A Libertarian Vision for Education

This discussion was triggered by an article I read on a conservative website which was dismayed that a national teachers union was funding legal services for teachers that teach critical race theory(despite newly created state laws against it).

What is critical race theory(CRT)? It teaches that caucasians are oppressors and racist, even if they are not aware of it. It teaches that minorities live in a country awash in systemic racism that is rigged against them. Caucasians are the beneficiaries of white privilege. Parents have begun pushing back against these ideas being taught in the public schools. Many white parents don’t wish their children to be told they are oppressors; many black parents don’t wish their children to be told the world is against them.

What is the libertarian position on this issue? It derives from the non-aggression principle: you can’t hit people and you can’t take their stuff. You can only agress against others when they threaten you; you can’t initiate aggression against any other person or their property.

How does this relate to public education? First, the money to fund the education is forcefully taken from people through taxation. We libertarians believe taxation is theft. If the mafia robbed you at gunpoint and sent the money to a school we would all view that as theft. If we gave this mafia the special name of “government” it would not change the fact that you have been robbed. Robbery violates the non-aggression principle cited above. We don’t make exceptions to the rule just because the thieves have given a special name to their robbery- taxation. And even if you think taxation is okay, why should Jones with no children have to pay for the education of Smith’s ten children? When parents bring children into the world they should be responsible for ALL the costs associated with them, not their neighbors.

In addition, who should get to decide what is taught to the children? We believe that should be the parents and the parents ONLY. The parents should decide what they are taught or even IF they are taught. Not a school board nor a state board of education nor a national education department nor a group of politicians.

We are all familiar with the concept of the separation of church and state and why it is important. Many of the American colonists fled religious persecution in England. Many European countries had an official state religion and wars were fought over what religion that would be. Why? Because the official state religion could use its power to suppress other religions or denominations and to gain special privileges for itself. The First Amendment wisely avoided these potential conflicts by saying “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I believe we should separate education and state as well. When parents dislike what their kids are being taught they should not have to ask for the permission of a school board to change it. They should be able to vote with their feet and take their child and money with them.

Prior to the nineteenth century much education was privately funded and most people could read and write; people understood the value of education without coercion. Many of the people who pushed for mandatory public education had good intentions, but many of them who led the movement for mandatory public education wanted public education so they could indoctrinate the children(sound familiar?). They wanted to teach them to be obedient so they could work in a factory or serve in the military. They would not be taught entrepreneurship or independence or how to be an autodidact. What the designers wished to produce were obedient pawns, not independent thinkers.

Most of us believe, with good reason, that monopolies are bad. We learned that monopolies can charge high prices, give poor service, not react to customer feedback, and never have to worry about customers fleeing to a competitor despite a poor product or service. What is a public school but a government sanctioned monopoly? You are forced to fund them with taxes. You must send your kids there, unless you want to pay for the service twice by sending your kids to a private school or by taking on the unpaid job of homeschooling. If you don’t like the food at a local restaurant you can remove your money from that restaurant and give it to another. You’re not allowed to remove your money from the public school. You are forced to fund the service whether you like it or not.

There would be a number of benefits to moving schooling into the free market. But before I get into those benefits let me explain what I mean by a free market. It means no government interference in the schooling industry whatsoever. No minimum teacher to pupil ratios. No standardized curriculum. No teacher certification requirements. No mandatory school attendance. No tenure requirements. No hours attended requirements for graduation. No minimum or maximum number of students required.

Think of the variety of schools and innovation that would be created under this system. School A decides to focus on the three Rs: readin’, ‘ritin’, and ‘rithmetic. This school would focus on basic competence and would bring students up to speed in these subjects. Student Einstein would master the subjects in one year, pass the end of school competency exam, and be ready to move on. Student Average might take three years to master the subjects and pass the competency exam.

School B decides to be the advanced math and science shool. Its entrance exam will require students to have some basic competence in reading and math before attending. Einstein passes the entrance exam easily, decides to focus on computer science, and passes the computer science exit exam after two years. He’s only nine years old and is ready for college, but he wants to be a tech entrepreneur and his parents think he is too young to go off to college. So he attends a local school that specializes in teaching business skills three days a week, attends another school that teaches musicianship two days a week, and a martial arts school one day a week. He wants to be well rounded.

Meanwhile, another special young student Johnny entered the three Rs school but did not do well. Testing revealed that he was mentally challenged. Not to worry because school C is designed for just this type of student. The school uses entrance tests to ensure that Johnny doesn’t just have a single subject deficit such as dyslexia. The school is designed to prepare mentally challenged students for the work place. Because there are varied levels of the mentally challenged some of the students will be able to learn to do the three Rs but at a slower than normal pace; for others reading may be an unrealistic expectation. The ultimate goal of the school is to teach marketable work skills to the students. The administrators have networked with local businesses to ensure they are teaching useful skills.

School D decides to focus on vocational training. Because most of the vocations will require at least a minimum proficiency in reading, they require a completion certificate from the three Rs school before they can train in those vocations. A few of the vocations do not require reading and students entering those programs are not required to be literate. Many students who thought they could skip the reading school decide otherwise when they learn how few jobs they can do without it; they decide to attend the three Rs school after all. The vocational school has programs for mechanics, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, hair stylists, waitresses, and the like. Programs are added or subtracted according to market demand.

In addition to school vocational programs, the lifting of mandatory schooling has allowed many individuals to do on the job training. Many kids who were forced to attend school and hated every second of it have traded their frustration for productive work. The abolition of the minimum wage was an important adjunct to making this type of training possible. Youths who were once shut out of the work force can now get their foot in the door, enhance work skills, and earn a higher wage. The bottom rungs of the work ladder have been restored.

School E is designed on the traditional K-12 model so it also offers sports. Because it must compete with other schools it has become much more sensitive to parental wishes. For example, it offers optional Bible courses taught by local pastors. And the old home economics type courses have made a return; it turns out some parents like their daughters to have some baking and home accounting skills. As a matter of fact, all courses are optional and there are no grade levels. Taking a higher level course is not decided by age but by competence only. The school offers a general diploma that certifies competence in the traditional areas of learning. A bright student might achieve the diploma by age 12; a slower student may take until age 21. By the way, school E allows students from other schools in the area to participate in their sports programs; these programs ARE based on age. The school is a member of the voluntary High School Sports League. The league has competition categories based on team size and sets limits on when and how often teams can practice. Because the league is voluntary the member schools, with parental inut, have insisted that absolutely NO women that used to be men can play on the women’s teams.

Meanwhile, basketball coach Trey is out of a job. His old K-12 state supported school no longer exists and not all the new schools have sports teams. After conversing with several local school administrators he believes there will be ample interest in fielding a boys and girls basketball team, as well as wrestling and volleyball teams. Fortunately, he has a good reputation as a coach and decides to start a varsity basketball team. He forms a corporation. He recruits a group of his old players as investors as well as a ladies basketball coach, volleyball coach, and wrestling coach. He pays for some advertising to announce an upcoming meeting at the gym where he will lay out his plans for the sports teams. The attendance at the meeting exceeds his expectations. He asks for a show of hands at the meeting to see how many people might be interested in buying shares of the corporation. Many hands go up. He will be the initial CEO of the corporation and the largest investors as well as the other coaches will serve on the board of directors. They plan to hire an experienced CEO soon so that Trey can concentrate on coaching. They put together a business plan that will raise revenue from the following sources: sales of corporate shares, fees to players for joining the team, food and drink concessions during games, a wall with plaques honoring local business donors, fees for admission to games, and fees from renting the facility during the offseason for youth basketball, wrestling, and volleyball teams, concerts, speakers, etc. They secure a loan from a local bank, buy an old run down high school gymnasium on the cheap, perform some needed repairs, and get it in shape just in time for the upcoming basketball season. The board of directors decide to join the High School Sports League, a statewide organization, and abide by their rules for the teams. A local business makes a HUGE donation to the corporation in exchange for naming the facility after them: Tyson Gymnasium. Whew! Who knew starting a sports business would be so much work! Trey looks forward to next year when a new CEO can take some of the business load off his shoulders.

Remember earlier when I said that no certification would be required for teaching, just ability to teach? As it turns out, administrators of the new schools are more comfortable hiring certified teachers with teaching degrees and experience; they are in high demand. The new math and science oriented school is no exception and hire predominately teachers with a teaching degree. However, they decide to hire a couple of local computer whizzes to teach courses. One of them turns out to be a teaching “natural” and his students do well. Not so much with the second whiz. Although great at doing he is not so great at teaching and after a couple of years it is apparent that his computer prowess does not translate into teaching skills. He is so brilliant he just can’t understand why the students don’t “get it”. The school decides to let him go; they hire a traditional teacher to replace him.

School F makes a decision to go “woke”. Parents are not alerted to the decision. The junior high age students are taught ideas derived from Critical Race Theory. They will teach the white students they suffer from white privilege and are oppressors. Minority students are taught they are oppressed and are living in a white supremacist nation. The history classes trace the founding of the nation back to 1619 when the first black slaves were brought from Africa. All the Founding Fathers who were slave owners have blood on their hands, including the first President George Washington. An informant from within the school alerts parents to what is being taught. A furor abruptly ensues and angry parents descend on the school administrators. The administrators refuse to yield. They will continue to teach the kids what they should know with or without parental consent. The administration is about to learn a valuable lesson about free markets economics. Their funding is no longer controlled by state boards of education or a national education department or by politicians. The school is 100% funded by the parents. The parental dilemma is quickly resolved. Fifty percent of the parents remove their kids from the school and the parents hire a lawyer to the sue the school for breach of contract. A court rules in favor of the parents and orders the school to refund fees to the parents. After repaying the fees the school cannot meet payroll and is forced to file for bankruptcy. It is a casualty in the new free market in education. In a free market businesses that spit on their customers soon perish.

School G opts for an online model of teaching. It provides computers with an internet connection so that parents can choose from a wide variety of online courses and curricula. For example, the Ron Paul Homeschool curriculum has become quite popular. It teaches kids independent thinking skills, how to become self-taught, and how to start a business. The on-site workers at the school serve to keep the students on task, to proctor tests, and to answer questions the students have about the subjects they are studying. The on-site teachers are well rounded so they can answer questions about a variety of subjects. They can also act as personal tutors for students who may be struggling. The school provides an exercise area and physical education teacher as well. The students can run laps, do push-ups or sit-ups, or use a variety of exercise machines. The PE teacher ensures they are being done safely. An OK letter from a physician is required before students can participate in PE activities. All teachers at the school are required to be certified in CPR. Because the school can be used to access a wide variety of curricula the student level ranges from first grade through graduate school. The school is open from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and students can check in or check out at any time. Parents enjoy the option of taking their kids to lunch whenever they please. There are no standard school hours. Martha attends from 8-2 Monday through Friday. Sam only attends online school on Tuesday and Thursday. He attends another school on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Student fees are assessed according to the number of hours spent at the school. This “pay for what you use” model has been adopted by most schools, allowing parents maximum flexibiity and affordability for their children’s education. Younger non-driving students can only leave with adults specifically designated by their parents. Driving students must come and go according to a schedule dictated by their parents. The school keeps attendance records for billing purposes and parental reference only; mandatory attendance laws have been abolished.

A major benefit of the new free market education system has been cost containment and quality enhancement. The factors making this possible include: competition for students among schools, no compulsion to complete high school, less cost from kids who didn’t wish to be there, no rules for starting a school that drives up costs, no accreditation process, no tenure laws, no mandatory standardized tests, no state funding. It turns out that when schools don’t get an automatic check from the state the cost goes down and the quality goes up. Imagine that!

There is no such thing as a perfect educational system and the new free market system with no mandates is no exception. Although most parents realize the value of education and choose to send their kids to school or homeschool, a few do not. The numbers are extremely low but some reach the age of 18 without any formal education. Fortunately, a coalition of charitable organizations including the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and many others have foreseen this and similar eventualities. They will provide grants for any students who cannot afford to attend school, including individuals who are no longer minors. The coalition has made the commitment to support all levels of schooling including graduate school. They support school based and on the job vocational training as well. Their motto is “no mind left behind.”

One objection to this type of model is that education is too important to leave to the free market and must be provided by government. Really? Is education more important than food? Without food and you won’t need an education; you’ll be dead. The free market provides a wide variety of choices for food. You can have expensive steak and lobster or you can have a peanut butter sandwich dirt cheap. There is nothing provided by government that can’t be provided better and cheaper by the market. Nothing, including education.

Another objection to a free market in education is that it will be unaffordable for poor families. In other words, no businesses will cater to the poor. Experience refutes that argument. How many of those poor families have smart phones? Heating and air conditioning? High definition color television sets? Automobiles? Stoves? Refrigerators? Two or more bedrooms? One or more bathrooms? Dishwashers? Washers and dryers? And what if our poor family wants to splurge and eat out? Have you heard of McDonald’s? Taco Bell? Captain D’s? Domino’s? And how will our poor family get to the restaurant? Have you heard of the Toyota Corolla? The Honda Civic? The Nissan Versa? The Ford Fiesta? Most of them come standard with anti-lock brakes, air bags, air conditioning, radios, power brakes, power door locks, and power windows. But somehow education will be different and the free market won’t provide options for the poor. How can people make this argument with a straight face?

Let’s say for the sake of argument the naysayers are correct and notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary, the free market does not provide a product for the poor. That’s where private charities can fill the void. And what if private charities along with the uber wealthy such as Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos and the Waltons turn a blind eye to the problem? Then we might be tempted to have government step in at that point and provide funding. But we would be returning to the original problem with top-down control rather than parental control. In addition, government funding would start to raise the costs again. Schools, knowing that government will make up the difference, would begin to raise fees again. This is exactly what has happened at the universities. The injection of government cash via student loans and grants has allowed the universities to raise fees above market price. The result is that college is unaffordable without loans or scholarships. Universities don’t care if their students fail; 40% of entering freshmen will not graduate but those 40% do serve to drive up costs by increasing demand. This outrageous state of affairs could not exist without government intervention preventing true free market competition. So we must draw a hard line in the sand and say no state intervention. Once the camel’s nose gets under the tent, soon he’ll be eating your dinner.

There will also be objections from the usual suspects that loathe parental control of education: teachers unions, education bureacrats, politicians, race-hustlers. In other words, resistance will be heaviest from those who benefit the most from the status quo.

It’s time we rethink education. It’s time we end the public education monopoly. It’s time we separate education and state. It’s time we put parents back in control of their children’s education. As the folks at Apple Computer might say, it’s time to think different.