it.

Friedman was interviewed by Reason in 2005, less than one year before his death, and I see nothing in this that indicates a move away from vouchers:...
I have seen articles suggesting what you say--that Friedman changed his mind on government funding--but I can't track down an original source for this. Perhaps you could provide one.

I'll try to track it down.
E.G. West wrote Education and the State, "School Vouchers in Principle and Practice" (the World Bank Research Observer, Feb. 1997), and a survey history of compulsory attendance laws in Britain and the US. Here's part of the set-up to "School Vouchers:..."
E.G. West
"Education Vouchers in Principle and Practice: A Survey"
The World Bank Research Observer, 1997-Feb.

In economics the three most quoted normative reasons for state intervention in education are to protect children against negligent parents, to internalize beneficial "externalities," and to ensure equality of opportunity. Compulsory education laws are generally regarded as satisfying the first argument for state intervention.

The externalities argument, to be completely persuasive, needs the support of evidence that externalities really exist and are positive at the margin-that is, that people outside the family unit are willing to pay for extra units of education beyond what parents would purchase. In the absence of formal or systematic evidence, most writers simply assume, explicitly or implicitly, that positive marginal external benefits do exist.

The third argument for intervention-the need to ensure equality of opportunity-reflects concern about the distributional implications of purely private provision. Richer parents are likely to spend more than poorer parents to educate their children, just as they spend more on cars, homes, and clothes. The view that children's life chances should not depend on the wealth of their parents or the fortuitous circumstances of the community in which they live is widely accepted. The prospect of upward mobility, of ensuring that one's children will be better off, has been a keystone of political support for the public school system in the past. This "equality" argument for intervention depends on the assumption that governments are best equipped to supply the appropriate institutions. But a public system that confines children to schools nearest their home or within administratively determined attendance zones can actually reduce mobility. And where the quality of public education is better in middle-class zones than elsewhere, upward mobility is obviously blocked. In other words, the public system can often narrow a child's options, forcing the child to attend an inferior school when a superior one may be physically within reach. One of the arguments for vouchers is that they enable families to break through these obstacles to give equal opportunity a genuine chance.

West does not here discuss a problem with the "public goods" argument for charity (the third argument for funding: oversight of corporate functions is a publc good. The State is a corporation. Therefore, oversight of State functions is a public good which the State itself cannot provide. State assumption of responsibility for the provision of public goods transforms the free rider problem at the root of "public goods" analysis but does not eliminate it.

Anyway, support for vouchers could be Friedman's fall-back position or a transition phase to an unsubsidized, competitive market in education services.

Years ago, Ivan Illich wrote that a compassionate society would have in its constitution a clause like the First Amendment to the US Constitution as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of education". Real educational freedom for parents would require the repeal of compulsory attendance laws and also child labor laws and minimum wage laws, which put on-the-job training off limits.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

First of all, is there anyway to nominate a 'dialog' of posts? The exchanges between Malcolm Kirkpatrick and uruk sets a high standard rarely seen in this forum. You both offer insightful points while demonstrating a true understanding of the opposition's arguments. I applaud you both.

Thanks. People here have been civil. I'm a guest. I try to maintain my composure. In this company that's not hard.

I do have one issue.

Parents have preferences which vary systematically from region to region, from the industrial North-East to the agricultural mid-West.

I would think that most parents want their children to develop the skills necessary to make it into college or for an entry level position. What would be some of the different preferences parents have that vary from region to region?

Depends on how close you look. They say humans and chimps have 95% of their DNA in common. It's the similarities that make us all anthropoids and the differences that make some of us chimps and some human. "Entry-level position" for what industry? That varies from region to region. Another large difference between parents is the language spoken at home. I see no good reason to require that Math and Biology instruction occur in English, other than for the convenience of public-sector unions. As a taxpayer with an interest in schools which produce a competent workforce, I'd rather see all instruction occur in the language of the parent's choice. The way to teach tolerance of diversity is to tolerate diversity, seems to me.

 

[uruk]

First of all, is there anyway to nominate a 'dialog' of posts? The exchanges between Malcolm Kirkpatrick and uruk sets a high standard rarely seen in this forum. You both offer insightful points while demonstrating a true understanding of the opposition's arguments. I applaud you both.

Thanks for the compliment. I don't think I'm on the same intellectual level or have the same understanding of the subject as Malcolm does, but I do like playing devil's advocate from time to time.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). A law is a threat by the State to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstances.

I think this is a bit much. A government's duty is to protect it's citizens from harm wether external or internal.

I'm not making a criticism. It's a definition. Regardless of what you suppose Pol Pot's duty was, or Mao's duty was, or Stalin's duty was, or Hitler's duty was, the organizations under their control occupied dominant positions in the violence business.

If you think privatization is the answer... this...

To what?

...consider this:...Whom do you think would be paying the corporations for incarcerating the prisoner? The prisoner's family? The prisoner himself? No, the taxpayer. And to all who say that the government does not create wealth, I say Government contractors! The corporations who bid on the government request for goods and services help to create wealth. NASA has done more for our country, wealth wise than any other government agency, other than defense.
NASA contracts and money (taxpayer money) have allowed corporations the resources for R&D and development of new technologies and patents. The contractor are allowed to license the technologies to other industries which take the ball and run with it. The PC market owes a lot to NASA.

This I doubt. We cannot rewind Earth's history in a controlled experiment 100 times, fifty with NASA and fifty without, so all we have is one example. Not really an adequate sample, in my opinion.

And practically all other industries depend on PCs. And in the end vouchers will make government contractors of most if not all private and corporate primary education providers.

With an important difference: since millions of parents will abide within the system for only 12 to 18 years, there will not be the opportunity for the evolution of cooperation between regulators (State granting agencies) and parents against taxpayers that there is between State regulators and public-sector unions, which outlast students, parents, and even career teachers. I recommend Axelrod and Hamilton, The Evolution of Cooperation.

Privately own prison systems. They would depend on taxpayer money to operate. They would also depend on punative laws that would allow people to be incarcerated. More people you have in jail, the more money you make off the government. The same would be for the voucher system since it depends on taxpayer monies to support. The more vouchers the school could attract the more money it recieves...

This risk is considerably attenuated by competition between schools and by parent power in the marketplace.

But Tax based money usually has strings attached.

Vouchers are not perfect, but they're an enormous step up from the current system..

Are we naked because the State does not operate textile mills and clothing stores? Are we starving because the State does not operate collective farms, grocery stores, and restaurants? Why make an exception for the education industry?

But how could the textile mills operate if the land was not made available or protected by property laws or encrouchment on state boundries?

I asked: "To what industries can organized violence and the threat of organized violence make a positive contribution, beyond what it contributes to minimally-regulated industries in a market economy (an initial assignment of title and enforcement of contract law)? Are we naked..." The part "...what it contributes..." matters. Monopolies are less productive than competitive markets. Since force is a ban, not a good, society benefits when the State suppresses the competition in the violence business and protects persons and property. You're not arguing with an anarchist.

How could a child's education be protected from the philosophical or political whims of the Parent? Is it right for a parent to deprive thier child of medicine needed to save thier life if the parent believes that "the lord is all I need to heal my child"? Does not the law step in in this case?

Why suppose that State actors are more benignly motivated than parents? In Hawaii, juvenile arrests and juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma fall when school is not in session.

Is it right for the parent to deprive thier child of futur success because they decide to choose a school that caters the parents belief that "science is the work of the devil and child needs none of that". Would that not limit his chances if the child wished to become an engineer?

Just how many engineering majors do Detroit schools produce?

The reasoning here is at least give the child an even chance at success same as those who are privileged. It is not so much to "level the playing field" as to increase the chances of everbody at success. Everyone benefits if more people succeed and become productive rather than dependent.

I agree. I do not agree that the State is the appropriate tool to achieve this result.

 

[Francesca R]

I'll try to track it down.

Not sure if you are prevented by post count from posting links, but they would be appreciated when you're not. . . .

Of the three arguments for public funding of education, the positive externalities one is probably the weakest, since an educated individual must surely capture enough of the internal benefit (measured in earning power alone, never mind other utility) to make the transaction "profitable". The clincher, though, is that a pre-schooler is in no position to take this decision, and it is a risk (which rises as poverty of parents increases) that the child's parents may opt not to provide education.

So the strongest arguments are (i) provision for the child's best interest over the heads of her parents, and (iii) the alleviation of poverty. IOW the moral-philosophical arguments dominate the economic one.

 

[cwalner]

Another large difference between parents is the language spoken at home. I see no good reason to require that Math and Biology instruction occur in English, other than for the convenience of public-sector unions. As a taxpayer with an interest in schools which produce a competent workforce, I'd rather see all instruction occur in the language of the parent's choice. The way to teach tolerance of diversity is to tolerate diversity, seems to me.

I'm not so sure of that. While I value diversity and we should not discourage it, having a common language, even if it is not an official language, does help unify us as a diverse people. Also, not knowing that common language can seriously impact somebody's employment options. I don't see the value of teaching somebody Biology and Math in, lets say French, but not teaching that person English, if the goal is to produce a competent American workforce (hence justifying the socializing of the cost). All we accomplish in that case, as I see it, is producing somebody who can become part of the workforce in a French speaking country.

 

[SumDood]

... "Entry-level position" for what industry? That varies from region to region.

I'm really not seeing that. For an entry level position, there are skills needed no matter what the industry. Basic communication skills, problem solving, the ability to follow directions, etc. These would be needed in a mail room, working a fry machine, for a janitor, data entry or just about anywhere.

I don't want to sound 'snarky', but I would genuinely like to hear some examples of the different regional preferences parents might have.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...I would genuinely like to hear some examples of the different regional preferences parents might have.

Fishing, in the Northeast Atlantic seaboard, in the Gulf, and the Pacific Northwest States. Ranching in the central and Southwest States. Heavy manufacturing in the upper mid-West.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

As a taxpayer with an interest in schools which produce a competent workforce, I'd rather see all instruction occur in the language of the parent's choice. The way to teach tolerance of diversity is to tolerate diversity, seems to me.

I'm not so sure of that. While I value diversity and we should not discourage it, having a common language, even if it is not an official language, does help unify us as a diverse people. Also, not knowing that common language can seriously impact somebody's employment options. I don't see the value of teaching somebody Biology and Math in, lets say French, but not teaching that person English, if the goal is to produce a competent American workforce (hence justifying the socializing of the cost). All we accomplish in that case, as I see it, is producing somebody who can become part of the workforce in a French speaking country.

I expect that people will learn English by osmosis, in a way that they will not learn Biology or Math. According to Thomas Sowell, up to WWI there were government schools in the US in which the language of instruction was German. The deliberate supression of Native American languages by the BIA schools is a black mark on US History.

 

[SumDood]

Fishing, in the Northeast Atlantic seaboard, in the Gulf, and the Pacific Northwest States. Ranching in the central and Southwest States. Heavy manufacturing in the upper mid-West.

I agree that there will be some parents that would want their children to go into those industries, but I don't think there would be enough to have a 'fishing' school, for example. That would fall under vocational training. And I think the best way for anyone to get started in those industries would be to get an entry level position and learn on the job. I thought the idea of primary education is to provide a well rounded basis for any field, with specializations coming later.

 

[SumDood]

I expect that people will learn English by osmosis, in a way that they will not learn Biology or Math.

One would think so, but some of the cultural dialects that pass off as 'english' produce languages that can be very difficult to understand.

 

[cwalner]

I expect that people will learn English by osmosis, in a way that they will not learn Biology or Math. According to Thomas Sowell, up to WWI there were government schools in the US in which the language of instruction was German. The deliberate supression of Native American languages by the BIA schools is a black mark on US History.

I disagree. Because English is the defacto language of the United States, most people who live here but don't speak English are immigrants. The pattern of immigrants is largely to move into communities from similar backgrounds. My great grandparents all lived in Jewish neighborhoods where the primary language was Yiddish. My grandparents learned English because they were taught it in the public schools. The same was true of Italian immigrants around that same time. Now most immigrants are Latino and Asian.

When I lived in CA and NV, there were neighborhoods where all of the signs were in Spanish and it was the primary language for the neighborhood. The children in those neighborhoods are not going to learn English by osmosis. They will learn it if taught in the public schools. If they don't learn English, then they will not have as much of a chance to become part of the larger American society and will not have significantly improved prospects than thier parents had. This means that everything that thier parents sacrificed to move thier families here is for naught, because that is why most people immigrate, to give thier children a chance for a better life than they had.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...I think the best way for anyone to get started in those industries would be to get an entry level position and learn on the job. I thought the idea of primary education is to provide a well rounded basis for any field, with specializations coming later.

It does not take 12 years to teach a normal child to read and compute. A loving mother can teach her child to read (decode the phonetic alphabet) before that child can speak. If you give me 25 kids who can add and subtract mixed numbers with different denominators (which 25 loving mothers can accomplish by age 8), I will give you at last 20 who can do this
...............................................................................
{p₁(75, -120), p₂(5, 48)} subset L₁
{p₃(150,8),p₄(210,40)} subset L₂

m(p₁p₂)=___ (slope of the interval p₁p₂)
d(p₁,p₂)=___ (distance from p₁ to p₂)
u(p₁p₂)=___ (midpoint of the interval p₁p₂)

m(p₃p₄)=___ (slope of the interval p₃p₄)
d(p₃,p₄)=___ (distance from p₃ to p₄)
u(p₃p₄)=___ (midpoint of the interval p₃p₄)

point-slope form L₁=___________
slope-intercept form L₁=___________
intercept form L₁=___________
Standard form L₁=___________
vector form L₁=___________
Extra credit: matrix (determinant form) L₁=___________

point-slope form L₂=___________
slope-intercept form L₂=___________
intercept form L₂=___________
Standard form L₂=___________
vector form L₂=___________
Extra credit: matrix (determinant form) L₂=___________

L₁ intersect L₂ =____

Extra credit:
1. Find all t such that 187^t gives a remainder of 12 when divided by 37 and a remainder of 23 when divided by 41.
2. Let A_n = {x:x|n}
(example: A₆={1,2,3,6}
Let |A_n| be the number of elements of A_n
(example: |A₆|=4)
|A_360,000|=___
..........................................................................
in 32 weeks, five days a week, one hour a day, without homework, without sweat, without tears.

Between 4th grade, by which time most students will have learned to manipulate fractions, and 8th grade, when some will take Alg. I, we march students in circles. Why?

My point is, school is a huge waste of students' time and taxpayers' money. The US "public" school system has become an employment program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, a source of padded construction, consulting, and personal service contracts for politically-connected insiders, and a venue for State-worshipful indoctrination. If this is not so, why cannot any student take, at any age, an exit exam (the GED will do) and apply the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy toward post-secondary tuition at any VA-approved post-secondary institution or toward a wage-subsidy at any qualified private-sector employer?

If it is fraud for a mechanic to charge for the repair of a functional motor, and if it is fraud for a physician to charge for the treatment of a healthy patient, then it is fraud for a teacher, school, or school district to charge for the instruction of a student who does not need our help.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Amazing. So all it really takes to learn is the power of love?

Seriously, Malcolm. Can you provide one example of someone taking a random selection of 8-year olds and teaching 80% of them the math you suggested? I won't even ask you to show someone doing it with only five hours a week; just show me 20 normal 8 year olds who get that.

Also, can you show some evidence that all, or even a substantial number of children can learn to read before learning to speak?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Amazing. So all it really takes to learn is the power of love?

You need a normal brain as well as love. Defenders of the current system ignore the most important variable which determines overall system performance: student motivation. Children, especially very young children, will work their hearts out for the love of parents. Richard Dawkins observes that children are naturally gullible, for evolutionary reasons: we don't have time to accumulate from individual experience the information that will keep us alive from birth to reproductive age (which plants are safe to eat, which animals will kill you). This explains one large advantage of homeschoolers, which conventional schools cannot replicate. In his autobiography Gandhi wrote that parents are the natural teachers of children.

Seriously, Malcolm. Can you provide one example of someone taking a random selection of 8-year olds and teaching 80% of them the math you suggested? I won't even ask you to show someone doing it with only five hours a week; just show me 20 normal 8 year olds who get that.

I'm projecting from experience. I did the equation of the line one-on-one with a gifted 9-year-old Korean, two days a week, in less than a year. His parents homeschooled him after 8th grade. He got his MS (Math) before he turned 20. I did this with a gifted 11-year-old who had difficulties with English (cousin to the 9-year-old) in less than a year. She was only in the US for a year. I did the |A_360,000|=___ in one lessons with a Pre-Alg class of Campbell High students. That's easy, really. It just looks difficult at first.
Read "~" as "congruent to".
I did the 187^t ~12mod31 and 187^t~23mod41=>t=___ lesson with two brothers (15 and 16), one hour a day, two days a week, in three or four weeks (they were already taking Alg II).

Also, can you show some evidence that all, or even a substantial number of children can learn to read before learning to speak?

You don't watch as much late-night TV advertising as I do. Good for you. "Your Baby Can Read". The eyes, ears, and brain function before infants learn to coordinate the diaphragm, larynx, and tongue.

 

[Mirrorglass]

You need a normal brain as well as love. Defenders of the current system ignore the most important variable which determines overall system performance: student motivation. Children, especially very young children, will work their hearts out for the love of parents. Richard Dawkins observes that children are naturally gullible, for evolutionary reasons: we don't have time to accumulate from individual experience the information that will keep us alive from birth to reproductive age (which plants are safe to eat, which animals will kill you). This explains one large advantage of homeschoolers, which conventional schools cannot replicate. In his autobiography Gandhi wrote that parents are the natural teachers of children.

That's a nice theory, but do you have actual evidence that homeschooled children, on average, learn better than people in decent schools? Or that the majority of homeschooled children learn math as quickly as your gifted children?

I'm projecting from experience. I did the equation of the line one-on-one with a gifted 9-year-old Korean, two days a week, in less than a year. His parents homeschooled him after 8th grade. He got his MS (Math) before he turned 20. I did this with a gifted 11-year-old who had difficulties with English (cousin to the 9-year-old) in less than a year. She was only in the US for a year. I did the |A_360,000|=___ in one lessons with a Pre-Alg class of Campbell High students. That's easy, really. It just looks difficult at first.
Read "~" as "congruent to".
I did the 187^t ~12mod31 and 187^t~23mod41=>t=___ lesson with two brothers (15 and 16), one hour a day, two days a week, in three or four weeks (they were already taking Alg II).

Your first to examples were, as you call them, gifted children - that is, children with significantly above-average abilities. Why would you project from working with such children that every child can learn equally well? If they could, then you wouldn't have been working with gifted children - just normal children.

Your two other examples are about children twice the age you originally claimed could learn this - children in high school studying algebra, already a selected group. Also, did each and every person of the high school class answer the question perfectly in their exams? Did the two brothers?

And yes, it looks difficult, although that's mainly because you don't explain the nomenclature. But at any rate, you don't really have to paste equations in your posts; it's more disruptive than anything else. It's fine to say what you taught them without copying your assignments - more informative, even.

You don't watch as much late-night TV advertising as I do. Good for you. "Your Baby Can Read". The eyes, ears, and brain function before infants learn to coordinate the diaphragm, larynx, and tongue.

If functioning eyes, ears and brain were all it took to learn reading I'd be leaving notes to my cat. Do you have any actual evidence of babies learning to read before learning to speak? (Notice I let you off easy; I'm not asking you to provide evidence that a randomly selected baby could learn that, but merely that a baby in the history of mankind has.)

 

[SumDood]

You don't watch as much late-night TV advertising as I do. Good for you. "Your Baby Can Read". The eyes, ears, and brain function before infants learn to coordinate the diaphragm, larynx, and tongue.

Thats actually not reading. The babies are recognizing the shapes of words and are reacting appropriately. This will not help them at all with reading later.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39953918/ns/today-money/

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's a nice theory, but do you have actual evidence that homeschooled children, on average, learn better than people in decent schools?

Yes. Some of it direct, some inferrential.

Or that the majority of homeschooled children learn math as quickly as your gifted children?

Certainly not as quickly. That's a large part of "gifted". The other part is "talent", like an exceptional sense of hearing (musicians) or sense of smell (cooks).

Your first to examples were, as you call them, gifted children - that is, children with significantly above-average abilities. Why would you project from working with such children that every child can learn equally well? If they could, then you wouldn't have been working with gifted children - just normal children.

It just takes more time. If a child can add and subtract fractions, then that child is ready to start the material we call Alg I.

Your two other examples are about children twice the age you originally claimed could learn this - children in high school studying algebra, already a selected group. Also, did each and every person of the high school class answer the question perfectly in their exams? Did the two brothers?

80% of the class. Both brothers.

And yes, it looks difficult, although that's mainly because you don't explain the nomenclature. But at any rate, you don't really have to paste equations in your posts; it's more disruptive than anything else. It's fine to say what you taught them without copying your assignments - more informative, even.

Notation is more compact.

If functioning eyes, ears and brain were all it took to learn reading I'd be leaving notes to my cat.

Okay. When I wrote "It does not take 12 years to teach a normal child to read and compute" I expected that "human child" was understood.

Do you have any actual evidence of babies learning to read before learning to speak? (Notice I let you off easy; I'm not asking you to provide evidence that a randomly selected baby could learn that, but merely that a baby in the history of mankind has.)

As I said, the advertising for "Your Baby Can Read", and the fact that people learn to speak at all.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Yes. Some of it direct, some inferrential.

And is any of it in a form besides anecdotes and conjecture?

Certainly not as quickly. That's a large part of "gifted". The other part is "talent", like an exceptional sense of hearing (musicians) or sense of smell (cooks).

Well, then you admit you were telling an untruth. You claimed you could teach any child these things in 32 weeks. Yet your gifted children took longer than that, and you admit normal children would take even longer.

It just takes more time. If a child can add and subtract fractions, then that child is ready to start the material we call Alg I.

These are bold claims. You will need to present actual evidence for them. So far, you have provided two accounts of gifted children older than 8 learning these things with a private tutor. You've given nothing that suggests any 8-year old, let alone a group of average ones in a classroom, could do the same.

80% of the class. Both brothers.

Fair enough. But that still does not warrant the assumption that similar results should be expected with 8-year-olds.

Notation is more compact.

Readability is more important than compactness in communication. Otherwise we would all be writing our posts like this.

Okay. When I wrote "It does not take 12 years to teach a normal child to read and compute" I expected that "human child" was understood.

Of course. But then you suggested that a baby could learn to read because "The eyes, ears, and brain function". I merely pointed out that these are not the only conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to make literacy possible.

As I said, the advertising for "Your Baby Can Read", and the fact that people learn to speak at all.

The first is not evidence at all, as SumDood pointed out. And the second certainly is not evidence that we could learn to read before we learn to speak.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Thats actually not reading. The babies are recognizing the shapes of words and are reacting appropriately. This will not help them at all with reading later.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39953918/ns/today-money/

"Shapes of the words"? If that means "shapes of the letters", then the children are reading (decoding the phonetic alphabet).

I agree with the conclusion: "Read to them. Talk to them. Play with them. If a child is having fun, he or she will learn." I would add that "read to them" must include having the child follow the moving finger across the page. Better is explicit phonics: "bad, had, lad, mad, pad, sad...", "bad, bag, ban, bar, bat..."

"Fun" means anything a loving mother wants to do with them that doesn't hurt. Like flash cards and approval. Milk and cookies on the side.