Where Responsibility Belongs

There's only one moral, humane, freedom-respecting option and that is to give parents FULL control over their child's education. Give some money to the poor if you must but anyone who advocates state control at any level over education is a central-planning social-engineering authoritarian elitist.

Right on, right on!! Thx Don! Great letter and you said it all.

I also challenge the precept that education is not a market good like food and clothing.

Of course poor people won't get as good an education as rich people, same with food, clothing , housing, transportation, medical treatment, etc.

Government provision of any service leads to a decline in the quality of that service as government is an anti-competitive force which will always serve best those near the top of the hierarchy at the expense of those nearer the bottom.

Thus it has always been, thus it will always be, regardless of any attempts at "good" regulation and putting the "right" people in power.

The burden of government will ALWAYS be borne by those who labor to create value.

"Of course poor people won't get as good an education as rich people,"

They don't now.

I agree with you. We haven't let the market for education work freely for a long time. The 'ability to pay'-thing is overdone.

Let us address DK's implicit assumption that the burden of government has nothing to do with the ability of people to provide for the education of their children via the market.

The circle would then be complete:

Some people can't afford to provide for the education of their children, hence the government must provide it for them, but government is expensive which renders some people less able to afford the provision of education for their children, so government must provide it for them....

Does not the socialized provision of education reduce the burden of raising children such that people who aren't that interested in parenting are more willing to have children?

Interesting point! Although presumably the people coming at parenting from that perspective wouldn't be the type of people to lift a finger to educate their children anyway, so I don't see how it would make too much of a difference (I suppose it doubles as a babysitter, though).

An expensive babysitter.

Pfff. You could argue whether parents have to get their kids an education at all or that being stuffed in rooms for the first fifteen or so years is really as educational as working in a factory. Why can't kids get basic literary and numeracy skills, start work at age 7 or 8, if they're high-minded enough they could have saved enough and start vocational training and an apprenticeship at age 12 to 14, be highly-skilled at 16 to 18 and be a rather experienced worker by twenty-five ready to go back for even more vocational training, etc. .

What's really scary about Hettleman's piece is that he unquestioningly equates 'educational reform' with 'throwing money at the issue.' And the numbers being thrown around would be, as usual, comically absurd if they weren't true. The $105 billion Hettleman mentions for this year alone is $350 for every man, woman, and child in the US. That money has to come from somewhere!

A good book for liberals to read is "The Beautiful Tree." It illustrates time and time again how foolish people who claim that only the government can provide education are wrong. Millions of children around the world are getting great private education which the parents choose because the state government provided education is riddled with corruption, etc.

Who has said that only the government can provide education??? Not that I'm always in tune with liberals, but I don't even think this is a liberal argument or position!

Actually, it is, especially in areas like development economics.

Lots of liberals also attack home schooling, if the number of court cases challenging such is any indication.

My wife and I already agreed to do what ever needs to be done to put our kids into private schools. The schools here in Little Rock are an absolute joke. It's more about padding their pockets than actually teaching the kids.

I should clarify my comment about the book a little bit to drive the point home; millions of poor children from poor families are getting great private educations around the world as a result of private entrepreneurs filling the niche for quality education. The same thing could happen in the U.S. - for the children of the poor and the middle class - if the state and federal governments would stop their efforts to monopolize education.

Don,

To be sure, Hettleman's piece was hack written pure rote recitation of socialist mantra; but your response is equally knee-jerk in the opposite direction.

First off, in this imperfect world there are many children with parents that just don't give a shit about them in any way. Those parents go through some sort of motions to house, feed, and clothe their kids simply from the motivation to avoid public disapproval, in other words a purely personal and selfish motivation; however, they couldn't care less if their child is educated or even if it goes to school as long as the child's performance can not be directly and legally laid at their door.

Then, of course, there are many parents whose concern for their offspring do not even reach that level.

Add those two categories together and you wind up with a surprisingly large number.

Last of all, in my world, a parent's natural responsibility (nourishment and education) is not something that can be taken from them. So, to say that responsibility should be shifted back to the parent is to tell me that in your world there is no natural responsibility, only a fluid secular responsibility that is dictated by a force outside and superior to the individual.

It just seems like humans are prone to make tradeoffs on anything, even the future of their children.

Even so, that's where a voucher system comes in. Kids today are required to be in school generally until age 16, so there is legal responsibility on the parents.

Even if the parents make no more than a superficial inquiry and place their kids in the first school that comes along, a voucher system would still be preferable as it would induce competition between schools and all of the benefits that brings. See slocum's point above that a consumer doesn't have to be discriminating in order to reap the benefits of a market.

Parents and taxpayers are ultimately responsible. You can't trust politicians or School Administration to do what's right for the kids, because they only think with their own billfold.
They just published Superintendent Salaries for Central Arkansas and guess what, the biggest flop of a school in Arkansas, Little Rock Special School District, has the highest salary of them all, $411,000. This is also the school district that keeps fighting to never get out from an ancient discrimination lawsuit from the 50's, easier to give out taxpayers money to your friends if the courts force you too.

Public schools are failing, the only thing for responsible parents to do is pull their kids from it and either homeschool or send them to private schools.

The best way to get rid of a bad business is to let it fail. We won't let bad schools fail.

I wouldn't argue with the logic that (1.) parents need to be at the forefront of their child's education, and (2.) that education policy is often made to benefit bureaucrats and teachers unions rather than students. The logic on those two points is sound. But isn't there something fundamentally problematic about tying a child's needs to the willingness and ability to pay of a parent that was essentially assigned to them by a process of reproductive probability? If an individual trades off their own desire for human capital investment in themselves, leisure, and consumption, we expect that decision to be the most efficient anyone could come up with - certainly more efficient than what a bureaucrat could come up with. But this persistent opposition to public schools seems to just assume that it's economically efficient for a child to be tied to those parental decisions. What if the child has different preferences and values from the parent? What if the child would have made different choices if he or she were mature enough to make their own human capital investments?

As far as I know, nobody is advocating keeping parents out of educational decisions (I don't really accept the absence of the word "parent" from an op-ed as proof) - but it seems analytically problematic to recognize the obvious shortfalls of public education ("bureaucrats") and completely ignore the incentive structures that lead people to support public education in the first place.

"But isn't there something fundamentally problematic about tying a child's needs to the willingness and ability to pay of a parent that was essentially assigned to them by a process of reproductive probability?"

First, who said that it would be the child's needs would be tied to the willingness and ability to pay? In a voucher system, funding is raised the same way - property taxes - but the decision to fund a school is made by the parent.

Since funds are available to any parent, that seems to take care of the ability to pay part.

And since the voucher can only be used to pay for education (and assuming its not transferable), this seems to take care of the willingness part.

Right - that's why I like the idea of vouchers.

Great, but the reason you wrote your original post is even more unclear to me now than it was before. You didn't seem to address anything specific in Don's post, or am I missing something?

It wasn't clear at all to me he was talking about vouchers - one other person suggested he was, and after rereading it I agree it can be read that way. I thought it was just a complaint about public provision of education, period.

I am strongly in support of public provision of primary and secondary education. Vouchers seem to me to be a great way to do it. I don't know the policy area very well, and I've heard there can be practical problems with vouchers. So I'm probably much less negative than you are about publicly administered (or whatever you want to call non-voucher) schools, but for me at least that doesn't imply an inherent opposition to vouchers.

If Don had even just mentioned the word "vouchers" I probably would have written my comment very differently. I think I have different priorities and reservations than a lot of you, but I'm not going to argue against the potential of vouchers or the destructiveness of teacher's unions. But I'm also not going to abandon my support for public provision of education.

I would have also accepted, "I read too much into Don's response".

Wouldn't the point be I didn't read enough into Don's response. I'm still not even sure he was talking about vouchers - but it could be read that way.

We're getting caught in a circular reference.

In his letter, Don didn't advocate "tying a child's needs to the willingness and ability to pay of a parent that was essentially assigned to them by a process of reproductive probability". Nor did he advocate vouchers.

He advocated shifting the responsibility for holding schools accountable to the parents.

Elimination of the public funding provision may be one way to do that. I presented vouchers as another.

In your original post, you assumed he was advocating for the elimination of public provision. Assuming Don meant 'elimination of the public provision' was reading too much into his letter.

He may believe that's the best way to put accountability on the parents, but he didn't explicitly state it.

"I wouldn't argue with the logic that . . ."

You mean?

"I would agree with the logic that . . ."

"But isn't there something fundamentally problematic about tying a child's needs to the willingness and ability to pay of a parent that was essentially assigned to them by a process of reproductive probability?"

First of all, nobody is advocating tying a child's needs to the willingness and ability of the parents to pay. The idea is to replace a public school system with a system of vouchers, not to leave poor children unable to afford schooling.

Second, yes it is unfair that some kids get much better parents than others, and this affects children profoundly in ways that cannot possibly be remedied by a school system.

But...would children with 'deadbeat parents' be better off in a voucher system or a public school system? I'd would argue that they would be better off in a voucher system--because the kids with rotten parents would realize most of the benefits created by schools working hard to win the business of good parents. For a market to work and generate continuous improvements, it's not required for customer to be a discriminating shopper.

As is it is now, the public schools are run for more for the benefit of the public employee unions and bureaucrats than the kids. Families with the means either opt out of the public schools or they supplement the mediocre public school education with their own funds and initiative (teaching at home, tutoring, private lessons of various kinds).

Kids with lousy parents would be much better off in an environment where schools accepting vouchers were working hard to attract the business of smart, caring parents. The poor kids would get the benefits even though their own parents were free riding.

"yes it is unfair that some kids get much better parents than others, and this affects children profoundly in ways that cannot possibly be remedied by a school system."

That must be one of those genetic predispositions that society take care of. Society must I repeat must share the risks of bad parents right? /snark

In a very dark sort of way this is why I support abortion rights here in the US. Let them have them, since most of the ones having them are liberal democrats. If they want to depopulate themselves, hey I'm all for it.

>> For a market to work and generate continuous improvements, it's not required for customer to be a discriminating shopper.

Great point. As long as *some* consumers are discriminating shoppers and *some* producers are incentivized to meet their needs, everyone benefits.

Yes, I missed a critical word there, it was supposed to read "it's not required that EVERY customer be a discriminating shopper." But I see the sense of it got through anyway.

I'm rereading Don's post in light of your comment. Did you interpret this to be a statement of support for vouchers: "As long as funding for schools is independent of parents’ choices of which schools to send their children"? I suppose I can see how it could be read that way. When I first read it, "funding for schools i independent of parents' choices" seemed to be a blanket opposition to public funding in general, not a support for vouchers. Anyway, if he meant it as a statement in support of vouchers, I have much less of an issue with it - a little harsh and perhaps making the perfect the enemy of the good - but nothing really wrong with the post nonetheless.

I read "As long as funding for schools is independent of parents’ choices of which schools to send their children"? to be entirely consistent with vouchers.

In fact, in Michigan, funding now comes from the state on a per-student basis, so if public school systems lose students, they lose state funding. Some public systems now offer open enrollment and compete for each other's kids. Now that funding is at least partly a function of parents' choices, schools have gotten more concerned about attracting and retaining students. It has made a difference, but there is still a long way to go.

Public funding of education does two things: (1) it inhibits competition & (2) it destroys the scalability of good ideas, efforts, etc.

RE: "First of all, nobody is advocating tying a child's needs to the willingness and ability of the parents to pay. The idea is to replace a public school system with a system of vouchers, not to leave poor children unable to afford schooling."

Well I'm fine with vouchers - I hope you didn't take anything I said to be opposition to vouchers. I've come out in support of vouchers several times on Cafe Hayek. Any doubts I have about vouchers revolves around their pracitcal implementation, not the idea of vouchers (and God knows I have reservations about the implementation of public schools now too!).

"...isn't there something fundamentally problematic about tying a child's needs to the willingness and ability to pay of a parent that was essentially assigned to them by a process of reproductive probability?"

No. Can you prove that there is? I don't buy the idea that the justification for public schools is financial need. The way I see it, they exist to support the status quo. Nor do I see that the alternative to public school education is no education. By way of example, there is apprenticeship. With only basic reading and writing skills many could begin productive trades in their early teens. If the idea bothers you, then consider that these folks mostly end up in the trades anyway... but only after wasting years studying what amounts to political indoctrination.

Apprenticeship is a very important option that has actually been more broadly available lately. There's also technical education options for kids who do stay in school. I think part of the reason for the big gap in the wage-return to a college education is that the skills distribution is bifurcated. The U.S. does a good job cranking out college graduates and drop-outs, but there aren't many good "middle skill" options like apprenticeship. Some of that seems to be changing. I wouldn't support requiring children to stay in school any longer than they can make these decisions for themselves. Apprenticeship is especially attractive because it can overcome some of the "ability to pay" barriers to education that some kids may face.

RE: "Nor do I see that the alternative to public school education is no education."

I agree - that argument doesn't make sense.

RE: "No. Can you prove that there is?"

Well there's no reason to believe that a parent's incentives, preferences, and ability to pay reflect a child's demand for education. Do you have any reason to think they would? I don't see why they would. The point isn't that parent's can adequately provide for their children, and the point isn't that bureaucrats no better. The point is that because there's no reason to assume a parent's incentives and ability to pay are adequate to the child's demand for education, there's good reason to provide a minimum level of education. Bureaucrats don't perfectly represent children's interests. Parents don't perfectly represent children's interests. Nine times out of ten I would say that parents represent children's interests far better than bureaucrats. But when a bureaucrat says "I think this 8 year old should be in class", and a parent says "I don't really think my child needs to be in class", I'm going to make a rare exception and suggest that the bureaucrat might actually be a better representative of the child's preferences in this case.

Should we restrict other options like additional tutoring, private school, home schooling, or your example of apprenticeship? No - that would defeat the whole purpose of what I'm advocating. Should we have some sort of minimal provision and requirement of public education? Yes.

The point is that because there's no reason to assume a parent's incentives and ability to pay are adequate to the child's demand for education, there's good reason to provide a minimum level of education.

Actually, there are very good reasons to assume this actually. Historically as well as currently where public education is corrupt, ineffective, etc. (and where isn't it corrupt or ineffective or etc.?) parents go out of their way to meet the educational needs of their children.

Should we restrict other options like additional tutoring...

Without these things very little education would actually get done. Public education is neither necessary nor sufficient for education to occur.

Should we have some sort of minimal provision and requirement of public education? Yes.

Since the state cannot even consistently provide the former I'm not quite sure why the state should even be involved. As for the latter, the state has a hard time keeping that within any reasonable bounds; what tends to happen is useless layer placed on useless layer.

"The point is that because there's no reason to assume a parent's incentives and ability to pay are adequate to the child's demand for education, there's good reason to provide a minimum level of education."

That is a good argument for providing funds to the child to obtain "a minimum level of education". Its not a good argument for a public school system. The reason we have a public school system is to disseminate political propaganda.

>The reason we have a public school system is to disseminate political propaganda.

Instead of teaching children how to think, public schools teach children what to think.

>Nor do I see that the alternative to public school education is no education.


"...It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
-Bastiat

Exactly.

But isn't there something fundamentally problematic about tying a child's needs to the willingness and ability to pay of a parent that was essentially assigned to them by a process of reproductive probability?

Parents don't pay for their children's education. Children pay for it, because children and only children possess its value. The illusion that "parents pay" for the education of children is as pernicious as the illusion that "the government pays". Vesting authority over education in parents is reasonable, because typical parents will not parasitize their own children by subjecting them to "education" yielding little value, but children themselves are responsible for their own education, because no one else can be. Honestly accounting for this responsibility can only benefit children.

If an individual trades off their own desire for human capital investment in themselves, leisure, and consumption, we expect that decision to be the most efficient anyone could come up with - certainly more efficient than what a bureaucrat could come up with.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but raising a child does not trade off human capital investment, because raising a child is human capital investment. This investment is hardly limited to pumping information into a child's head. Pumping this information has little value if the child starves. We label education "human capital" and don't similarly label a child's food, clothing, shelter, values indoctrination and other costs, only because the state provides the former and other factors provide the latter.

In our system, statesmen impose the costs of education on "the people", and children are "the people". I am my parents' child. That I'm 47 years old hardly changes this fact. The taxes I pay to support educational institutions are yields of my education and other investments, not my children's education. My education was not a gift. It was an investment in me and a credit to me. Accounting for it otherwise is economic nonsense.

But this persistent opposition to public schools seems to just assume that it's economically efficient for a child to be tied to those parental decisions.

No. It assumes that tying children to political decisions is economically inefficient. In a less centrally controlled system, parents would regain greater authority over their children's education, but they wouldn't pay for it, because children would continue paying for it, as they do now. Unfortunately, "privatization" proposals typically avoid confronting this reality as much as the "public" system.

What if the child has different preferences and values from the parent?

Children learn their preferences and values. What if they learn different preferences and values from their politicians? I certainly have.

What if the child would have made different choices if he or she were mature enough to make their own human capital investments?

You honestly believe that politicians make this decision on your behalf better than your parents? I don't see it happening. At best, I see politicians protecting the interests of voters, and children don't vote. At the same time, I see my parents sacrificing for my benefit, and this observation makes perfect sense to me, because natural selection generates my parents' emotional impulses. I'm not surprised to see politicians protect their own children's interests. But my interests and my children's interests? Don't make me laugh. Why would they?

... completely ignore the incentive structures that lead people to support public education in the first place.

Statesmen limit options so that any remaining "incentive" directs people toward supporting the institutions the politiicians would impose. I could discuss alternatives to "public education" here, but the discussion is moot before it starts, because my proposals have been off the table for so many generations that they sound incredibly odd to you.

RE: "Parents don't pay for their children's education. Children pay for it, because children and only children possess its value."

I might be missing exactly what you mean by this. Suppose we had no public schools. When little Johnny turns four or five his parents would start to consider sending him off for an education. Johnny wouldn't pick the school. He wouldn't shell out the tuition. He wouldn't make the tradeoff between leisure and human capital investment. Parents pay for it - not the children. Unless I'm missing something.

Re: "children themselves are responsible for their own education, because no one else can be"

Do you just mean that children have to pay attention in class and do their homework? OK, sure - but that's just study habits. We're talking about the production and distribution of educational services here.

RE: "I'm not sure what you mean here, but raising a child does not trade off human capital investment, because raising a child is human capital investment."

I'm taking a class this spring, which cuts into my leisure time and is pretty expensive. I'm personally able to make that tradeoff because I know what kind of future returns I expect from this class, and I know how much I value leisure, and I know what I'm giving up to spend money on tuition. I can make these decisions for myself. Can I make these decisions for another human being? No - and I think I'm pretty in tune with the value of skills in a modern economy.

RE: "You honestly believe that politicians make this decision on your behalf better than your parents? I don't see it happening."

No, not better. I think public provision of education errs on the side of more education than children would otherwise receive. It's not that politicians are "better". It should be obvious that they aren't. But suppose a parent who is a high-school dropout figures that they made it through without a diploma much less a higher degree, so they aren't willing to invest in their child's education. It's actually a pretty reasonable decision, given the parent's preferences and the parent's experience. But those aren't necessarily the child's preferences - and the child may be a child prodigy that should receive more education than their parents. Public provision of education errs on the side of over-investing in education, which would address the needs of this child in a way that the market CAN'T because by the time the child is a mature participant in the market for education, it's probably too late. However, parents who are unsatisfied with public education can always supplement their child's education. There's also the perennial problem that WILLINGNESS to pay is not the same thing as ABILITY to pay. Even if a parent wants to provide a quality education to their child, that child is tied to the marginal productivity of the parent (ie - the parent's ability to pay).

None of this negates the value of a private market in education. None of this negates the destructiveness of teacher's unions. What it does do is provide a compelling reason to publicly provide education as well.

RE: "I could discuss alternatives to "public education" here, but the discussion is moot before it starts, because my proposals have been off the table for so many generations that they sound incredibly odd to you."

Try me. Are you talking about public funding but private administration of education? Every once in a while that comes up on here. That sounds great to me.

But suppose a parent who is a high-school dropout figures that they made it through without a diploma much less a higher degree, so they aren't willing to invest in their child's education.

That's not what the empirics tell us however. Almost all parents willingly fork over non-trivial amounts of their income to educate their children. We see this throughout the world. The big liberal myth that is part of their dogmatism is that market failure exists in education.

RE: "Almost all parents willingly fork over non-trivial amounts of their income to educate their children."

Not sure what you mean exactly. A lot of parents don't willingly fork over anything for their children's education (certainly not "almost all"). My understanding is that under 50% attend college in the years after high school, which means that not too much more than 50% of the population ever attends college - and college is probably where most of the "willing spending by parents" occurs (I assume anyone paying for primary or secondary education is most likely also in this group paying for college). Is around 50% your idea of "almost all", mommsen1625?

If that's indeed what the empirics tell us, could you point me to the empirics please? You must have something specific in mind.

Of course most parents are perfectly happy to invest in their child's education - they want their children to go farther than they even did. Why whenever I say "some parents aren't that altruistic" is the response always "well some are". Of course some are. I never said they weren't.

The interesting thing is that even if I were to agree with you about the need for some public education because some parents just don't care it is the case that public schools are wholly ineffective at dealing with those children. That's obviously because those children are not the focal point of the institution; the actors within the institution are. About the only thing public education does for them is house them.

And of course even when some entrepreneur comes along to help kids like this - take the famous case of Jaime Escalante - the actors within the institution destroy such efforts. This is the scalability problem in its most dramatic sense. Entrepreneurs of the non-political variety are simply unwanted in American public education system.

Right - see my first response to Don. This is a major, major problem. And it's a cost that we have to weigh against the benefits of public provision of education. Btw - a lot of the failure of schools to serve the children who need a good public education most is derived from the relative decentralization of the current system - the fact that it's financed by local taxes. I can't speak for any other state, but I'd like to see Virginia move more towards state-wide financing (and I'm saying this as a resident of a part of Virginia that would experience moving away from local-financing as a net loss to my local school district).

The perceived benefits of government provision of education do not outweigh the costs.

Please investigate John Taylor Gatto's web site.

I know a teacher, and she observes that if parents aren't personally involved in the educational achievement of their children, government schools are not able to make up for that lack.

I've investigated the website several times on your recommendation. I'll take a look again, but I have never been convinced in the past, particularly with the indoctrination line of argument and Gatto's thoughts on "unschooling". However, I couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. Public schools aren't there to replace parents. They're there to provide instruction that would be under-invested in in the marketplace. That piece of the puzzle is necessary, but not sufficient.

particularly with the indoctrination line of argument

That's the argument with which I am particularly convinced.
Teachers impart much more than is delivered via didactic insctruction.
They impart attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions.
This can be particularly pernicious.

The delivery of homogenized education tends to homogenize the teachers as well.

Lots of states have state-wide financing via constitutional command (either because the state "supreme court" (not all of them are called that) stated so or because of a ballot measure did); I don't believe it has been any sort of panacea. What it does is far as I can tell is just shift the locus of debate from one level of government to another, some regions benefiting and others losing. The zero-sum game of politics is still maintained.

How would state-wide financing fix the problem that the schools are answerable to government bureaucrats instead of answerable to children and, by extension, parents? My state-wide public services are handled just as incompetently as my city-wide public services.

Ummm... it doesn't solve that problem at all. The problem it solves is the fact that public provision of education is no longer dependent upon a local tax base's ability to pay.

And of course one of the primary reasons why college education is so darn expensive is due in main part to government policy; government policy which encourages - amongst other things - the building of new facilities.

My understanding is that under 50% attend college in the years after high school, which means that not too much more than 50% of the population ever attends college...

Well, 50% is too much as it is. We over-invest in college because of all the government incentives to do so.

...and college is probably where most of the "willing spending by parents" occurs (I assume anyone paying for primary or secondary education is most likely also in this group paying for college).

No, much of the willing spending comes from parents who buy the supplies, books, ACT and SAT exams, computers, calculators, scissors, clothes, food (school lunches cost real money these days) etc. that are needed for children to attend school. Don't know much about the subject I see.

Of course most parents are perfectly happy to invest in their child's education - they want their children to go farther than they even did. Why whenever I say "some parents aren't that altruistic" is the response always "well some are". Of course some are. I never said they weren't.

Almost all are. In very rare circumstances do parents forgo spending non-trivial amounts on their children for education.

RE: "No, much of the willing spending comes from parents who buy the supplies, books, ACT and SAT exams, computers, calculators, scissors, clothes, food (school lunches cost real money these days) etc. that are needed for children to attend school. Don't know much about the subject I see."

First I want to make an observation. I don't know if you realize it, but whenever someone disagrees with you, you respond by accusing them of not knowing what they're talking about. It comes across as extremely conceited, and it makes you look like you know less than I'm guessing you actually do, because you apparently can't conceive of someone knowing things you know and still disagreeing with your conclusions.

OK - with that out of the way, I have to disagree with you. Yes, they buy supplies. I'm not sure what books a child has to buy for primary and secondary education. As for clothes and food - how is this an educational expense? This is just a parenting expense! Are you thinking that if no educational investments were made in children they'd run around naked without eating any food? So yes - supplies, calculators. I suppose you could even call a home computer an educational expense. These expenses don't even begin to compete with the expenses of sending a child to college. I'm not sure what computer you're buying or what kind of fancy #2 pencil you're sending your kid to school with, but I don't see how it comes close to post-secondary tuition, which - as I said - is where most of the willing educational spending goes (and, as I said - it's not nearly "almost all" anyway).

RE: "Almost all are. In very rare circumstances do parents forgo spending non-trivial amounts on their children for education."

And I'm still waiting on your citation for that.

Actually, I am just throwing your conceit right back in your face.

I'm not sure what books a child has to buy for primary and secondary education.

As time goes by more and more text books are the responsibility of the parents to buy; this is the constant lament of parents who send their children to public schools.

As for clothes and food - how is this an educational expense?

I would argue that home based and private school education would lower the costs of such dramatically. So sending children to the inefficient public schools incurs higher costs than would otherwise be the case; that's how they become an educational expense.

...but I don't see how it comes close to post-secondary tuition, which - as I said - is where most of the willing educational spending goes (and, as I said - it's not nearly "almost all" anyway).

And I don't see why it would matter in the first place. Parents spend lots of money to send their children to primary and secondary schools; because they cannot afford the over-priced by government incentive public colleges doesn't undermine this point. You are making the assumption that in a system dominated by a private system of education that education would cost as much as it does now; that is an assumption that I would challenge. The government is what makes education expensive, it is not as intrinsically expensive. In other countries where strong and robust private schools make up a much large share of the market they are far cheaper, more effective, etc. than public schools. In other words, we live in a world where government failure rules the day as far as education is concerned.

RE: "Actually, I am just throwing your conceit right back in your face."

What conceit? Expressing my opinion?

I'm still waiting for your "almost all" empirical work citation.

Johnny wouldn't pick the school.

Right. His legal guardians, typically his natural or adoptive parents, would pick it.

He wouldn't shell out the tuition.

His parents would negotiate entitlement to the yield of the education with prospective educators. Essentially, parents would bargain with an entitlement to their children's yield.

He wouldn't make the tradeoff between leisure and human capital investment. Parents pay for it - not the children. Unless I'm missing something.

No. Parents would bargain with entitlement to their children's future produce, just as politicians do now.

Do you just mean that children have to pay attention in class and do their homework?

No. I mean that I am still my parents's child and always will be, and I possess the marginal value of my education, not my parents, because my employers pay me for it and not my parents. I therefore reckon education taxes imposed on me to pay for my own education and not anyone else's.

We're talking about the production and distribution of educational services here.

We're talking about the finance of the production and distribution of educational services.

I can make these decisions for myself.

You do make the decisions for yourself, because you trust no one else to make them better. Your economic calculation is largely an illusion, involving many poorly informed assumptions you make about the future.

Can I make these decisions for another human being? No - and I think I'm pretty in tune with the value of skills in a modern economy.

You don't know anyone's future, not even your own, but you make long-term investment decisions anyway. Can you make the wisest possible decisions, with the benefit of hindsight, governing your children's education? No. You can't. That's reality.

Are politicians more likely to make the wisest possible decisions for your children? Why would I believe so? Why would you believe so? Why trust politicians with decisions governing my children's education (or your children's education) but not your own?

But do you have children? Have you really considered these questions from a parent's perspective?

No, not better. I think public provision of education errs on the side of more education than children would otherwise receive.

Compared to what?

It's not that politicians are "better". It should be obvious that they aren't. But suppose a parent who is a high-school dropout figures that they made it through without a diploma much less a higher degree, so they aren't willing to invest in their child's education.

First, I suppose this person is willing to invest but lacks the means.

Second, I don't suppose that parents invest their own resources in their children's education. I suppose that parents invest their children's resources in their children's education. Parents are stewards of these resources, not owners.

Parents are also "proprietors" of the resources in a lost sense of this word, but modern "property" no long has this sense. My children are my property, because I will govern them properly, not because I am entitled to everything they produce and may bargain with this entitlement.

It's actually a pretty reasonable decision, given the parent's preferences and the parent's experience.

No. It isn't. Again, are you a parent? If you imagine yourself in this poor parent's place, do you honestly reach this "reasonable" conclusion? Or do you only impose this sense of "reason" on other parents you imagine in these circumstances?

I personally know parents with little education who work multiple jobs to take proper care of their children. I read about terribly exploitative parents in the newspaper, so I suppose they exist, but I don't personally know many of them. I do know one, indirectly, by way of her daughter. The daughter invests more in her own daughter's education than anyone else I know personally.

I also read a lot about terrorists with bombs in their shoes, but I don't know any of them personally either, and on closer inspection, I often discover that their threats are grossly exaggerated.

But those aren't necessarily the child's preferences - and the child may be a child prodigy that should receive more education than their parents.

Are politicians the only individuals capable of recognizing this prodigy's potential? Suppose this poor wayward parent could select an institution to educate the child. Suppose this institution, by educating the child, earns entitlement to ten percent of the child's income for thirty years after the child is liberated?

Public provision of education errs on the side of over-investing in education, which would address the needs of this child in a way that the market CAN'T because by the time the child is a mature participant in the market for education, it's probably too late.

No. It's no more too late for a parent to choose educators than it is for politicians to choose them. This "too late" formulation is entirely constructed.

However, parents who are unsatisfied with public education can always supplement their child's education.

I don't expect parents to supplement their children's education, any more than I expect politiicans to supplement it. I expect children to pay for their own education. I expect educators to speculate on the value of this education to the children.

There's also the perennial problem that WILLINGNESS to pay is not the same thing as ABILITY to pay.

The perennial problem is that politicians are always willing to pay with other people's ability to pay, but these politicians are not paying for my children's education. They're paying for some political formulation benefitting them and their political comrades.

Even if a parent wants to provide a quality education to their child, that child is tied to the marginal productivity of the parent (ie - the parent's ability to pay).

The child is tied to expectations of his own value.

None of this negates the value of a private market in education. None of this negates the destructiveness of teacher's unions. What it does do is provide a compelling reason to publicly provide education as well.

It doesn't posit the value of centrally administered education either.

Try me. Are you talking about public funding but private administration of education? Every once in a while that comes up on here. That sounds great to me.

No. I'm talking about a market in education financed by expectations of the value of education. The educators might not be consciously motivated by some cold, economic calculation. They might be churches motivated by some religious zeal instead, but the effect is the same. I don't propose to dictate people's motivation.

Parents assign a child to one of these organizations, and the organization educates the child, and the child thereafter owes the organization a share of the child's income for a period of time after the child's liberation. That's the simplest formulation.

Parents might also choose to educate their children themselves, either directly or by paying other educators currently. These parents could be entitled to this share of the child's produce themselves, but they would be accountable for educating their children properly. Poorly educated children could sue to be released from the obligation for example.

RE: "Are politicians more likely to make the wisest possible decisions for your children? Why would I believe so? Why would you believe so?"

You shouldn't and I don't

RE: " I suppose that parents invest their children's resources in their children's education."

You keep coming back to this point but that doesn't make sense. Yes, your earnings from your education pay taxes now. But it wasn't your earnings that gave you that education in the first place - it was other people's earnings. And if there were no public provision of education, it would be your parent's earnings - NOT yours. What 'children's resources' are you thinking of that are invested????

RE: "I personally know parents with little education who work multiple jobs to take proper care of their children. I read about terribly exploitative parents in the newspaper, so I suppose they exist, but I don't personally know many of them."

Yes, of course probably most parents without much education want their children to have a good education. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for knowing them. I know many like that too. I'm not sure what the point of these anecdotes is, though. Does that change the argument? In response to your repeated question, I don't have children but we're thinking about it soon - so yes, I've definitely thought about these issues.

RE: "They're paying for some political formulation benefitting them and their political comrades."

Ah yes - the old indoctrination fall-back. Like any good conspiracy theory, it's not clear how you would falsify it - so you just assert, assert, assert!

RE: "I'm talking about a market in education financed by expectations of the value of education. Parents assign their children to one of these organizations, and the organization educates the child, and the child thereafter owes the organization a share of the child's income for a period of time after the child's liberation."

That's not a market. That's my whole point. In a market, parents don't have rights to their children's productive value. That's the problem. That's the fundamental market failure in the "market" for education. Your idea of a "market" that you present here distorts private property rights and therefore cannot operate as a market.

But it wasn't your earnings that gave you that education in the first place – it was other people's earnings.

Other people's labor produced my house long before my labor paid for it.

And if there were no public provision of education, it would be your parent's earnings – NOT yours.

No. My parents didn't pay for my house before I moved into it.

What 'children's resources' are you thinking of that are invested????

Their arms and legs, their fingers, their brains. Investment always precedes yield.

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for knowing them.

I'm due no pat on the back for their good works, but I do observe them. I have no reason to doubt parental willingness to govern their own children well.

I'm not sure what the point of these anecdotes is, though.

What's the point of anecdotal descriptions of the benefits of centrally administered education?

In response to your repeated question, I don't have children but we're thinking about it soon – so yes, I've definitely thought about these issues.

So you'll seen enough know how it feels to be a parent, as opposed to theorizing about parental willingness.

Ah yes – the old indoctrination fall-back. Like any good conspiracy theory, it's not clear how you would falsify it – so you just assert, assert, assert!

But parents unwilling to educate their own children is not a "conspiracy theory"?

I observe politicians canvassing teachers' unions and collecting contributions from them. I've even observed the head of a teacher's union run for office himself. Is my observation a conspiracy theory?

My expectation of the emotional impulses is based on my understanding of the development of these impulses by a process of evolution by natural selection, even if I can't falsify the theory. I don't understand any theory of political selection producing politicians concerned for my children or yours.

That's not a market. That's my whole point. In a market, parents don't have rights to their children's productive value.

No. That's just your assertion of established propriety. Parents can have rights to, or authority over, their children's productive potential, and they can bargain with this property in a market, as opposed to entitling politicians to bargain with it, as they now do as a matter of fact. These markets have existed in the past as a matter of historical fact.

That's the problem. That's the fundamental market failure in the “market” for education.

No. It's not a market failure. It's a property failure. Property must exist before a market can exist. The problem is that parents lack proper rights to their children's productive potential, because politicians exercise these rights instead.

Your idea of a “market” that you present here distorts private property rights and therefore cannot operate as a market.

No. "Private property" describes entitlements that individuals may exercise. A "market" is a system wherein proprietors exchange the value of their properties. There is no fundamental reason why parents cannot exercise these property rights, rather than entitling politicians to exercise them while taxing the yield, as they do now as a matter of fact.

RE: "Other people's labor produced my house long before my labor paid for it."

Right... you bought a used good. So?

RE: "No. My parents didn't pay for my house before I moved into it."

Why are we talking about your house? The your educational instruction - that service - was paid for by your parents and other contemporary tax payers. Not by you.

RE: "Their arms and legs, their fingers, their brains. Investment always precedes yield."

Yes - but in this case OTHER PEOPLE invest in an education that precedes yields that accrue to YOU. That is the very definition of an externality!

RE: "So"

That was my thought too - but you were the one that kept asking if I had children. I figured you cared for some reason.

RE: "I observe politicians canvassing teachers' unions and collecting contributions from them. I've even observed the head of a teacher's union run for office himself. Is my observation a conspiracy theory?"

Huh? I agree with you on teachers unions - review the comments.

RE: "Private property" describes entitlements that individuals may exercise. A "market" is a system wherein proprietors exchange the value of their properties."

PRECISELY. And children are not capable of exchanging the present value of the future product that they are entitled to - which is precisely why the market - the market as YOU JUST DEFINED IT - cannot operate in this situation. Education is underinvested in. You keep talking about "politicians". It's not "politicians" that are providing a solution. It is a community of parents that recognize the fundamental market failure and demand some sort of public education (I'm very open to different formats - forget publicly administered schools. If we can pull it off, vouchers suit me fine).

Right... you bought a used good. So?

No one had used my house before I bought it. No one had used my car either. I'm the first owner of both.

Why are we talking about your house? The your educational instruction - that service - was paid for by your parents and other contemporary tax payers. Not by you.

We're discussing things that I obtain before laboring myself in exchange for them.

My parents didn't pay for my education. A state sponsored system of education extended me credit to consume it, expecting me to pay taxes later. My mortgage is very much the same.

Yes - but in this case OTHER PEOPLE invest in an education that precedes yields that accrue to YOU. That is the very definition of an externality!

A commensurate yield accrues to the state as I and others pay taxes; otherwise, the system of public education is not sustainable. The same logic applies to mortgage lending, and no one says that mortgaged housing is an externality, not if the system of finance is rational anyway.

RE: "So"

That was my thought too - but you were the one that kept asking if I had children. I figured you cared for some reason.

I was still editing when you replied. "So" now has a clause following it.

Huh? I agree with you on teachers unions - review the comments.

So you accuse me of "conspiracy theories" when I say that politicians consider countless interests other than my children's interests when dictating my children's education. "Conspiracies" typically are secret. Political bacon making is surprisingly public.

PRECISELY. And children are not capable of exchanging the present value of the future product that they are entitled to - which is precisely why the market - the market as YOU JUST DEFINED IT - cannot operate in this situation.

No. I never say that "market" requires individuals only be entitled to bargain with their own resources. I may be entitled to bargain with my children's resources for the benefit of my children, to act in my children's stead, to make decisions on their behalf in their interests rather than my own. All parents must behave this way. A "market" in education necessarly requires someone to choose educators on children's behalf.

Education is underinvested in.

By what standard?

You keep talking about "politicians". It's not "politicians" that are providing a solution.

Politicians organize public schools, and we're discussing public education. Who else would I be talking about?

It is a community of parents that recognize the fundamental market failure and demand some sort of public education (I'm very open to different formats - forget publicly administered schools. If we can pull it off, vouchers suit me fine).

No. Communities of parents don't create public schools. If an association of parents creates a school, it's a "private school" by definition.

"What 'children's resources' are you thinking of that are invested????"

I should probably stay out of this as Martin is quite capable of speaking for himself yet, he can be rather difficult to understand sometimes. I believe he means to commit the child's future production.

So, a school educates a child in exchange for some of the child's future production. The parent chooses the school.

Right. A state education system already works this way, except that the state dictates education while taxing the educated to pay for it.

To see why this is true, imagine a system of state education that deteriorates to utter uselessness. Say the state educates children in some cultish orthoxy and nothing else. Children learn to read just well enough to absorb the orthodxy. They write just well enough to regurgitate it. They calculate just well enough count the "begats" in some ancient tome.

When does this system break down? Before the first generation graduates from this educational system or after?

That's what I thought he was meaning, but how does that make sense? Do you know? I'm honestly trying to understand. My education didn't come out of my future production. And even if it did, that's not a market (as Martin claims it is later), because I didn't make the decision to commit my future production - somebody else made a decision about how to use my property.

My education didn't come out of my future production.

Your house didn't come out of your future production either, but (if you have a mortgage) its producers credited you with its price expecting your future production.

And even if it did, that's not a market (as Martin claims it is later), because I didn't make the decision to commit my future production - somebody else made a decision about how to use my property.

You need not bargain exclusively with your own value for a "market" to exist. Parents routinely bargain with their children's property, when a young child inherits or receives income otherwise. We don't say that no "market" mediates the transactions for this reason.

You're accustomed to modern usage of the word "property", meaning something that I govern exclusively for my exclusive benefit, and you understand "market" to describe only exchange of this modern "property", but this "property" is quite recent really.

When children were their parents' "property", no one understood the word this way. No parents thought of their children as cattle to be exploited for their exclusive benefit, regardless of the children's welfare. When children were "property" of their parents, this word obviously meant something else.

RE: "but (if you have a mortgage) its producers credited you with its price expecting your future production."

Sure - but in the case of the mortgage, it was YOU that chose to take out the mortgage. It was you that contracted for the loan in exchange for interest payments. You made those decisions about what to do with your own future production. That is not the case with education. It cannot be the case unless five year olds get more financially savvy than the average five year old I've come across.

You're right - it is a modern conception of property and markets (well - a couple centuries at least, but modern). So?

... in the case of the mortgage, it was YOU that chose to take out the mortgage.

Parents choose on their children's behalf, for the benefit of their children. I expect parents to behave this way, because the parental relationship is natural and evolved by natural selection, and my observations are consistent with this theory. I have no reason to expect politicians to behave similarly, and I don't observe them behaving similarly.

That is not the case with education.

It's not the case with baby formula either, but we don't say there is no market in baby formula.

You're right - it is a modern conception of property and markets (well - a couple centuries at least, but modern). So?

So, like I said, the discussion is moot before it starts, because my proposals have been off the table for so many generations that they sound incredibly odd to you. I propose to make ten percent of a child's future income for thirty years after the age of majority (or some similar formulation) a negotiable equity, and I propose to entitle parents to bargain for their children's education with this equity. The parents don't receive the rent. They only bargain with it for the benefit of their children. When a child reaches the age of majority, the holder of title to this equity may continue to bargain with it.

Many parents would make this bargain not with a commercial, secular institution but with a church, because they would value an education in traditional values along with commercial skills. I've never indoctrinated my children in any traditional religion and wouldn't education my own children this way, but I have no problem with this outcome, because I have no wish to dictate educational choices to other parents.

And I should say - the advantage that I pointed out, that public provision errs on the side of over-investing in education, which is good because children and parents (1.) incentives, and (2.) ability to pay aren't aligned, could also be a problem. It's not good to over-invest, obviously, because that investment could be put to other purposes. That could conceivably become a problem. However, as long as the wage differential between relatively educated and uneducated workers remains as wide as it is now, that doesn't seem to me to be the most pressing issue (ie - investing too much in education).

Politicians invest in a reliable source of electoral support.

What so-called public education actually does is over-invest in facilities, administrator salaries and the like; that is not an over-investment in education per se. Of course given the awful state of pedagogy in this country to begin with, one wonders how they could over-invest in education to start with.

I'm not sure why you think there is an over-investment in facilities, but as for administrators - then pay them less! Presumably that's the market rate - I imagine administrator salaries are so high because public schools can be so tough to deal with and they get better offers from private schools. But if there's good evidence against that then by all means pay them less. That doesn't seem to constitute a case against public education.

Because there is over-investment in facilities; we see this from K through college. Much is the result of federal encouragement, incentives, etc. Obviously politicians and bureaucrats are amenable to such because it is a very easy to demonstrate just how great the politicians and bureaucrats are. Look! We built this facility! See, this is evidence of how awesome we are!

But if there's good evidence against that then by all means pay them less.

The problem of course is that the process by which officials like this are paid, etc. is generally not an open one.

>What if they learn different preferences and values from their politicians?

That's what prescription drugs are for.

It seems like it sometimes, doesn't it :-D

But this persistent opposition to public schools seems to just assume that it's economically efficient for a child to be tied to those parental decisions.

Well, speaking as a parent I will not be sending my children to public schools. I do not wish their intellectual, etc. growth to be stunted.

As far as I know, nobody is advocating keeping parents out of educational decisions (I don't really accept the absence of the word "parent" from an op-ed as proof)...

That has actually been a major part of the agenda of "professional education" since it was founded in the post-bellum period. The roots of most professional organizations are elitist and anti-competitive.