Public School System

Someone asked me recently if I was for or against vouchers. My incredibly Licht-ian answer would have to be “Yes and no.”

Yes in that, using the current system, it seems patently unfair to tell someone they cannot take the credit given by the system and use it towards the school of their choice: public, private, or even just a different public school.

No in that the current system is defunct, corrupt and ridiculous and needs to be done away with completely. Entirely eradicated.

Problem number one: the system is communistic. More on that later, but think about it.

Problem number two: the payment/distribution is unequal. Let’s throw an example out there. Numbers are in no way scientific, only representative.

A 30-something couple with no children pays, say, $400 in taxes. They are paying for a few things with those taxes. A highway system they will use. A social security they are planning to use (tho it may be a pipe dream, but that is an entirely different matter). And the public school system they do not and are never planning to take advantage of.

A 30-something couple has four children. They get write-offs for these dependents and end up not only not paying taxes, but getting a rebate. They are still planning on using the systems available to them, but the key here is they are not paying anything for the system they utilize the most. They are, in fact, getting a whole lot of something for nothing.

The 30-something childless couple is picking up the slack. They are paying more for a system they will ever use than the actual beneficiaries of the system.

I will quickly answer two objections. 1) “But the couple is advantaged by the education of those kids in that they will be future doctors lawyers etc. and benefit society.” Ignoring the fact that most lawyers detract from society and not benefit it, and ignoring the fact this is Communist propaganda even when it in a few cases is true, we must realize the parents are benefitted too, right? And yet not paying anything in. Also, following this logic, both couples are paying for a bunch of kids to grow up and work at McDonalds flipping burgers their whole lives, which hardly benefits anyone.

2) “Well then just change the tax system so parents pay more per dependent rather than less.” Again not the answer. What if the parents of those four kids send them all to a private school? “Well that’s their choice.” Exactly. But it should not be government-mandated that their choice squeeze double the money out of them: money into a system they do not intend to use, and then money into the school they are using.

So, solution. Don’t ‘fix’ the current system (been there tried that) or add more rules or, for heaven’s sake, don’t Christianize it. The solution is simple: only those utilizing the public schools pay for them. Which would make them essentially private schools, you argue. Hey, you’re catching on!

A few problems this would solve. First, the government would not have so much of a say in the curriculum standards. There should be basic standards enforced (no Wiki textbooks, thank you), but all this nonsense about government mandates of textbooks . . . do we really want the government deciding that? You tell me. You cry “But who would?” Well I’m sure the government would stick its nose in just as it does with private schools now, but a novel idea would be let the parents vote. Or maybe with this new-found freedom the could choose a school which actually lines up closer with their teaching, rather than pick a corrupt one simply because it’s free and therefore easier. The basic supply-demand says if a school would then promote policies not acceptable to the general public, it would not last long. I’m just saying.

Second, paying might make people actually care. We must return here to the number one problem: the entire concept is communistic. What’s wrong with Communism on paper? Nothing really. The problem is it is in no way applicable to reality. If you don’t have to work to be taken care of, then you don’t work—or care. In the same way many (I do NOT say all) parents do not care or get involved in a ‘free’ system. “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.” If they were actually paying don’t you think most would make sure their kids went, did their homework, and got out of it what they should, namely actual learning? Instead parents say “well I can’t afford anything else.”

 So give ‘em their tax money and let ‘em go crazy. But no complaining about needing more of my money if they don’t like the school they choose. Now they put their money where their mouth is, instead of making me pay the government more because their school needs a new football field.

Another objection I can hear coming is that some of the Founding Fathers had a notion of schooling and scholarship to the top 10%, which they figured would benefit society. I’d argue the scholarship system is already in place in today’s college system. As for the notion of public schooling . . .

“But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the Governor and Council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience. Try the principle one step further and amend the bill so as to commit to the Governor and Council the management of all our farms, our mills, and merchants’ stores.” Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Cabell, Feb. 2, 1816, reprinted in Political Writings of Thomas Jefferson (1955).

 In other words, why should the government fund and completely control education any more than other aspects of private life?

 “It [should not] be proposed to take ordinary branches [of education] out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal. Thomas Jefferson, sixth annual message to Congress (1806), reprinted in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Memorial Edition 1907).

 Things work better when handled on a personal, local, or smaller level. While Jefferson did support public funding of schools to some extent, it was because he valued education, rejected compulsory attendance, and realized in his day too many parents were using children to work because they couldn’t afford school. In this day and age, if the tax money was given to the parents instead of taken away because ‘government knows best’ almost no-one in these United States could legitimately make that complaint. It becomes one more thing that comes with having children, along with food, clothes and medical bills. It’s time this country stop stepping in and raising the children for the irresponsible (as well as the responsible.)

 Admittedly there are a few more kinks to work out with the proposed system. There would have to be some sort of guard against price-gouging to prevent poorer people from attending school: maybe some sort of ‘ranking’ system and unless you have ‘this this and this’ there is a price ceiling you cannot go above. (Not a minimum or floor price, but a maximum.)

But a system with a few kinks to iron out would be better than a bankrupt system (I do not use this in the financial sense, because we all know they can just siphon our pockets to continue to shore it up). Then maybe everyone would actually learn something.