"..... public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system......"

[grundle]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ford1.html

The Public School Disaster

by Mike Ford

August 16, 2005

In my state, in the coming weeks, there are going to be a great many columns about the failure of the Texas legislature to finance the public schools. 98% of what will be written will be irrelevancies about money.

Our public school system has problems that money can't cure. This will not be discussed. Despite its support by a mandatory attendance (required for 13 years) and taxpayer financial support that is also mandatory (averaging $9,000 per year per student), our public schools now produce high school graduates with less than an 8th grade-level education. Nationwide, the costs for this academic and social failure are $536 billion per year (www.ed.gov). And costs are going up.

The principal reason for this situation is that educating our children is no longer the primary purpose of the public schools. Today their purpose is to employ six million people – not to deliver quality education to our children, and certainly not to save money. It has been this way for at least 20 years.

<b>Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), had a penchant for telling it like it is. Back in 1985, he said "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."</b> Legislators, the media, and the public may be confused on this issue, but the teachers' unions are not.

<b>If you gave all the money in the United States to the public schools, they would not improve – they would simply cost more. The system is tenaciously committed to expanding its work force, and paying every teacher the same salary – whether that teacher is world-class and deserves $200,000 per year, or whether that teacher is incompetent and deserves to be fired.</b>

There is no question that much higher quality education can now be delivered at a small fraction of current public school costs. But because today's public school mission is to employ people (not to educate our children), these schools are never going to have lower cost – and are unlikely ever to deliver even marginally better education.

Since our public school system has dominated K-12 education for almost 100 years, most Americans can't even conceive of how children could learn to read and write if it weren't for the government-run schools. <b>They ask, "Isn't the education of our children too important to be left to the uncertainties of the free market?"

If we accept this rationale, logically we should put government in charge of supplying our food. After all, we can go years without education – and still survive. But food – we need food every day, multiple times every day. How is it that the market can handle this more essential and more difficult function – but not handle education? Why is it that the nations that let government take over the supplying of food have all ended up with widespread starvation?

In 1989 Albert Shanker again spelled it out clearly, "It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."</b>

Lack of money is not why our schools cost so much and perform so poorly. Instead of desperately trying to fund the nonfunctional public school system, our legislators should be working to empower parents and children to break free – to make the choices that are best for themselves.

In 1990 Shanker told us, "95% of the kids who go to college in the U.S. would not be admitted to college anywhere else in the world." Maybe our legislators can also debate the question: why is it a good idea to let our children be educated by the government?

[kvrdave]

There are definately problems in the current education system. The ones I see mainly have to do with integrating special education students into regular classrooms. There is some good that comes of that, but I believe that it also holds back the other students. Also, many schools have gone from "ranking" students and putting those with higher skills together to let them advance beyond other students. Now there is more integration so that no one has to feel "dumb" even though students still know which students are dumb.

Basically, we have a lot of "feel good" stuff in our schools that don't allow our top students to excel. Our money (and time) goes to the bottom 10% rather than the top.

But I also think that most parents do not take an active enough role in their children's education, and expect that the schools can do it, while they sit back and watch. Children need to come to understand that they education is there for the taking, but that they must take it. If they sit back and wait to be educated, it rarely happens. I have already taken steps to impress on my children (4 and 6) that they have to work hard at school just like I work hard at my job. If they don't understand something, they must ask. They must do everything they can to take what they want.

And they must teach me what they learned at school at night (which for preschool and kindergarten isn't a lot). But they have to know how valuable I think an education is, if I want them to value it as well. If they don't understand something, we go over it....and over it. And then when they can explain it to me, we watch tv, play, and get ready for the next day at school.

There are certainly discipline problems in any school that are detrimental to a learning environment. And when I hear about them, I go and talk to the principal to make sure he is aware of it, and I check with my child to see if it continues.

Parental involvement is the abosolute key to any education. Money is not. But neither is the idea that we can change the system in some way that will keep us from having to be involved parents either. You can send your kid to a private school, and still end up with a moran. That is not the answer.

Personally, the education of my children is too important to leave up to any entity without my involvement. And I see a lot of people who say that, but still do nothing. They main people who really talk to their student's teachers and principals are the parents of problem children.....so they are the wheel that gets the grease. The ability to change that for the better takes less than an hour a week.

How many parents go and eat lunch with their children even once a year? How many volunteer even once a year?

I am not against the idea of vouchers, etc. But I do not believe they are the panacea that most think they are. The education is there to be had, but parents need to take some responsibility to make sure their children get it.

[wendersfan]

Education isn't a national priority, and for many, if not most, parents, it's not a parental priority. Also, from what I've seen first-hand, it's not much of a priority for individuals working within the educational system at any level. Until these attitudes change, nothing the federal govenment can do, including getting out of the education business altogether, will do much to improve things.

[movielib]

http://www.honestedu.org/edlib/v2n7/sandiego.php

REPRINTED OP-ED ARTICLE:
San Diego Union-Tribune
Thursday, November 16, 1995

It's time to separate school and state

by Richard G. Rettig

For centuries in the West, church and state intertwined. Only after the Reformation and bloody religious wars did most European powers begin to see the wisdom of allowing their peoples freedom to choose religion, regardless of citizenship.

Today in Third World countries where Islam predominates, the struggle continues between the rule of religion and the rule of the state. Echoes of the old conflict, state vs. religion, still remain even in Europe, as we can see in the recent bloodletting in Ireland and Bosnia.

Fortunately, when our country was founded in the 18th century, the Founders agreed that there be no "established religion," thereby banishing religion from the sphere of government. Today, we all agree that government should guarantee freedom of religion but not administer religion.

But such a distinction has yet to be made and become universally obvious when it comes to education. We still think government should not only uphold the right to education for all citizens, government also should administer education. In other words, we have an "established" school system with all the consequences.

The results of this cloudy vision — this lack of distinction between educational rights and educational administration — has produced unending conflict, especially during the last half of this century. We have suffered what might be called "school wars" because schools are so intertwined with governments, local, state, and federal.

Think of these contentious issues — school busing, prayer in schools, educational standards (or lack thereof), politically correct textbooks, sex education, condoms in school, creationism vs. evolution, multiculturalism, bilingual education, same sex schooling and corporal punishment.

If we took government at all levels — from local to federal — out of education, these contentious issues would become non-issues because, with true freedom of choice in education, parents would seek out the schools with the type of education they want for their children.

Parents who wanted prayer in school would send their children to schools offering prayer. Atheist parents would perhaps start their own schools. Parents who preferred bilingual education would seek out schools offering it. Government-run schools no longer would dictate educational offerings.

Just as we in the West no longer are forced to pray or adhere to any one religion (we can choose our church), parents no longer would be forced to send their children to a school of which they disapproved. They could choose their school.

Both religion and education are cultural matters. Do we really believe that a time will ever come when citizens can agree on what and how schools teach, any more than citizens can agree on religion?

We say we believe in the free market rather than socialism. Yet, government control of schools is socialism supreme. Why do we fear free enterprise in education? Could it be because we fear loss of power?

By blindly maintaining the marriage of school and state, we are assuring our nation of unending "school wars" in which bureaucrats, political parties and groups of parents jockey for advantage to assert their view of what and how to teach over the equally legitimate views of all others.

Let our governments divorce themselves from school administration. Let them focus instead on freedom of choice in education and on finding ways to enable parents to fund their children's education — at schools the parents choose.

Isn't it time to stop our "school wars" and begin to separate school and state? Rettig, of Oceanside, California, is a former teacher, school business manager and private school trustee.

[Red Dog]

Think of these contentious issues — school busing, prayer in schools, educational standards (or lack thereof), politically correct textbooks, sex education, condoms in school, creationism vs. evolution, multiculturalism, bilingual education, same sex schooling and corporal punishment.

If we took government at all levels — from local to federal — out of education, these contentious issues would become non-issues because, with true freedom of choice in education, parents would seek out the schools with the type of education they want for their children.


Wow. This never occured to me. ;)

[classicman2]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[kvrdave]

I do believe that leaving education to individual localities would be a detriment to society. Also, it would certainly change the evolution/creation deal. My guess is that our atheists should be more concerned aobut all the religious stuff that many schools would teach. :lol:

[mosquitobite]

I agree with Dave's first post.

I intend to homeschool, but if I don't my kids will be going to a private school that has proven results.

I figure, with my involvement my children will begin learning the moment they're born. I want the school they attends to further that, not hinder. I will teach my children how to learn and to want to learn. I expect the school to know what to do with it from there.

[darkflounder]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Promote does not equal PROVIDE!

And government-run schools seems to run counter to the general welfare, considering the state that they're in.

[Duran]

Promote does not equal PROVIDE!


Doesn't matter what it says, because it's the Preamble. It's not the Constitution.

[Red Dog]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


The least you can do is cite the 'right' general welfare clause. ;)

[CRM114]

:lol: Where do the anti-education folks propose that inner city kids go to school? Families who rent and pay no property tax to begin with - where is the tuition money coming from? There are millions of kids who's only positive experience is in public schools. Public schools give a fair shake to all kids and there are some committed teachers out there. Do the free-marketers really feel that these poor kids aren't valued enough by society to be given a shot at the American dream?

[classicman2]

Promote does not equal PROVIDE!



Of course it does.

[grundle]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There were no public schools back then.

[grundle]

Where do the anti-education folks propose that inner city kids go to school?
The anti-education folks want them to go to horrible inner city public schools.

The pro-education folks prefer things such as this privately funded Marva Collins school, which is designed specifically for low income inner city students:

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990606kelly7.asp

A year ago April, I visited a kindergarten class in the basement of a black church in Dayton, Ohio. None of the parents had ever been to college. Still, all 13 kids could read. (Two girls read me one of Aesop's fables, and explained -- correctly -- its meaning.) In addition, each of the kids could pick out any of the 50 states on a map, and they knew all the state capitals -- even though most had never been farther than Cincinnati.

[Ranger]

Only if there were enough jails to hold all those irresponsible parents for child abuse by sending off their kids to public schools, right? :)

[CRM114]

The pro-education folks prefer things such as this privately funded Marva Collins school, which is designed specifically for low income inner city students:

Time to step in from Lollipop Land. Where do the 99% of kids that wouldn't have a privately funded experiment get educated?

Our schools that serve predominantly low income Hispanic kids are far from "horrible."

[grundle]

Time to step in from Lollipop Land. Where do the 99% of kids that wouldn't have a privately funded experiment get educated?

The private sector can build more Marva Collins schools for them.

The school that I quoted is not an "experiemnt." There are Marva Collins schools all over the country.

Marva Collns was a public school teacher in Chicago in the 1970s. She noticed that the public school where she worked had very low standards for low income black students. Many of her students had been labelled "learning disabled" by the school. Collins believed that the school was wrong about that label.

So she went to the school administrators and told them that she had some new ideas on how to teach these kids. But the school would not allow her to do what she wanted to do.

So Collins quit, and she started her own private school. She took a whole bunch of those so-called "learning disabled" kids. She held her students up to very high standards. She had them read Shakespreare, Plato, etc. She had them read the classsics. She taught them history, science, mathematics, etc. She had very high expectations of her students. And her school had very little money.

It turned out that the public school's claim that the students were "learning disabled" was a lie. Every one of these students who attended Marva Collins's private school ended up graduating and going on to college.

Today, there are Marva Collins schools all over the country. These schools are not "experiments."

These students are not "learning disabled." Instead, the public schools are "teaching disabled."

[VinVega]

:lol: Where do the anti-education folks propose that inner city kids go to school? Families who rent and pay no property tax to begin with - where is the tuition money coming from? There are millions of kids who's only positive experience is in public schools. Public schools give a fair shake to all kids and there are some committed teachers out there. Do the free-marketers really feel that these poor kids aren't valued enough by society to be given a shot at the American dream?
Well, if you don't have enough money for private schools, you simply won't go to school. There are plenty of factory jobs for uneducated masses though, so that's good. Oh wait! ;)

[classicman2]

Doesn't matter what it says, because it's the Preamble. It's not the Constitution.

The Preamble is part of the Constiution.

Ask our friend Red Dog if the bolded statement (promote the general welfare) has ever been cited in a SC ruling.

[classicman2]

There were no public schools back then.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

There weren't any automobiles back then either.

No air planes.

No tanks.

What's your point?

[wendersfan]

Our schools that serve predominantly low income Hispanic kids are far from "horrible."You're right. They're far worse than horrible - they're abysmal.

[kvrdave]

You're right. They're far worse than horrible - they're abysmal.

It depends. Our system makes a few assumptions. You can certainly disagree that they should make these assumptions, I suppose.

When you enter into kindergarten, it is assumed that you already know the alphabet, how to count to 10, and speak and understand english. Most schools (at least that I have worked with) send out something that spells that out. If you don't have those skills when you enter, you will be behind, and probably will be behind for a very long time.

[grundle]

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

There weren't any automobiles back then either.

No air planes.

No tanks.

What's your point?
My point is that the Founding Fathers (or Framers) never intended for the government to be involved in education.

[classicman2]

They didn't intend to spend money on airplanes either, because they didn't exist at the time.

You can be an originalist without being a literalist.

[Red Dog]

Of course it does.


If promote = provide, does that mean establish = endorse. ;)

If the framers intended the federal government to be involved in education, me thinks they would have specifically stated that in Article I Section 8. There would be no need for the most of the provisions of enumerated powers of Art I sec 8 if one could simply rely on general welfare clause.

[nemein]

They didn't intend to spend money on airplanes either, because they didn't exist at the time.

You can be an originalist without being a literalist.


Education/school didn't exist at the time of the Constitution :hscratch:

[classicman2]

Education/school didn't exist at the time of the Constitution :hscratch:

Public education didn't exist.

Now what's your point?

[nemein]

Public education didn't exist.

Now what's your point?

Neither did the system of Gov't that was established. If they thought public education was something that Gov't should be providing they were certainly smart enough to figure that out and put it on the record IMHO. At least something a little more specific than a general clause.

[classicman2]

Isn't the national defense clause rather general?

[nemein]

Isn't the national defense clause rather general?

I guess it depends upon what you mean by general

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Is there anything about education aside from the "general welfare" (that is the cluase you are using right)?

Additionally, it's not like the notion of public education was completely unheard of at that time either. Weren't some of the ancient Mediterranian countries (Greece, Rome, Sparta) into public education? A quick search on the I'net turned up even the UK was beginning to form the notion of public education around this time. Granted all these were probably limited to a certain class of people but even that level of distinction isn't in the Constitution.

[wendersfan]

Isn't the national defense clause rather general?Not as general as "general welfare", which can be interpreted by just about anyone to mean just about anything they want.

Regardless, the American electorate clearly thinks the Federal government should have some involvement in public education. Even if I disagree with that opinion, I'm not so blind as to see that only a dramatic shift in public opinion is going to change that view. In other words the Federal government is clearly charged with the responsibilty of at least helping in the education of this nation's children, so they need to do so in the most practical, effective, and efficient way possible.

[Red Dog]

Yep, nemein.

Unlike the general welfare clause of Art I sec 8, the framers went on to elaborate about what "provide for the common Defence" entails.

[nemein]

Even another part of section 8

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

could have easily been expanded upon to include something about education in this promotion of progress, but it didn't.

Overall though I agree w/ wendersfan, it's not Constitutional but at this point I think we are stuck w/ it so we should make it as efficient (wrt to both money and results) as possible, which is certainly a far cry from what we have currently :(

[grundle]

They didn't intend to spend money on airplanes either, because they didn't exist at the time.

You can be an originalist without being a literalist.
They believed in homeschooling and limited government.

[Brain Stew]

They believed in homeschooling and limited government.
Wow, so you are honestly suggesting that we should all go back to homeschooling?

[nemein]

Wow, so you are honestly suggesting that we should all go back to homeschooling?

Actually I know/hear of more and more people who are doing just that since the public schools are so screwed up, and in some cases private schools aren't much better depending upon the "indoctrination" you get w/ them.

[Ranger]

Yeah, I agree that home-schooling is becoming a better option. Especially for poor parents. I think home-schooling is probably easier for the young and the disabled, but I'm not sure about the high school kids - anyone with some personal experience in that area?

[kvrdave]

I know too many farmers that home school their kids because they like cheap labor. There are some that are excellent, but I don't have a lot of faith in much of it.

Here is what really bothers me about the bulk of home school people I know. They are very religious, and don't want their kids in public schools because they see them as "anti-God" and they aren't "safe." So far....fine. But there is some serious cognitive dissonance, because most of them wouldn't think twice about packing up their kids and going on a mission in Africa or the Phillipines, etc. That is screwed up.

[grundle]

Wow, so you are honestly suggesting that we should all go back to homeschooling?
No. Not everyone.

Some kids should be home schooled.

The rest should go to privately funded private schools.

[classicman2]

They believed in homeschooling and limited government.

You can certainly argue that one of the two main contributors (Hamilton) to the Constitution didn't believe in limited government. He certainly didn't believe in it as you seem to believe, and neither did Madison for that matter.

I would like to thank wendersfan & neimein for their admission that the defense clause is general in nature also. Thank you. :)

[nemein]

I would like to thank wendersfan & neimein for their admission that the defense clause is general in nature also.

:lol: So what would say is a specific clause? And if those are "general" clauses when it comes to defense, where does that leave education ;)

[Red Dog]

:lol: So what would say is a specific clause? And if those are "general" clauses when it comes to defense, where does that leave education ;)


C-man's post was practically a fixed post.

You have to forgive, c-man. He's trying to reconcile his love of huge government with originalism. It is an impossible task - like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. He'll say that if one specific area of constitutional law is one way for 170 years (that he agrees with), it is settled. But if another area of constitutional law is one way for 150 years (that he doesn't agree with), that is irrelavent and should be disregarded. This is called selective originalism. It is something that Justice Scalia has been more inclined to follow in recent years, so there is something that c-man can be proud of.

Oh, and should a discussion of whether I strictly adhere to textualism as it pertains to a certain clause in the 1st amendment come up, one need come prepared to discuss the A argument I've posted in countless threads. :)

[movielib]

I know too many farmers that home school their kids because they like cheap labor. There are some that are excellent, but I don't have a lot of faith in much of it.

Here is what really bothers me about the bulk of home school people I know. They are very religious, and don't want their kids in public schools because they see them as "anti-God" and they aren't "safe." So far....fine. But there is some serious cognitive dissonance, because most of them wouldn't think twice about packing up their kids and going on a mission in Africa or the Phillipines, etc. That is screwed up.
Funny, I have no problem with home schooling no matter how religious the parents are, what their motives or fears are. It's their prerogative and I don't think there should be any meddling with that unless the parents are somehow actually abusing the kids.

I know you realize there are exceptions to the religious home schoolers. I know a divorced atheist libertarian mother who home schooled her three kids, two girls and a middle boy. When the boy wanted to go to public school when he got a little older she let him. All three turned out great and excelled in college.

[CRM114]

You're right. They're far worse than horrible - they're abysmal.

I'm specifically talking about the schools in my city. I see them in action on a daily basis and they are far from horrible.

[CRM114]

:lol:

So in Lollipop Land, there are two options: the rich send their kids to privately funded schools and the poor remain poor by not working and homeschooling. That is priceless. I guess I should be pleased that I have the means to live in such a world since I could stick my head in the sand and act as if millions of people don't exist. Wait, thats being a Republican (or a libertarian). No!

[Breakfast with Girls]

:lol: Where do the anti-education folks propose that inner city kids go to school? Families who rent and pay no property tax to begin with - where is the tuition money coming from? There are millions of kids who's only positive experience is in public schools. Public schools give a fair shake to all kids and there are some committed teachers out there. Do the free-marketers really feel that these poor kids aren't valued enough by society to be given a shot at the American dream?Here we go. Any time a thread comes up that dares to consider separating education and state, we always get the posts about how libertarians and free-marketers hate poor black children.

[Breakfast with Girls]

The truth is that there are no easy answers on how to make our education system better -- but it's not going to get better without doing something. Our education system isn't in crisis, but we're not doing all we can, either.

Part of the problem is the administrative bureaucracy that eats a large chunk of money and turns around and does a lot of things that don't help kids or teachers much. Teachers are required to earn clock hours (take classes) to keep their licenses... but the classes can be on anything, and rarely apply towards their area of teaching. That's why you have English teachers taking classes on creating Flash websites -- learning things they'll never use, teach, or remember. You have million-dollar contracts with companies to deliver new methods of teaching the same material, and scores don't improve. And an incredible amount of effort is spent on standards testing and feel-good measures that ultimately don't change a lot.

In reality, though, the morass of government, tenure, and unions -- not lack of standards -- is the real problem. Cut away the administrative excess and remove the unions. That would be a start.

(Dave's point about integration of special needs students is also dead on. Most teachers aren't adequately trained nor have the time to devote to these students, and everyone suffers as a result.)

[CRM114]

Don't blame the schools. Blame the parents. Its amazing how kids with parents who care achieve and kids who's parents don't achieve.

[Breakfast with Girls]

Don't blame the schools. Blame the parents. Its amazing how kids with parents who care achieve and kids who's parents don't achieve.Parents are not a government-controlled bureaucracy. Schools are. The government can't change parents, but it sure as hell can change schools.

[kvrdave]

Funny, I have no problem with home schooling no matter how religious the parents are, what their motives or fears are. It's their prerogative and I don't think there should be any meddling with that unless the parents are somehow actually abusing the kids.

I know you realize there are exceptions to the religious home schoolers. I know a divorced atheist libertarian mother who home schooled her three kids, two girls and a middle boy. When the boy wanted to go to public school when he got a little older she let him. All three turned out great and excelled in college.

I certainly wouldn't stop them, but I dislike the hypocracy of those I know. I also hate the "conspiracy" mentality of general mistrust that leads a lot of people to home school. People can do whatever they want, no matter how stupid I think it is. Even though most of those parents went to public education, and hope that their kids turn out at least as well as they did. :shrug:

[Binger]

Don't blame the schools. Blame the parents. Its amazing how kids with parents who care achieve and kids who's parents don't achieve.


That would be called personal responsibility, a term not often used on the left.

[grundle]

I know two families that home school, and both are liberals.

[CRM114]

That would be called personal responsibility, a term not often used on the left.

:lol: Isn't it the RIGHT complaining that schools aren't doing enough to raise their children?

[CRM114]

Parents are not a government-controlled bureaucracy. Schools are. The government can't change parents, but it sure as hell can change schools.

So you also want the schools to conform to shoddy parenting? I would MUCH rather have education controlled centrally and equally than this madness of the haves and have nots that is being bandied about here.

We could easily send our child to private school. I choose public education because it is perfectly fine. I am more concerned with the other poorly parented children in the school than I am with the teaching staff.

[Sir Talos]

:lol:

So in Lollipop Land, there are two options: the rich send their kids to privately funded schools and the poor remain poor by not working and homeschooling. That is priceless. I guess I should be pleased that I have the means to live in such a world since I could stick my head in the sand and act as if millions of people don't exist. Wait, thats being a Republican (or a libertarian). No!

How is that any different from the current system? The rich have the option to send their kids wherever they want while the poor and middleclass don't have much choice but to send their kids to failing schools (see original article about TX). Of course, not all public schools are created equal either; some schools are pretty good, but some are not good at all.

All that has been proposed by libertarians and other free-market advocates is instead of pumping endless amounts of tax money into schools with no results.. pump that tax money toward vouchers that can fuel the free-market. If there's one thing we've learned as a capitalistic society, it's that if consumers are given a choice, they try to get the most for their money. In doing so they force the market to provide quality products. Why not at least implement this in cities where education is subpar, what is there to lose as we're already wasting money to no avail?