Following on from this post, this post, and this post by Bruce Gerencser, and factoring in a post of Citizen Tom’s I thought I’d continue this little series. Bruce’s post framed the topic of public money around education, which is a good point to follow up.
Some people – usually from the religious right – are not fond of state-funded education systems. They fear what they consider to be the indoctrination of children (ironic, when you consider they have no issue with public money funding private religious schools, which will undoubtedly indoctrinate their pupils). In the case of the US system, I also have to wonder aloud if the religious right would be willing to use taxpayer’s money to fund private Islamic, Jewish and Hindu schools, or would they offer the ‘wrong’ sort of indoctrination into religious thinking?
We are apparently not meant to trust the government to properly direct the syllabus. Who do we then turn to? Do we rely solely upon those who fund schools? There are many competing voices within Christianity alone, each with different takes on topics such as evolution, so what you end up is a mish-mash of different syllabuses, often contradicting one another, leading to all sorts of confusion as and when the students enter the working world (and especially if they wish to enter into the sciences, or into theological fields). For example, there is a very real possibility that some religious schools will reject geological-driven evidence to instead argue for creationism, whilst others might teach Intelligent Design as a science.
Of course, no government is perfect, but nor is private enterprise. Private schools cost a great deal more than public ones. This is not the fault of government, but instead of the profit-focused nature of those who run private schools. There is a very real chance that the syllabus will rotate, depending on who is willing to pay the most money. Along with religious reasons, different private schools may actually offer different lessons, based on who funds them. Once again, a hodgepodge of different schools, with different lesson plans, based on who gives them money, is hardly the basis for a fair or balanced education system, and will inevitably create confusion later on.
What Countries Enjoy Good Education?
It is worth noting that the current US model is, by some metrics, regarded as the best in the world, providing a platform for would-be university students to thrive. The UK system is ranked 2nd, and much like the US system, education up to university age is freely available at point of use for anyone up to the age of 18. The same applies to Canada, ranked 3rd by some metrics. Germany is 4th, education is free at the point of use, and in Germany some universities waive tuition fees.
Of course, other metrics place other countries higher, with the intriguing note that they all have well-developed public education systems. Sweden, Finland and Denmark all rank very highly, and it goes without saying that Japan’s education is well-regarded around the world.
What is the Objection then?
I think the undercurrent of why the religious right tends to object to publicly-funded education is that they cannot exercise control over it. They cannot filter in their religious beliefs into the public sphere (though not for lack of trying). Their consternation is disguised by complaints about ‘socialism’, but the reality is that they want more influence over young minds, and resent that they cannot freely impose it.
2
0
20
Ben
You are not arguing your case here. You are attacking a straw man, which is largely all Bruce Gerencser did.
Well, Bruce did make at least one more absurd argument. He demanded that taxpayers give their money to public schools even if parents wants to send their children to a different school. That’s preposterous! Why shouldn’t the money follow the children and go to the school where they are being educated?
What happens in private industry when a company loses out to competition? Do they continue to get money from people who took their money to another company? Why not?
Frankly, if anyone has the responsibility to teach their children their values, it is the parents. You don’t like that? Then it is you who has some explaining to do, not the so-called religious right. When parents make a sincere effort to pass their values on to their children because they love their children and want them to have the benefit of those values, we should honor those parents. Those parents are trying to do their job.
Will all parents teach their children the “right” values? No. Not all parents love their children. Nevertheless, where is the evidence that politicians are qualified to judge such matters? Who in their right mind even wants to trust politicians with a decision like that?
From your first line, I take it you have no problem with taxpayer’s money funding private schools? Is that what you want, you want the government to effectively fund private education? That seems awfully ironic to me…
Your last line sums it up. What are the ‘right’ values Tom? Who decides? A mish-mash of different private schools with different agendas, set by whomever dangles the most cash? Is that what you want? You speak of trusting parents to teach values; I do not object to that, despite your curious and ill-founded implication that I might believe otherwise. However, I am not qualified to teach maths, science, history, or PE, and I doubt most parents have the experience or indeed time, to give their children the sort of education they need. You may complain a lot about the education system in the US, but you have ignored how well-regarded it is, and ignored how most countries with highly-rated education systems have public education systems, freely available to all. What do you favour, expensive private education, that apparently should receive taxpayer’s money at the expense of public schools?
Ben
Please read https://citizentom.com/2024/04/05/an-example-of-an-abuse-of-power/#comment-112519 again.i have already told you what I think of government funding of education.
Private education doesn’t have to be expensive. Government-run education is actually is more expensive. It is absurd to expect otherwise. Check out => https://citizentom.com/2013/01/03/what-is-just-enough-government/. See what Milton Friedman said about how we spend money.
When American schools tell the public how much they spend per student, they only provide what they call the operating cost. In other words, they hide the total cost.
You speak as if government-run education is the only feasible option and as if parents are unqualified to make decisions for their children. Except for the fact we elected the politicians who run our country, I would say that is nonsense. So, yes. I agree we can be quite stupid. Fortunately, people tend to copy success. So, if they are allowed to choose, the parents who figure how get a decent education for their children will be copied by those less capable. That is one of the benefits of competition in the marketplace.
Referencing your own site as a source will not wash with me Tom. I have provided you with facts and figures, and they detail, quite thoroughly, that public education is actually cheaper, and very, very effective at providing a good education. If you have evidence to the contrary, then please provide it directly here.
Ben
You referenced one of my post, and I cannot do it.
I referenced a comment you ignored earlier, and the post I referenced points to Milton Friedman words. Friedman was a Nobel prize winner in Economics (when people still took the award seriously).
You also ignored a wealth of information I provided, or tried to hand-wave it away.
Ben
I did not ignore the information you provided. You provided a bunch of statistics, but you didn’t not demonstrate that a correlation exists between those stats and the conclusions you asserted. Basically, you made assumptions which you have yet to examine.
When Socrates said, the in examined
Here is the rest.
When Socrates said “the unexamined life is not worth living,” he was saying we need to test the assumptions upon which we base our beliefs.
Quite. Do you do that Tom? You assume that the information I provided does not support the conclusions I reach. I can assume the same about the information you provide. You repeated your claim that publicly funded education costs people more than private education, yet you did not support that claim with evidence. Instead you made a statement about hidden costs. At least I provided links to support my claims about the costs.
You appear to believe that we can entirely trust businesses to run every aspect of our lives. You would entrust education to moguls. Perhaps granting complete trust to government is not great, but neither is believing that a for-profit model will yield better outcomes. Without meaningful oversight (and sometimes in spite of it), corporate schools (is that not effectively what you want?) will cut corners, place money ahead of education, and there will inevitably be a vast difference in quality, not to mention a likely inconsistency of curriculum. Indeed, the latter issue (which I have raised more than once) is that if we are talking about private religious schools), what sort of consensus could we expect from them? Would some teach Young Earth Creationism as a science, and omit the theory of evolution entirely? What say you to issues such as that?
Ben
Most people don’t have a good understanding of statistics. That includes lots of news reporters whose reporting you are repeating.
Statistics often don’t tell us much, and sometimes they are misleading. So, let’s consider your stats on school costs.
About 90 percent of the population of the USA sends their children to public schools because we are creatures of habit. After all, the system once worked relatively well, and it is “free.” Now, because the public school system works so poorly, parents want alternatives.
Compare the monopolistic public school system with an alternative market that is relatively competitive. We buy vehicles from private companies. Because of what the customer needs (a giant truck) or wants (luxury), some vehicles are highly expensive, and many are relatively inexpensive. Because different customers want different things at different prices, vehicle makers target market niches, and vehicle prices are all over the place. Therefore, shoppers compare the prices of similar vehicles, not scooters with luxury sedans.
You tell me. What does the market for private schools look like in the USA? Is it representative of what the market would look like if most parents had been sending their children to private schools for a couple of decades? Or is the market filled with a disproportionate number of wealthy people purchasing a luxury education for their children?
If you want meaningful price comparisons, you have more work to do.
What about your distrust of private corporations, which for some reason you think I do not share? May I point out that Capitalism REQUIRES a regulated marketplace? Government is needed to make certain people meet the contractual requirements. In addition, government is needed to prevent the formation of monopolies.
So, where do we differ?
1. I don’t think we should trust anyone, including government officials, with great power. Therefore, I object to Socialism, which gives politicians control over everything.
2. I don’t think either you, or I , or anyone else is wise enough to run other people’s lives. I think the notion that so-called experts should be put in charge of the country is just plain foolish. Plato probably started this sort of nonsense when he wrote of putting philosopher king in charge of Greece. Philosopher kings would abuse great power too. Human beings are just too easily tempted.
Let people run their own lives, and let them bear the consequences, whether for good or ill. Remember that true charity stems from love, not government policy. If you have to help a neighbor, use your own money. Don’t rob someone else.
I would tend to agree with you Tom, in that a lot of people do not understand the data they present. I do not claim a perfect understanding of all of it myself. However, when you wish to rebuke the statistics and data, I require a little more than a statement of disagreement.
For example, referencing your claim that public schools cost the taxpayer more than private schools would. You did not demonstrate the information I provided to be false; you merely asserted it was misleading. You need to demonstrate this, with evidence and examples. For my part, I will repeat what the articles show, starting with the budget breakdown from https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/4-14-08tax.pdf:
Four percent of the US budget gets spent on education. If we assume 100% of the budget is raised via taxes, and based on the average tax bill per American of $18,000 (as per here , then of that $18,000 collected in taxes, $720 goes towards education. I will grant that’s an average, and some people would pay more, but then again, will this remotely get as expensive as private education currently is?
You suggest that a competitive, private market would be better. Would it? You more or less said it yourself, some services would cost more, and it is inevitable that with different prices there will be a different level of quality, creating an imbalance in the system. Sometimes, people unwittingly pay a lot of money for ‘luxury’ that proves poor in quality, so there is not a guarantee to the ‘consumer’ that a more expensive school would even be better. Right now, the playing field is level for most Americans (with the exception of the very wealthy, who can afford the prices private schools like to charge), and as I have referenced several times now, the current model is better than you are prepared to admit. You keep insisting the system is poor, but without providing details or examples. To quote from an earlier link here https://www.shiksha.com/studyabroad/country-with-best-higher-education-system-articlepage-1423#:~:text=1.,within%20the%20top%20150%20ranks.
Of course, not every public school will be amazing, just as every private school will not be amazing. Marjorie Taylor Green was publicly educated, yet believes the recent New York earthquake and eclipse to be portents of doom. Then again, that might be in spite of her education, rather than because of it!
In the course of our conversations, you have offered seemingly unwavering support (sometimes in the face of evidence no less) to the capitalism model. Your defence of the unchecked greed of the likes of Bezos, Musk etc has not led me to believe that you distrust corporations. Indeed, you are arguing to place corporations in charge of education! Despite plenty of evidence for how privatising public services can make them worse (I reference, again, the terrible situations regarding UK water and rail companies), and despite evidence of how public-run education provides good results (I refer you, again, to the Nordic examples, to say nothing of the likes of Japan and South Korea), you continue to suggest we place our faith in money.
None of this is to say that I offer government control over everything my unwavering support. In some areas, competition is good and healthy. It can drive innovation. However, it can also stifle it. It can make people lazy. Look at Boeing, one of two major aircraft manufacturers, who have grown so comfortable that they have cut numerous corners on aircraft safety, in order to save money. I do not want that sort of attitude infecting education, do you?
Ben
Um, I’m going to assume you hit the button too early? Do you want me to delete the last couple of comments, so you can start again?
Not sure what it was. I recycled my phone. It has been a while.
If a comment is empty, delete it.
You mention you have no problems with parents sending their children to religious schools. How do feel about children being educated under the
A. C. E. ( Accelerated Christian Education) system? and should they receive any government funding?
Ark
There you go again. Never answering questions. Always trying to trap people with questions.
Jesus had a habit of answering questions with questions, but He also answered questions.
I have never heard A.C.E. So, I have no interest in commenting upon it. I would not send government funds to organizations which promote lawbreaking. Obviously, organizations seeking government funds would have to do something to demonstrate they are qualified to receive funds. However, the object is to let parents choose who teaches their children, where their children go to school, and what their children go to school. So, I am not interested in creating a bunch of constraints which effectively turn private schools into government-run schools.
I don’t think you asked a question of me here on Ben’s post?
Why did you presume ACE are breaking the law if you have never heard of them?
ACE promote Young Earth Creationism.
Do you consider:
A) They are entitled to any sort of government funding ? (why/why not?)
B) The goverment should/ is within it’s rights to intervene and prevent YEC based education programs from being taught/promoted?
Ark
I said I don’t know anything about A.C.E. I said I have no interest in commenting on A.C.E. What is so confusing about that?
I was curious about your comment about the law, and as ACE promotes YEC and you are in favour of parents being responsible for their children’s education, including homeschooling, do you think the government should have a right to intervene when it comes to anyone indoctrinating children with erroneous religious garbage such as YEC?
Ark
I believe that people should be free. Freedom means the right hold on to dumb beliefs like your own. If you want teach your children your dumb beliefs, that is up to you. What you don’t have right to do is to inflict your foolishness upon other people’s children.
My dumb beliefs? Perhaps you would like to discuss what you think these beliefs are?
Hmm…. So you consider my “dumb beliefs”, which include not eating other animals, are more damaging to young children than a bunch of religious science denying ignoramuses telling children the earth is no more than 6K years old, the Loch Ness monster is real and dinosaurs co-existed with humans?
Is this the type of nonsense you want to see any child indoctrinated with let alone those in the US?
Ben
The notion that a monopolistic government-run school system works better than private schools in competitive market is a silly proposition.
I have not made a statistical argument. I have made a moral argument you are trying to bury with numbers that you don’t understand. For example, most education funding in the USA is state and local. In the past, all education funding was local. Then state and now Federal politicians started trying to buy influence with taxpayer dollars. They made our education system worse by making it more monopolistic.
Americans are looking at their education system, and many don’t like it. Parents want back control, and they have a right and a responsibility to be in control. Because Federal and state funding has been used to twist the agenda of America’s colleges and universities, that includes college and universities. However, the original subject was K-12.
You are intelligent person, but you don’t know know what you are talking about, and that is true of most voters. Are you and these largely uninformed voters even capable of electing people who will competently run our education system? Of course not!
But you have an excuse. You fear corporations and the rich who run them. For some reason you don’t fear excessive government power, which can easily be shown is more dangerous. All we have to say is a name or two.
I am disappointed Tom, that you continue to ignore evidence in favour of emotive statements.
The effectiveness of state-run education systems is not something that I have ‘buried in numbers’. It is a demonstrable quality, one I fear you have no interest in understanding, because the bottom line is that you simply don’t like state-run education. It does not teach what you want it to teach. Your ‘moral’ argument is no argument at all. After all, you go on to speak of agendas, which reveals your true motive. If state education taught things from your perspective, I suspect your objections would vanish.
Not for the first time, you have completely ignored all the evidence, simply because it does not suit your narrative. You cannot show me anything to indicate education would be improved by treating it as a for-profit business. All you can do is assert your belief, and appeal to your bogeyman.
Ben
I could present “evidence” of life in the ocean. That “evidence” would be perfectly factual, and it will be better than your “evidence.” That is because I would not use it to suggest something that is true that is not true.
Please observe something quite relevant. You said I don’t like state-run education because it does not teach what I want it to teach. In a democracy if some government institution does not do what I think it ought to do, then I have responsibility to support a better alternative. Meanwhile, BECAUSE state-run education is teaching, or not teaching, the way you think it ought, you are personally attacking my motives.
All I have done to injure your ego is to demonstrate you don’t know enough to try to run other people’s lives. NOBODY does. Nevertheless, you are determined to use the government to instruct other people’s children as you deem appropriate.
Note: I have not advocated that children must be taught my beliefs. I have insisted that that is responsibility of parents. Yet you have accused me of doing what you are actually doing.
You could present evidence Tom, yet by your own admission you are appealing to emotion, or ‘morals’. That’s an entirely subjective line of reasoning, and flies in the face of reason.
You may comfort yourself with the belief you have harmed my ego, but it would be quite the error on your part. You are against state education on the grounds you believe it does not teach the right stuff, so to speak, and you are so married to that idea that you are prepared to go through some extraordinary mental gymnastics to justify your position, all whilst never actually offering anything to justify it.
Ben
You are insisting that unless I am just like you that nothing I say has any validity.
Have I harmed your ego? I did not say that I did, actually. I said that I have done very little to harm your ego. The biggest threat to your ego is your absurd insistence that you know enough to run other people’s lives.
You say I am against state-run education because it does not teach the right stuff. Yet I avocate for parents choosing who teaches their children, where their children attend school, and what their children learn. So, unlike you, I am advocating for a system over which i have virtually no control over educational content. Therefore, your accusation makes no sense. Perhaps you are projecting your own schemes on to me.
What I am doing Tom, is holding you to a little thing call standards. You make claims, without basis. You believe public education costs more than private education, and when I offered you evidence, you ignored it, claimed I didn’t really understand the evidence, or appealed to ‘moral’ arguments. At no stage have you actually refuted my positions, and you certainly have not offered any good reason why we should place our faith in private education.
As I do not want this to become a ‘no you!’ situation, I am going to ask you to provide some form of tangible evidence that shows how the current public education model is not fit for purpose. Please provide examples of home-schooling, tutoring and private schools offering better quality education at a cost that is more effective as well. If you choose not to, then I can see no further point in entertaining you on this subject.
Ben
I pointed out numerous flaws in your argument, and you are complaining about my standards. Instead of defending your position, all you have done is attack me. So much for standards.
The information you want is available, but you are not going to find it on a Socialist leaning website. Why don’t check out websites that promote school choice? Milton Friedman started such a group, and there are others.
I cannot convince you. You won’t stand for it. So, you will have to convince yourself.
Since I don’t claim the right to run other people’s lives, I don’t think my standards need to be judged by you or anyone else. People will judge me, of course, but I hope that most will judge me as they also hope to be judged by others. I do my best, usually, but I am hardly perfect, but disagreeing with someone does not require perfection. Yet isn’t that what you are demanding?
You have it backward Tom. I have repeatedly defended my position, and you… you have not provided any reference material. You say there are examples; so provide them. Your refusal to do so is your problem. Anyone reading this thread can see who has made a case, and who has skirted around refuting it.
Ben
I have nothing to prove. I have written on school choice, and I have written about the public schools. If I decide to write more, I will write what I want and post it on my website.
Write your own material, but be careful when you use statistics. The numbers often don’t mean what people say they mean.
Write what you want. Just bear your own statement in mind.
Ark
Interesting. You did not list Atheism. That’s the doozy.
The problem with your beliefs, the thing that really makes them dumb, is your insistence upon using the law to force others to adopt your beliefs. That shows a lack of respect for the rights of others.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Nothing else.
YEC is indoctrinated into children as a literal reading of the Bible and undermines science at every turn.
Can you imagine a generation of children who tried to enter the workforce after being indoctrinated with this degree of religious garbage?
That you refuse to even address it, let alone condemn it speaks volumes of your lack of personal integrity and any genuine concern for children and their education/ well being.
Furthermore, your bleeding heart whining over freedom is sheer ignorance and more than a little warped.
Ark
If you simply lack belief in any god, which no one does, then you are an Agnostic, not an Atheist.
Anyway, you admitted your intolerance. You would deny anyone the right to disagree with you. That is something you have in common with the sort of people who worship the state. Such people sacrifice other people to their god.
Given you are attacking Christians, I am perfectly happy to be called a bleeding heart by you.
=> https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/bleeding-heart-phrase-origin-meaning
Given the early use of the term, I am flattered, but frankly I don’t deserve it. I wish I did care about others more.
Seriously, the crap you spew is indicative of an ignorant curmugeonly old man, or a liar.
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods
This is me.
If you are too underhand to accept this that is your problem.
The rest of your comment is simply drivel. It is however an illustration of your hypocrisy.