NationStates Jolt Archive

I would consider myself generally libertarian on social issues and moderately liberal on most economic issues. On a political chart, I would be somewhere near the Dalai Lama. But recently, I got into a political discussion with a staunch libertarian who supported the privatization of the school system.

Here's the background to the issue as it pertained to us:

In the state of Wisconsin, where I live, a school voucher program allows a certain number of students to transfer tax money, which would normally go to a public school, to the school - public or private - of the students' parents' choice. Vouchers are offered based on a lottery and sibling priority. The program is meant to allow poor families to send their children to private schools if they wish. I personally am against this system. It uses tax money to fund unregulated private schools including religious schools. Furthermore, by taking money out of the public school system, it makes public schools even worse and may eventually make all students rely on private schools whether or not they can afford them. Nevertheless, the program is widely popular and a movement has risen to petition Governor Jim Doyle to "lift the cap" on how many vouchers the state may issue.

Wisconsin also has its Chapter 220 program, which allows white students from the suburbs attend city schools and minority students from the cities attend suburban schools. Some view the extra money spent on busing as a waste of taxpayer dollars, but I embrace this state statutory law as a wonderful means of upholding the school desegregation following the US Supreme Court case law of Brown v. Board of Education. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has vehemently upheld Chapter 220.

Being a white from Glendale, I used Chapter 220 to attend schools in Milwaukee throughout elementary and middle school and enjoyed the diverse learning environment. After that I chose to attend Nicolet High School in Glendale but only because I thought it was better than most Milwaukee Public Schools. I am currently a senior at Nicolet.

Here's the staunch libertarian's take on education:

Government has already overstepped its boundaries by regulating education. The case law of Rodriguez v. San Antonio suggests that education is not a fundamental right that merits equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Let all schools be private. The national government gives everyone a voucher of equal value to subsidize the cost of private schools. If the school costs more than the voucher, then the student must find other means of paying the difference.

Here's my take on his stance:

First of all, I believe that the US Supreme Court was not properly upholding Constitutional law in the Rodriguez v. San Antonio decision. The Elastic Clause of the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) as interpreted by the case law of McCullough v. Maryland gives legislature the power to pass laws that can serve as a means for executing other laws under its explicit power. Education is, in truth, a fundamental right because it is "necessary and proper" for maintaining the future of the political process and therefore must be provided with "equal protection" through the opportunity of adequately funded public schools.

Using unlimited school vouchers would be using taxes to fund religious schools. This is essentially a government endorsement of religion and would be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Here's my request for reader feedback:

I will admit that I am perhaps very biased on this issue because I have only attended public schools. But the staunch libertarian seems hypocritical to me because his daughter is currently a sophomore at the public Nicolet High School.

What are your takes on this issue?
What are your takes on the Constitutional law, case law and statutory law I discussed here at both the national and state levels?

Please do not hold back your commentary. I firmly believe in free speech as a tool for better understanding one's own beliefs. I could be completely wrong now having been blinded by my public school bias. Pardon my "legalese" if you did not follow it.

I agree with you on the school issue, and I think that you should have pointed out the staunch libertarian's hypocrisy at his daughter's attending public school.

You have good points. I have no kids and am over a decade out of school, so I really don't have a nickel in it. I just wanted to remind you that Libertarians are a very... VERY mixed bunch. You got all kinds of fruit in that salad, so another 'staunch' libertarian may disagree with your 'staunch' libertarian.

http://www.lp.org

As a parent who has had a child in both public and private schools, I lean more to the opinion that all schools should be government run and thus accountable to some form of higher authority.

In public education, my childs gifts have been developed and nurtured. She loved school as a child - except for the short period when she was in a private school when she became depressed, cried in her sleep and feigned illness to avoid school - and has excelled throughout her primary and secondary education. She has completed high school two years early and is planning on studying law at uni. The private high schools we looked at were of the opinion that there is no such thing as a gifted student and in their system would still be in year 10, probably bored out of her skull and thinking of ways to liven things up .... We have had no issues with drugs, violence, bullying or gangs - anything in fact within the public system.

When she was approximately 7 and enrolled in the montessori stream of our local government school, we were approached by a group of parents who were planning to open a non-government (private) school run exclusively along montessori principles. To cut a long story short, we got behind the idea and enrolled our daughter. Then followed the most miserable three months in her entire school career. There was a curriculum posted, but nobody followed it. Virtually no teaching was done in the entire time that she was there. The students who were children of the governing body were overtly catered to at the expense of other students. My daughter was subjected to a continual stream of bullying by the son of one of the council members that culminated in her being kicked in the stomach hard enough to leave a large bruise. When we arrived to collect her, she was still gasping for breath inside the building while the culprit was playing football outside. No disciplinary action was ever taken against him.

Needless to say, we removed her from the school immediately and transferred her back to the government school where she was previously. Over the course of the next year, many of the children whose parents were not in the ruling clique returned with similar stories. Upon inquiry, I was told that the non government schools board served as an advocacy rather than a supervisory or disciplinary body and that the only recourse we would have would be to try to have the child charged. We obviously did not take this course.

While my daughter was attending a private school, the adults who were there may not have actively caused her harm, but they allowed harm to come to her by favouring others due to their parents. This has never happened in any public school she has attended (3 of them over 10 years). On the contrary, bullying is vigorously dealt with.

Thus ends my admittedly personalised opinion and explaination. There is too much scope for children to come to harm in the private system without any regulated recourse. The school system needs to have regulated checks and balances to protect students and IMO, the private school system is more concerned with the schools reputation than the students well being.

hmm... my gut instinct on this one is that if all schools were funded on a voucher system, then in areas of your state/country where there are few students, especially i'd imagine in rural areas, it would not be as profitable to run a school, so these private schools wouldn't even open up shop, leaving a lot of kids either sitting on buses for hours to get to a school, or uneducated altogether. those buses would probably cost a fortune, too.

bad idea, imho.

When she was approximately 7 and enrolled in the montessori stream of our local government school, we were approached by a group of parents who were planning to open a non-government (private) school run exclusively along montessori principles.

Interestingly, my kindergarten, first grade, and second grade years were spent at a Montessori school of the Milwaukee Public Schools.

hmm... my gut instinct on this one is that if all schools were funded on a voucher system, then in areas of your state/country where there are few students, especially i'd imagine in rural areas, it would not be as profitable to run a school, so these private schools wouldn't even open up shop, leaving a lot of kids either sitting on buses for hours to get to a school, or uneducated altogether. those buses would probably cost a fortune, too.

bad idea, imho.

Public education isn't about getting a large, profitable revenue.

Ok, I'm Libertarian too, and I'm pretty sure that our constitution does indeed ensure a right to an education.

However, out central government has become far too regulating of it; I propose that individual states control education as they see fit, so we have 50 better organized, state educational systems than 1 ineffecient centralized one.

I suspect this issue is overstated quite a bit. I had five children go through public schools. One of them became a secretary, one is working on his Master's degree, one decided to be a homemaker and raise children, and two are Registered Nurses with undergraduate degrees. My point is that it's possible for any child who wants to learn to gain a good education regardless of where they attend school. Some will have higher educational aspirations than others, and some will view school as something to be endured.

What makes the difference, other than genetics? The parents.

Ok, I'm Libertarian too, and I'm pretty sure that our constitution does indeed ensure a right to an education.

However, out central government has become far too regulating of it; I propose that individual states control education as they see fit, so we have 50 better organized, state educational systems than 1 ineffecient centralized one.

Education is usually a state issue. Most public school money comes from property and sales taxes. You may want to study Rodriguez v. San Antonio, for it is quite an interesting case.

I'd just would like to point out that Libertarians share one common thing, and that is less power to the federal government. Sometimes that means just more power to the states or local community, and sometimes it means more power to the individual. Whatever the case, I do not see a person who pays taxes to fund the public schools, no matter what political stance, is a hypocrit. If hes paying, then he has every right to dislike the system his children are going to. Why should he have to pay taxes for the kids at the public school, then turn around and shell out money to send his child to a private school? It isn't fair to him, and I understand why he would still send his child to a public school.

For example, I pay local taxes for the local library, irregardless if I use it or not. I don't like that, but since I am paying for it, I might as well use it. That doesn't make me a hypocrit.

Anyways, I don't think a complete overhaul of the public system into a private one makes sense. I think each individual community should be able to make that decision on there own. But I do not want the FED to get one cent of my tax money towards the educationl system, that should always go to the city or state that I am in. Whether or not the state runs it, the fed still regulates it too much, and it is eroding the power that the states have.

.... My daughter was subjected to a continual stream of bullying by the son of one of the council members that culminated in her being kicked in the stomach hard enough to leave a large bruise. When we arrived to collect her, she was still gasping for breath inside the building while the culprit was playing football outside. No disciplinary action was ever taken against him.......Interesting...
To all parents and teachers..and students..
Would you say that...you or your children...are more exposed to violence in a Private or a Public school?

You have good points. I have no kids and am over a decade out of school, so I really don't have a nickel in it. I just wanted to remind you that Libertarians are a very... VERY mixed bunch. You got all kinds of fruit in that salad, so another 'staunch' libertarian may disagree with your 'staunch' libertarian.

http://www.lp.org

I agree with your point. Diversity among ideologies is always important, and a libertarian can be either liberal or conservative. Note, however that I used the lower-cased libertarian so I am not referring to the Libertarian Party.

w00t for the UK's free mandatory schooling up to 16, then free college stuff up to 18! But a big WTF for the student loan business and fucking 'top-up fees'. Bring back grants for real subjects and ban degrees in dog grooming!!!

w00t for the UK's free mandatory schooling up to 16, then free college stuff up to 18! But a big WTF for the student loan business and fucking 'top-up fees'. Bring back grants for real subjects and ban degrees in dog grooming!!!
They won't. Because it is in the Governments interest to have a large student population ("Look! We are pro-education, look at the amount of students.") Not that the conservatives are any better. Turning the polytechnics in to proper universities and then declaring that they had doubled the student population.

They won't. Because it is in the Governments interest to have a large student population ("Look! We are pro-education, look at the amount of students.") Not that the conservatives are any better. Turning the polytechnics in to proper universities and then declaring that they had doubled the student population.
I liked the new name for Newcastle polytechnic when it was first changed into a uni: the Central University of Newcastle upon Tyne - they even printed 5000 T- shirts before the dirty acronym was spotted. I want one. I WANT ONE!!!

I liked the new name for Newcastle polytechnic when it was first changed into a uni: the Central University of Newcastle upon Tyne - they even printed 5000 T- shirts before the dirty acronym was spotted. I want one. I WANT ONE!!!
Ha ha.

As far as I remember, the University of Central Lancashire got in a bit of trouble with UCL too.

Ha ha.

As far as I remember, the University of Central Lancashire got in a bit of trouble with UCL too.
That's my hometown uni. It started as UCL, then though of UCLa, and is now UCLan. But it still has the highest dropout rate for any uni in the country. It's one of the best for 'media and film studies' though ;)

That's my hometown uni. It started as UCL, then though of UCLa, and is now UCLan. But it still has the highest dropout rate for any uni in the country. It's one of the best for 'media and film studies' though ;)
I know, used to live around there.

I know, used to live around there.
What, in Preston or in a surrounding suburb. I live in a little backwater village about 3 miles from Penwortham and 4 miles from Preston

What, in Preston or in a surrounding suburb. I live in a little backwater village about 3 miles from Penwortham and 4 miles from Preston
Some backwater village

Some backwater village
hang on. called?

hang on. called?
Hurst Green

Hurst Green
Ahh. As my name implies, i live in the chav capital of the world, longton. no-one knows where it is because people are sub-consciously repelled by hundred of wigga gangstas guarding the surrounding area.

school vouchers are an asinine problem and are no better than the AA band aid, in fact they are worse for reasons the topic creator pointed out, not evreyone can afford private schools, and by draining money from public schools they will eventually have to close thus causing ecucation to become worse as people cant afford the private schools

Wow, y'all Brits really conquered this post. :p

The purpose of school is to train young people to conform to authority, adapt to regimented, clock-driven work schedules, and produce unquestioning consumers who take little or no interest in the political process.

It makes no difference if that indoctrination takes place in a publicly funded (government) or privately funded (corporate) system, since they are quickly becoming one and the same.

I teach in a private school, so you can understand that I may not be unbiased in this issue.

there are good private schools, as well as bad ones. as there are good government schools and bad ones. the bad ones seem to outnumber the good ones however.

private schools that I am familiar with do a better job at a much lower price per student than the government schools do. that is a fact around these parts. (northern California)

I think that the states are the only legitimate entity that can regulate schools, however I do think that the federal government has an interest in regulating states as far as results.


I'm all for vouchers, but they should be for the full amount the state allots per student.

Interesting...
To all parents and teachers..and students..
Would you say that...you or your children...are more exposed to violence in a Private or a Public school?

I'd say that the tendency of people towards violence is not really concentrated in one schooling system or the other. I do say, however, that in my experience the public schools have been more inclined to take action to prevent and address violence/bullying in schools. In a private school, it seems to me, if a student is violent and has no connections in the school heirachy, they will be expelled and no further action (for or against the perpetrator) will be taken. If they do have connections, the incident(s) will be ignored or covered up. In public schools, there are clear guidelines for dealing with violence/bullying and many avenues for dealing with issues that cannot be dealt with at the school level. The guidelines are the same for all government schools in the state and all students have access to the processes involved.

I may well be biased, but that bias is the result of my experiences with both systems.

This is the President of Irelandville and i want to say that only private education is not a problem that we should be worrying about right now I think that we should be worrying about the terrorism that is going on in alll of our nations

Sincerely,
The President of Irelandville

There is no terrorism going on in my nation....

In Australia, both the public and private school systems are funded by governments; public by the states (with a bit extra from the federal), and public by the federal. They have the same basic curriculum, but the private schools can teach whatever religion they like, and have it as a compulsory section to the end of year 11.
In things like bullying, there are clear guidelines in the public system, but not in the private. As stated earlier in this thread, problems like that tend to be either hushed over, or the bully expelled to a public school, harming the public system's reputation by having to take the problem kids in.
Another problem that has emerged in private schools has been sexual abuse by the staff. Public schools here already had their major 'crisis' with this decades ago, but only now are their private counterparts feeling the heat. Maybe more regulation will come in for private schools, maybe not.

I wouldn't mind the government stopping the funding of private schools, based on the principle that government is there to keep public works going, not to prop up the private sector. If the public system is not doing all that well, but the private is with funds from the government, doesn't it make sense to divert that funding from the private sector to the public, to bring it up to scratch?

I wouldn't mind the government stopping the funding of private schools, based on the principle that government is there to keep public works going, not to prop up the private sector. If the public system is not doing all that well, but the private is with funds from the government, doesn't it make sense to divert that funding from the private sector to the public, to bring it up to scratch?
I agree. And I've heard that private schools in Australia aren't passing on their increased funding in the form of reduced fees. Rather they're using it to increase facilities thereby making themselves even more elitist.

Education is, in truth, a fundamental right because it is "necessary and proper" for maintaining the future of the political process and therefore must be provided with "equal protection" through the opportunity of adequately funded public schools.
.
So too is the press, however privatization of it is what guarantees our liberty. If it were federalized then it could fall under the influence of a political power and opposition stifled and censored. A free press allows for the public exchange of ideas - mandatory for liberty and freedom.

A free education is of similar importance. Parents could decide where their children go to school. If they want their child to have a diverse education they can send then to a diverse school, if they want their child to have a secular eduction they can choose a school that provides one.

Private schools ARE regulated, more so than public schools, partially because the public school monopoly feels threatened by them and has mandated it.

One reason why so many public schools are religious is because there s little to no profit involved - only people with a 'mission' are willing to start a private school. Some non-religious private schools also exist for the super-affluent. Public schools are subsidized by the government but private schools are not. They are either subsidized by a church or the mega-wealthy at this time.

Middle Americans cannot afford a private school because they are ALREADY PAYING for a public school through income and property taxes. Attending a private school, by default, costs them double. As a result the market for private schools has been unnaturally stifled due to the limited number of people who can afford it.

If private schools had the ability to compete fairly against state sponsored schools then you would see an increase in all types of schools as the market responds to demand. Parents could choose to remove their children from sub-standard or dangerous schools and send them to ones with the parents values. ALL schools would become public schools. The existing public schools would find themselves in the position of having to provide results not to their supervisors (and special interests), but to their parents - a much more demanding audience.

They won't. Because it is in the Governments interest to have a large student population ("Look! We are pro-education, look at the amount of students.") Not that the conservatives are any better. Turning the polytechnics in to proper universities and then declaring that they had doubled the student population.
Whats the difference between a polytechnics and a `proper` uni?
And I dunno about the UK but in the Netherlands it's the schools and not so much the government that like high student populations. Since they get subsidies for every student that enrolled with them.

bump

Whats the difference between a polytechnics and a `proper` uni?
And I dunno about the UK but in the Netherlands it's the schools and not so much the government that like high student populations. Since they get subsidies for every student that enrolled with them.
AFIK "POLY" is just used as a part of a name, but I am not sure. There is however a difference between a college and a university.

I agree with you on the school issue, and I think that you should have pointed out the staunch libertarian's hypocrisy at his daughter's attending public school.
It's not hypocrisy. While I don't support this view, it's wrong to call it hypocrisy. As Nathaniel Bradenshaw pointed out some fourty years ago, more people could afford private schools if they didn't have to pay education taxes.

So too is the press, however privatization of it is what guarantees our liberty. If it were federalized then it could fall under the influence of a political power and opposition stifled and censored. A free press allows for the public exchange of ideas - mandatory for liberty and freedom.

I agree. I definitely do not support banning private education. People should have the right to choose private education if they do not support the government's implementation of the public system just as they should have the right to choose their information sources.

AFIK "POLY" is just used as a part of a name, but I am not sure.
So it's just a name then? The degree from a polytechnics university is the same masters or bachelor degree you would get from a "proper" university?
There is however a difference between a college and a university.
Oh great......I thought I had this figured out already.*sigh*
Whats the diff between a college and a university?

It's not hypocrisy. While I don't support this view, it's wrong to call it hypocrisy. As Nathaniel Bradenshaw pointed out some fourty years ago, more people could afford private schools if they didn't have to pay education taxes.

I left out the detail that he is quite rich and owns a house in River Hills, a northern suburb of Milwaukee reknowned for its mansions and country clubs. One very prestigious private school in my area is University School of Milwaukee, http://www.usm.k12.wi.us/, which also resides in River Hills. He certainly could afford this school for his daughter if he chose to do so.

I did not want this detail to influence the discussion.

So it's just a name then? The degree from a polytechnics university is the same masters or bachelor degree you would get from a "proper" university?


Polytechs are more geared toward preparing students for a career, rather than education for education's sake (like at a liberal arts school).

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University <--my school

Polytechs are more geared toward preparing students for a career, rather than education for education's sake (like at a liberal arts school).

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University <--my school
So the degree from a polytechnics university is the same masters or bachelor degree you would get from a "proper" university then?

So the degree from a polytechnics university is the same masters or bachelor degree you would get from a "proper" university then?

Yep...only difference is that it is more often in engineering instead of greek mythology...

Yep...only difference is that it is more often in engineering instead of greek mythology...
Ah alright. Thanks. I think I got it now. Unless someone here wishes to confuse me further.

So the degree from a polytechnics university is the same masters or bachelor degree you would get from a "proper" university then?

Please define what you mean by "proper university.":confused:

Please define what you mean by "proper university.":confused:
I was using the term because of this. In case you missed when you responded to the last post without reading the entire thread. Which I could understand if it was 10+pages long instead of 4. :p
They won't. Because it is in the Governments interest to have a large student population ("Look! We are pro-education, look at the amount of students.") Not that the conservatives are any better. Turning the polytechnics in to proper universities and then declaring that they had doubled the student population.

Hey Grant!

I agree. And I've heard that private schools in Australia aren't passing on their increased funding in the form of reduced fees. Rather they're using it to increase facilities thereby making themselves even more elitist.
Let's see what a private school 'needs' to build:
Stable
Rifle range
Multi-role stadium with grandstand seating
Cathedral
International airport (okay, I was joking about that one, but only that one, probably because of the difficulty getting enough land to build it.)

Now let's see what a public school 'needs' to build:
Modern classrooms
Asbestos-free administration buildings
Shed for all the sporting gear, could be made by a high school

I left out the detail that he is quite rich and owns a house in River Hills, a northern suburb of Milwaukee reknowned for its mansions and country clubs. One very prestigious private school in my area is University School of Milwaukee, http://www.usm.k12.wi.us/, which also resides in River Hills. He certainly could afford this school for his daughter if he chose to do so.

I did not want this detail to influence the discussion.
Oh. My bad. But I do see how that detail would cloud the debate. Still, I do respect his opinions.

Hey Grant!

EmoBuddy? Pezzino? Wow... you found me. Hey. :p

Private schools ARE regulated, more so than public schools, partially because the public school monopoly feels threatened by them and has mandated it.

Not in Australia they're not, as far as I can ascertain. Seriously. I hunted for any avenue that could be taken regarding the treatment of my daughter and others at the school I mentioned and there was nothing I could do apart from trying to have a criminal charge laid.

One reason why so many public schools are religious is because there s little to no profit involved - only people with a 'mission' are willing to start a private school. Some non-religious private schools also exist for the super-affluent. Public schools are subsidized by the government but private schools are not. They are either subsidized by a church or the mega-wealthy at this time.

I seriously disagree here. There are huge profits to be made in private education. When was the last time you saw a private school that didn't have generous grounds, up-to-date equipment, small classes and a healthy bank balance? I've never seen one. As for non-religious private schools only being for the super-affluent you're way off track there :) . As for funding, public schools are funded by the states and private schools are funded by the federal government.

We're obviously in different countries and I am finding the comparisons interesting, but I stand by my opinion that private schools will always hesitate to act in a students best interest if it conflicts with the schools best interest.

So it's just a name then? The degree from a polytechnics university is the same masters or bachelor degree you would get from a "proper" university?

Oh great......I thought I had this figured out already.*sigh*
Whats the diff between a college and a university?
Yes, a polytech degree, be it BA, BS, MA, etc are all valid and similar to any other reasonable institution.

The difference between a college and a university is simple; a college usually specializes in something - such as history, computer science, psycology, etc. A University is a collection of colleges on one campus.

Yes, a polytech degree, be it BA, BS, MA, etc are all valid and similar to any other reasonable institution.

The difference between a college and a university is simple; a college usually specializes in something - such as history, computer science, psycology, etc. A University is a collection of colleges on one campus.
Aahaaa...Thanks. I think I finally got it now. As from now on I forbid anyone from ever adressing this again. So I won't get confused anymore. :D

Well, I went to a private Catholic school in Dublin's city centre, and my school, within my 6 years there, built a fully functinoing modern theatre (800 perosn capacity) a new science and technology block, an underground car park, a running track on the roof of one of the buildings and an astro-turf pitch on tope of the theatre. It also converted old buildings into a library, chapel and museum.

Yes, my school had its own museum, still does probably.

And yet, all of our classes were entirely regulated by the department of education, except for religion, as it's not an exam subject, so while we had better facilities, we were also priviliged as we did have to pay fees for them.

IMO entirely Privatized Education is an unacceptable idea, it leaves too many people behind.