Libertarians and Education

What is the libertarian stance on educational funding and curricula.  In particular, as it applies to post-secondary level education, universities or trade schools.

>>1
Everyone pays for their children's education. People who can't pay are executed. As no one wants to be killed everyone will pay for their children's education or not have children.

The local community is responsible for school funding and school curriculum.

Many libertarians are against state funded education, claiming it is beyond the government's purpose and that the state does it poorly. I can't disagree with the latter point, however, when I get into office, I intend to reprioritise the government and eliminate a number of its branches, then education might be easier to fundamentally reform.

the US does it poorly
Fix'd.

No actually I went to an American school and most Europeans I know actually had educations that paled in comparison. Certainly some US schools say in backwater towns in the middle of nowhere in the south are rather poor, but if you're actually in a nice area, the education systems put any European school system to shame. I used to help my British friends who were 4 grades my superior with their homework.

>>6 kills troll with sensible reply.  Well done >>6.

>>6
My experience has been the opposite, but we both know how much anecdotal evidence is worth.

I'll just point here to actual numbers instead: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/54/0,2340,en_32252351_32236173_34002550_1_1_1_1,00.html Feel free to dig around PISA's website for broader data if you're so inclined.

So, yes, the US really isn't all that hot.

>>8
"So, yes, the US really isn't all that hot."

Some in the United States are actually doing quite well.  Its the unfortunate others that drag us down.  For those failing schools, we need a voucher system so that the kids can get a higher quality education at a lower cost. 

>>1
The libertarian position on education can vary.  Some who are libertarians say we should keep things as they are now.  Some say we should possibly experiment with a voucher system (which, I might add, many areas have done with great success thus far), and some libertarians say we should dump public schools and let the private sector do everything. 

On the whole, I think the voucher system is the best idea.  Higher quality or similar quality education, all at a lower cost to the taxpayer.

we don't need no education
we don't need no thought control

>>9
The same argument can be applied to all the other countries as well though.

I recommend you look at that link, because there are some graphs in there that include the variance between school quality in each country as well. The US's variance is actually fairly typical.

>>11
IF YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER YOUR THOUGHTS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO YOUR BRAIN?

>>12
As I said, I think a voucher system is a good solution for those schools that are currently doing poorly.  Such systems are more efficient and have, in the past, been shown to produce better results.

>>14
So, when have students that have been performing poorly in a public school, putting them in a private school makes them better students?  By what standard are you measuring these students improvement? I certainly would take the criterion of the school itself to be biased, as they have a vested interest in claiming "superior" results.  Public education is however, transparent and subject to oversight, whereas private education is not.
What assurance do you have that the private schools would be well equipped, well staffed, and is providing adequate care for its students?  If you want to argue that parents would do research beforehand, I can argue about fraud, but the more likely response is that you'll assign the privilege of choice to the parent.  In which case, I can argue that the parents have no real choice at all, as they must send their children to school, and their taxes pay for it.  What libertarians would like to see is taxpayers money going into private pockets, and the "corruption" of school politics is relatively benign at a community level.
My experience with vouchers is they are an attempt to get a rebate for people who already send their children to private schools, out of their own pockets, since they don't use the public school system, they feel they shouldn't pay for it.  This  is a slippery slope, as it leads to not wanting to pay for roads they'll never use, compensation they'll never use, an army that they feel they don't need, etc etc.

Right now tuition is rising.  With all the demand for college educations, and the prevalence of needing a Bachelor's or greater to get any decent career, one would think the costs would be decreasing to take advantage of the higher volume of collegiate students, but it isn't. 

>>14
I've seen vouchers systems mentioned before, but I'm not aware how they work. Could you elaborate on that?

>>15
Public education is however, transparent and subject to oversight, whereas private education is not.
At least in Canada that isn't the case (I went to one). While I am against large-scale privitisation of education, I don't think this is a valid criticism.

At least in Canada all schools are subject to oversight
fix'd

>>16
That's true. The trend is also occurring in all countries I've visited. It's disturbing.

>>19
It's because the economy is increasingly information based. Lots of humans milling about around giant machines.

>>15
"So, when have students that have been performing poorly in a public school, putting them in a private school makes them better students?"

I think you are asking the wrong question.  The problem isn't necessarilly with the children being inherently bad students.  Giving a good student a horrible educational experiance can sometimes produce poor results.  Giving a mediocre student a rather high quality educational experiance can sometimes produce better results than you might in a different situation.  Though this isn't the situation all of the time, I think this is indeed the situation some of the time.  I can't say for sure that a voucher system would be better, but the few statistics and experiments I've seen look very promising. 

The other fact to consider, is that private schools tend to be more efficient, and give you more bang for your buck.  When you think about it, even if private schools didn't give a BETTER education, but rather gave an education that was simply EQUAL in quality that simply costs less, there would be little reason to keep the system we have now and not even *consider* experimenting with the more efficient model. 

Here's a little piece on private schools for you to consider.  Read the section under the heading "surprising facts about private schools":
http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-11-num-12.html#GBU

http://www.reason.com/news/show/118868.html
An experiment in school choice, this time from California.

Here's a pretty interesting 20/20 clip on education: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

Of course, these are just a couple examples.  There have actually been many. 

"Public education is however, transparent and subject to oversight, whereas private education is not."

Private education is subject to oversight as well.  Do you think a school that is inept is going to stay in business for long once we have introduced competition - a crucial element of the free market into the equation?

"What assurance do you have that the private schools would be well equipped, well staffed, and is providing adequate care for its students?"

See above.  If the schools fail, they go out of business.  Bad schools get weeded out, and good schools remain.

Private schools actually care about their student's success. They have as much altruistic humanist incentive to educate children as public school teachers with the added incentive of profit.

maybe the reason private schools are doing good atm. is because they have the students of people with money. these kids are most like more paced than regular kids, so they have more support/pressure from home to study harder. The parents can also afford to pay for the kids in the private schools(a larger amount than what the public schools get pr child), so the private schools can buy better things/techers/books/whatever for the kids, than the public schools can.

>>23
solution: poor people don't get education
WOOO feudalism

>>23
I hate to say it, but that's exactly why schooling needs to include a bit more parenting.  I can't help but think that there's a slim chance the average citizen would have more common sense if public school taught more practical skills such as money management, social skills, critical thinking; things of the ilk that parents are supposed to teach but often don't or can't.

卐           卐卐卐卐卐
卐           卐
卐           卐
卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐
               卐           卐
               卐           卐
卐卐卐卐卐           卐

卐           卐卐卐卐卐
卐           卐
卐           卐
卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐
               卐        卐
               卐        卐
卐卐卐卐卐          卐

卐           卐卐卐卐卐
卐           卐
卐           卐
卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐
               卐       卐
               卐       卐
卐卐卐卐卐          卐

卐           卐卐卐卐卐
卐           卐
卐           卐
卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐
              卐       卐
              卐       卐
卐卐卐卐卐卐        卐

卐           卐卐卐卐卐
卐           卐
卐           卐
卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐
              卐       卐
              卐       卐
卐卐卐卐卐卐      卐

miniature swastika

卐卐卐
卐卐卐
卐卐卐

>>23
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

>>32

dude, 40 minutes.

i'm nto saying the public school is grate, i'm just saying there are certain problems with privatizing everything.

i'm nto saying the public school is grate

i'm nto saying the public school is grate

i'm nto saying the public school is grate

>>36

z0mg typo.

anyway, i watched the entire show.

"competition makes EVERYTHING better!" and too much competition kills things, so let's find a nice middle way shant we.

>and too much competition kills things

Not true, GTFO.

>>33
"dude, 40 minutes."

So?

"i'm nto saying the public school is grate, i'm just saying there are certain problems with privatizing everything."

Such as? I'm not saying that a voucher system would be perfect either.  However, if you look at the instances in which they have been tested, they seem to work well.  That said, I think we should cautiously impliment voucher programs, based on past experiences with their success.  If the implimentations are successful, we should keep them.  If not, then we can always go back... but considering the facts regarding how successful they've been, I think it would be somewhat idiotic at best to be unwilling to even give them a shot.

>>37
The voucher system *IS* a middleway.  Under a voucher system, you still have education done by and funded by government.. all you do is introduce competition into the equation by allowing people to take a voucher to the school of their choice.  In such a system, the people can still choose to take that voucher to a public institution... but they can also choose to use the voucher to pay for them to attend a private institution.  This means, hopefully, incompetant schools would lose funding and get weeded out, and good and successful schools would expand and allow people to get better products and services at a lower cost.