Re-thinking our education system a necessity 
March 2, 2009 by Matthew Jarzen
Privatizing education is the best way to ensure quality
With Gov. Jim Gibbons’ proposed budget cuts to Nevada’s education system being debated within the chambers of the state legislature, everyone is cowering in the corner wondering whether or not we will have a recognizable education system in the future.
Managing and cutting the budget for useless and wasteful programs is what might determine our future. Does a UNLV coach deserve to get paid millions of dollars? Does President David B. Ashley really need a $15,000 desk with matching $3600 leather chairs? Most people don’t care enough to notice this wasteful spending or assume that these benefits are predetermined in contracts. But, when we catch corporate CEOs and other executives flying in private jets or building huge corporate offices, we criticize them openly.
Outrageously expensive desks aside, raising taxes is not the solution. Some suggest raising the room tax because the burden falls on tourists. This mentality is careless because I can’t imagine a tourist who would spend a night in a hotel room with artificially inflated prices due to higher room taxes. As we have seen recently, they are more likely to take their business elsewhere.
More than enough tax money already goes to an already failing public school system. This past election, voters passed yet another room tax to further support the failing public education system in the state.
Every election cycle the schools claim they are in dire need of money, the voters fall for the sob stories and consequentially tax businesses more and throw money at the failing schools without demanding accountability. Soon after, the schools ask for more money claiming the original allocation wasn’t enough.
With tax revenue to the state of Nevada dwindling, schools are obviously feeling a little bit of a pinch. What’s the solution? More money! I’m sorry folks, but as much as your professors like to make you believe, throwing money at a problem isn’t going to fix it. For too long we’ve done just that with Nevada’s education system.
Our public schools are in a severe crisis and this crisis extends beyond financial problems. The big problem plaguing public schools is that they’re public. That’s right, they are owned and run by your government. The reason the budget crisis is affecting K-12 a lot harder than higher education is because they’re dependent on government funds.
The reason the country and our state are failing in educating our youth is because the government controls the education system.
Problem number one: the Department of Education. States and school boards have become so addicted to federal money for their schools that they’ll meet whatever standard the law-makers dictate to them.
This usually doesn’t require much more than mandatory increased attendance. So, schools don’t enforce discipline or academic standards on their students to focus on filling more seats and getting more money. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has to fund education.
The only way to cure the problems associated with the Department of Education is to get rid of it and eliminate federal funding for all schools. Once schools rid themselves of the addiction to federal money, they can finally get back to actually teaching their students. Many private schools, especially parochial schools do without federal money and still have a higher success rate.
Problem number two: the government runs a monopoly on education.
Government-run schools fail primarily because parents don’t have a choice in where their children get educated. Could you imagine if the government chose what TV you could have in your home, what car you could drive, what shoes you have to wear and the food you ate? Well, we’re not that far off from some of those things, but essentially you would be stuck with whatever the government dealt you. It would probably not be the optimal choice.
The solution is to give the power to choose schools back to parents. Free-market principles prove to be successful in private schools. When you have choice, you choose better. For some, private schools are out of reach due to tuition fees and other associated costs. One private school here in Las Vegas charges a reasonable $3,600 a year and they have an exceptionally better and higher quality education system most public schools which Nevada spends $7,355 annually. Still, there should be vouchers and public-private ventures to help those who cannot afford a private education by themselves.
What makes many private schools better, as stated earlier, is their rejection of federal money and ineffective federal regulations. Privatizing the education system would mean more leeway determining teaching methods. Also, this would allow schools to enforce more appropriate academic and disciplinary standards.
Another benefit to a private system is that parents get to see the real cost of their child’s education, and so, they will probably care more about it. Why would anyone want to pay $3,500 a year for their child to get an F? Paying for education might force careless parents to have an interest in their child’s education. Return the choice to people and they’ll choose better.
Great article! I’m glad to finally read an article about things that could be cut instead of suggestions to raise taxes or tuition!
Great article. Government-run schools have corrupted the minds of America’s youth.
We now pass kids along to the next grade who’ve failed the prior one. We spend more time worrying about the kids who don’t want to be there than that ones who do.
We reward failure and punish success and achievement. That is was liberals want for this the country and they’ve started with our schools.
Keep up the fight and keep tellling the truth!
Finally, somebody who speaks the truth about the sorry excuse for an education system in Nevada. We’ve taxed businesses and made them responsible for paying for schools when it should be parents.
The author was dead on. The reason schools suck is because the parents could care less because they’re not paying, somebody else is paying. They’re not seeing the real cost of their crumb-cruncher’s education.
Liberals are finally getting what they want, abolition of the family! The schools are now becoming the parents and its destroying our education system. We’re now providing kids with breakfeast, even over the summer! It’s not the responsibility of the schools to care for the kids, its the parents’ job!! I’m sick and tired of my taxes going to pay for a kid who doesn’t even want to learn or be there.
The other commenter, Peter was right. Focus on the kids who do want to be there instead of on the ones who don’t. Enforce the disciplinary standards, enforce academic standards again!
That’s what makes private education a million times better, because they can enforce the standards the public schools are too afraid to do themselves and who in the end suffers for that? We the tax payers.
Make parents pay for their own kids’ education. It’s their kid, their responsibility. Since when did we decide parents aren’t responsible for providing their childrens’ education?
Spot on with the article. I hope more people had common sense, free-market understanding like you do!
“Why would anyone want to pay $3,500 a year for their child to get an F? Paying for education might force careless parents to have an interest in their child’s education.”
It might do that. But most likely parents will just stop paying. And then what? Then you would have millions of Americans who are uneducated and illiterate.
Fedor’s comment is my biggest fear with your idea also. Additionally, I think one of the main reasons why private schools are vastly superior to public schools is precisely because they are attended by less students. Once everybody is forced to go to private school than the difference in teacher quality which now exists begins to disappear. For example, instead of needing only a thousand or so private school teachers (this figure is purely hypothetical), you’ll need thousands of teachers. And where will these teachers come from? Well, the public schools.
I’m not disagreeing with your entire article. In fact, I agree with the concept that our public schools need to be overhauled in favor of a better system. We are simply spending too much money for too little results. Is privatizing it the way to go? Perhaps, but I think we will end up with the scenario that Fedor concisely stated.
Confounded as to why my last comment was removed.
Anyway, specifically about privatizing education and to Fedor, children have to be educated one way or another and if the only way for a kid to get an education is for the parent to pay, it will work. Parents just won’t stop paying for their kids’ school if that’s their only means of an education.
It’s a proven fact that if kids under-preform at private schools, the financial incentive for parents to take more of an interest will force those kids to do better solely because the parent is paying. This is universal regardless of class or economic standing. Sure you may have a few kids who will consistantly suck, but for the most part, upwards to 90% will be preforming better than they had been in a public setting.
The reason is because parents see the real cost! I went to private school and at first I wasn’t the best of students and when my parents saw the grades I was getting vs. the money they were paying for me to get those grades, they made sure I got my act together whether that meant they pay a little extra for me to stay after school and get tutoring or they stayed home or took time away from things they wanted to do to help me in my studies.
Private systems work. I’m not saying everybody should go to a private school, but make public systems like the private ones. Have the parents pay for their kids to go to school. It’s the free-market that will get our children a better education.
Sigh,
I see Milton Friedman’s rather narrow ideas are still alive and kicking. Privatization education is a horrible idea. Simply for that fact that it will create a enormous gulf between the haves and the have-nots. The reason for public education is that by education an entire population you increased the overall quality of life and wealth. There is a reason for the economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s, direct government funding of education. This is not to say that if you can afford Harvard you should be denied attending that august institution. Capitalism is a great economic system that allows for the best qualified and hardest working to rise to the top. But it only works when we all rise. Privatizing education, as New Orleans proves, simply does not work.
You don’t know how moronic that sounded, Mike. The privatized education system in New Orleans worked just as it has worked in places all accross the country, in places like Minneapolis-St. Paul and even Washington D.C.
Privatization of education works. If it doesn’t and government schools are so grand, why does public education in this country suck? Please explain. Capitalism allows not only the best qualified to rise up, but everyone if they wanted to and the same goes for education.
So again, please explain what makes public school so grand that it has consistently failed our children?
I think the words of Winston Churchill are perhaps a better reply to you, “The inherent vice in Capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”
That’s what public education is, socialism. It stops the successful and talented among them to be successful and talented by holding them back while rewarding those who are neither.
Why the insults Peter? You can disagree with a person without insulting them.
“That’s what public education is, socialism. It stops the successful and talented among them to be successful and talented by holding them back while rewarding those who are neither.”
This statement is also an insult. It insults all of those who went to public institutions, such as UNLV, and made something of their lives. It’s like you are saying that every kid who goes to a public school is doomed to failure.
Public education systems can work. Finland, for example, is ranked number 1 in the world in enrollment and quality and number 2 in math and science education by the World Economic Forum. The Finnish education system is fully funded by the government to the point where they even discourage the establishment of private schools.
I’m not saying that we should copy the Finnish, all I’m saying is we shouldn’t be so hasty as to completely change our education system to a private one when there are public education models out there that have clearly been effective.
I’m also wondering why you are so certain that a privatized education system can work when there are clearly big holes in the idea, such as the one I pointed out in my last post.
You say: “children have to be educated one way or another and if the only way for a kid to get an education is for the parent to pay, it will work. Parents just won’t stop paying for their kids’ school if that’s their only means of an education.”
But what if they can’t afford to pay, or refuse to pay? Do you throw the parents in prison? What if the children have no parents to pay for their education? How do you make sure that a privatized system is teaching children the truth? The answer to many of these questions is simple: Government involvement.
Why must the government be involved in the education of children. That seems the be the standard liberal mantra, “government must be involved” be it education, healthcare, the economy. Whatever happened to people doing things for themselves.
Why can’t parents be parents and take responsibility for their children. I know that sounds like an extreme idea to some people, but thats simply a matter of fact. If the only option for a parents’ kid to get educated is for them to pay, they cannot refuse.
For those who are unable to pay or lack the full and necessary means to pay, there are public-private solutions as well. The government puts up X number of dollars, the parent, especially those poor ones everyone is always so concerned about, will put up a certain amount that way, they are financially invested in their childrens’ education. It makes the parent finally pay attention and they take a little bit of responsibility.
The public school system is not and should not be parents, although liberals like yourself would want it to be.
And trust me, not all kids who go to private schools have wealthy parents. I myself went to private school for a number of years and my parents were dirt poor. However, they found a way to pay for my education and because they didn’t have the money for luxeries they would otherwise have if I didn’t go to private school, they paid an enormous amount of attention to education.
I’m not bashing those who attend public school and succeed nor am I bashing UNLV. However, I’m assuming though, you pay for your education. You pay for your classes, thus since you have a vested financial interest, you’re simply not going to let yourself fail.
So this still begs the question: Why, if public-government-run education is great, then why has it failed miserably in this country? Also, why, if private education is so bad, is private education far more succesful than public?
Peter,
First, I reject your premise that public education has “failed miserably in this country.” In fact, public education has been one of the greatest success stories in American history. Prior to the enactment of compulsorily schooling throughout the United States few Americans enjoyed more than a rudimentary education. During the colonial era, less than 1% of the population had a college level education. As education levels rose over the next couple of centuries so to did national affluence and technological gains. The federal government’s investment in education following World War II produced the largest economic gain in human history. Education is an investment which benefits society as whole in so much as it creates a more productive, creative, and in the end richer population. By investing in education governments in essence are investing in their own affluence.
Now then, by privatizing education you exclude many people, in essence reducing the number of creative, effective, and productive employees from the market place. This in turn creates a society of the haves and the have nots. New Orleans is a dismissal failure in large part due to the failure of the state government to effectively run its public schools prior to Katrina, and then the exclusion of thousands from its privately run schools afterward.
Why must government be involved you ask? It is a rather simple answer, they are the one’s with the money and we are all the government. It is a concept known as popular sovereignty. “We the people” are the government, and so it “we” that are funding education. This benefits all. Collectively, we have much more money, credit, etc. to properly fund big ticket items like education, the military, interstate highways, etc. That is a basic tent of governments.
I understand that I most likely will not have changed your mind on this topic, but I hope I have better highlighted the basic ideas that public education runs on. Now, if you excuse me I have to get back to my subpar public education so that I may graduate.
I think we should first stop comparing K-12 to higher education such as UNLV. This article clearly highlighted K-12 as the focus for switching from public education to private. Also, while UNLV is a public institution, it has characteristics of a K-12 private institution insomuchas, like Peter stated, money comes out of your own pocket to attend the univeristy.
I’d also like to state that while Mike’s point may be right, that in the history of this county education has been a great success (I have no reason to dispute this point), that does not mean that education is still working. In fact, I don’t think it is much of a stretch to say public education is currently failing most of the youth in this country.
Also, I would like to discuss Peter’s point that, “That’s what public education is, socialism. It stops the successful and talented among them to be successful and talented by holding them back while rewarding those who are neither.”
This comment is not insulting, in some ways it is true. I don’t want to get into whether or not public education is socialism. That idea goes beyond the point I’m trying to make. What I am saying is that with the No Child Left Behind Act, it is abundantly clear that teachers have to teach to the lowest common denominator in class. Meaning, that if 20 students understand the material and 10 don’t, the teacher has to spend additional time until the 10 students understand the material as well. For the smartest individuals in class, it is easy to see why they might get bored and disinterested. Saying that public education is holding back the smartest individuals is not an insult, I think it’s the truth. It’s also not implying anything about what you’ve done in your own life. Maybe you’ve been a success inspite of public education, not because of it. Also, maybe with a better education system, you could have been an even bigger success.
I think Mike’s point about the government funding education because they have the money is an interesting one. With schools demanding more and more money for lesser results, when does the public say enough’s enough, and start demanding some quality from their taxpayer dollar. I have never seen any statistic showing a correlation between more funding and more educated students. Sure, if the schools weren’t funded at all or funded at very low levels, I can clearly see the correlation. But there must come a point where more funding is not going to translate into better student performance. In fact, I think a lot of education occurs at home, and raising funding to schools is not going to change the level of education received at home. Lastly, the government doesn’t have unlimited money. The concept that the government has the money for all these things and should therefore fund everything is scary. You simply don’t jeopardize the future of a nation by risking bankruptcy. Sure, even in these horrible economic times, the government bankrupting the country is not likely to occur. But then again, this should be as close to a non-worry at all times as possible. After all, bankrupting your own country is simply something you should never risk.
I’d also like to quickly add that comparing our public education system to Finland’s is illogical. Finland is a much smaller nation than the U.S., probably doesn’t have the same disparity in family incomes and it is therefore much more feasible and efficient for there educational system to work. Comparing the U.S. to Finland in most areas is a very poor example.
To conclude, I’d like to say that I agree with Mike, that education is an investment. All I’m asking is that we ask ourselves: is the investment paying off? Sadly, I think the answer is currently no. While I don’t think strictly privatizing education would work for the reason I stated in my previous comment, I think some combination of privatizing and public schooling is the best way to go. To clarify, I know we have that system in place now, but I think private schools could be taking a larger market share and possibly relieving some of the burden on the public schools. Of course, I could be completely wrong on this point as supply and demand factors are already in play, and the current balance may economically be the best balance we have.
But I’ll let Mike get back to class, although, I bet even he wishes he was receiving an education from a private university.
Ryan made an interesting point that I failed to bring up earlier. There are no statistics out there that show a correlation between more funding for schools and above average perfomance in school.
In Nebraska, there was an experiment done. The experiment was that the state built a state-of-the-art high school. Complete with computers in every single classroom for every single student, internet access, brand-new textbooks, an immense library, even a small zoo for scientific research. All this was done to show everyone that if schools are well-funded, students will preform better.
The result? The average test scores of the students who attended that state of the art school did not go up.
Granted, I agree that education is definately an investment, as Mike stated. However, I disagree with his class warfare rhetoric of “haves” and “have-nots”
Earlier, I asked a simple question, what is so wrong with parents taking responsibility for their own childs’ education? After all, they made the choice to become parents in the first place.
I never said we should have a totally privitized system, however, school vouchers have been a proven system that helps poor, inner-city students, who are mainly minorities, recieve a better education than they would be forced to get in their government-run schools.
Public-private ventures could also work as the State puts up X number of dollars for a student’s education and the parents up Y number of dollars, there is then a financial investment the education of a children by the parents.
It forces parents to once again take responsibility for their actions and their children, instead of passing that responsibility off to schools.
I’ve said that least 1628857 times. The problem this like that is they are just too compilcated for the average bird, if you know what I mean
Greetings from California! I’m bored to tears at work so I decided to browse your blog on my iphone during lunch break. I love the information you present here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m shocked at how quick your blog loaded on my cell phone .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyhow, very good blog!