Public Schools & Grocery Stores

[August1991]

The Wall Street Journal published an excellent article by Donald J. Boudreaux recently comparing public schools and grocery stores:

Suppose that groceries were supplied in the same way as K-12 education. Residents of each county would pay taxes on their properties. Nearly half of those tax revenues would then be spent by government officials to build and operate supermarkets. Each family would be assigned to a particular supermarket according to its home address. And each family would get its weekly allotment of groceries—"for free"—from its neighborhood public supermarket.

No family would be permitted to get groceries from a public supermarket outside of its district. Fortunately, though, thanks to a Supreme Court decision, families would be free to shop at private supermarkets that charge directly for the groceries they offer. Private-supermarket families, however, would receive no reductions in their property taxes.

Of course, the quality of public supermarkets would play a major role in families' choices about where to live. Real-estate agents and chambers of commerce in prosperous neighborhoods would brag about the high quality of public supermarkets to which families in their cities and towns are assigned.

...

Link

To me, this article is terrifying because if for some crazy, historical reason, we had organized our grocery deliveries through the Ministry of Groceries, I fear that we would now be having debates about how to reform the "public grocery system".

The article reminds me of many conversations that I have had with Russians. Once you are in a public or State system, and you face the myriad problems associated with rationing, it is very hard to imagine how a market system would work. Instead, bureaucrats and even ordinary people keep trying to find ways to fix the "public system".

I met Mikhail Gorbachev (after he was out of power) and I came away with the impression that he was still convinced that with some tweeking and changes, the Soviet system could have been fixed.

-----

In fairness, education and groceries are different products and in Canada, our education system operates differently from in the US.

In Quebec for example, about 35% of students go to state-subsidized (often religious) private high schools or about 20% of all pre-college students. In other provinces, there are many state schools that select students and amount to a voucher system.

More pointedly, we need groceries all our life whereas education is a service we typically receive between age 5 and 18.

Moreover, most of us require about the same education services. We have vastly different desires when it comes to groceries. How much "education" can a 14 year old kid consume? The same 14 year old could eat her or his way through a lot of "free" groceries.

IOW, education has a limited demand whereas groceries (or health care for that matter) has an almost limitless demand when the consumer sees a price of zero.

Edited May 15, 2011 by August1991

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Fact: Canada placed second in education by the OECD.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/overview/Educationskills.aspx

It was one of the only 2 countries on the rating to receive an A grade.

The problem with our public education is that it's actually really good. That is not to say that there can't be improvements in delivery. Most of the arguments against the system are ideological in nature.

Your article talks about the American system, which is garbage.

For instance, in Ontario, public schools are funded based on enrolment. Not by the exact district that a specific school lies within. This means that if your child/grandchild chooses to go to a different school within the school board, they can. Provided parents are willing to transport them. This is especially important because, unlike the US, our public schools offer many speciality programs like Robotics, Computer Engineering, Health/Nursing, Hospitality, etc and students should be able to go to another local school if they offer the program the child is interested in.

In Canada, teachers are also paid a decent wage for the 5-6 years of Univeristy Education or professional experience required(Except Quebec). This means they can actually hire people who want to teach and are very capable as human beings to excel in private industry for more than a teacher salary. If you knock down the teacher wage too much (as in the states), you only get low quality people or people who aren't willing to work for the pay they are worth... not exactly who you want teaching your kids. Imagine a robotics engineer or other high tech professional teaching for 50k/year (LOL! yeah right). That isn't to say that some areas aren't overpaid (Kindergarten, low end elementary grades, physical education and guidance counsellors could be considered overpaid)

[Michael Hardner]

I think that MCC did a great job of addressing this stupid article.

Education has been provided by the state in civilized countries for a long time, and in the US from the beginning I think. It's a very wise investment.

It's their country, though. If they want to spend zero on education and transfer that money to the military that's their choice.

I can see a big problem coming, though. Once the Libertarians win in the US there will be no one left for them to blame when things continue to go downhill.

[Shady]

I think that MCC did a great job of addressing this stupid article.

Education has been provided by the state in civilized countries for a long time, and in the US from the beginning I think. It's a very wise investment.

It's their country, though. If they want to spend zero on education and transfer that money to the military that's their choice.

I can see a big problem coming, though. Once the Libertarians win in the US there will be no one left for them to blame when things continue to go downhill.

Any criticism of government always gets a strong backlash by Michael. He pretty rigid in his ideology that only government should be in control of educating our children. So you get intelligent rebuttals like "stupid article" from him. Oh, and false choices unmentioned by anybody. Like transferring all eduction funding towards the military.

Anyways, America already spends more money per child on education than any other country in the world. But the quality of education won't change when you have people like Michael, and others of his ilk, promoting the continuation of a failing system. In their cases, ideology trumps results, and what's best for students. Sad.

[Michael Hardner]

Any criticism of government always gets a strong backlash by Michael. He pretty rigid in his ideology that only government should be in control of educating our children.

No - I think that there is a place for private schools. I went to a private school, so I see value in them.

So you get intelligent rebuttals like "stupid article" from him. Oh, and false choices unmentioned by anybody. Like transferring all eduction funding towards the military.

This is a stupid article, IMO. Very stupid. If I didn't feel that this article was so obviously stupid I would take more time to take it apart. But I don't feel that way.

Anyways, America already spends more money per child on education than any other country in the world. But the quality of education won't change when you have people like Michael, and others of his ilk, promoting the continuation of a failing system. In their cases, ideology trumps results, and what's best for students. Sad.

Cite please ?

I reserve the right to treat ridiculous opinions with derision. There are good articles that talk about education issues. Rather than jump on me, why don't you join me in cutting down very stupid articles ? I would do the same.

If you think I blindly support public systems, check out my articles on healthcare.

[Shakeyhands]

I went to a private school, so I see value in them.

Out of curiosity, which one Michael?

[Michael Hardner]

I grew up in Belleville. It was a small Catholic high school there.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

No - I think that there is a place for private schools. I went to a private school, so I see value in them.

Exactly, there is always a place for private schools. That is the operation of the free market.

I don't think anyone is advocating they disappear but, our public system is very good. We need people to be educated in that fact. For just under $8/classroom hour your child/grandchildren get educated in one of the worlds best education systems. Most provincial curriculum is available on-line and if you look, you'll find that it is fairly comprehensive in offering a broad range of subject/learning/skills pathways.

Ontario Secondary Curriculum

Private schools still have to cover ontario curriculum to get accredited. In the end, whether your child goes to private or public they are getting the same knowledge but, they might be receiving that knowledge in a different format or different emphasis. Of course, in private school the unsavoury students (special needs, behavioural, weak, poor) students are filtered out so that your child will not suffer having to deal with them.

[Bonam]

Exactly, there is always a place for private schools. That is the operation of the free market.

I don't think anyone is advocating they disappear but, our public system is very good. We need people to be educated in that fact. For just under $8/classroom hour your child/grandchildren get educated in one of the worlds best education systems. Most provincial curriculum is available on-line and if you look, you'll find that it is fairly comprehensive in offering a broad range of subject/learning/skills pathways.

That $8/hour is for each of the kids in the classroom. With ~30 kids per class on average, that's $240 per classroom hour. Considering that the teacher in that classroom probably makes something on the order of $30/hour, I think we could see a lot of cost savings in our system without diminishing the quality of teaching. The private school I went to, which was small (there was just 2 teachers/classrooms) ran on $12,000/month (about 20 students total, each paying about $600/month) which would be about $46 per classroom hour instead of $240, and let me learn far more than I ever did in public elementary school.

Private schools still have to cover ontario curriculum to get accredited. In the end, whether your child goes to private or public they are getting the same knowledge but, they might be receiving that knowledge in a different format or different emphasis.

The minimum curriculum requirements can be taught in far less than the amount of time available throughout the school year. A private school can teach a lot of extra "knowledge" in addition to that which is required by the province.

[Michael Hardner]

That $8/hour is for each of the kids in the classroom. With ~30 kids per class on average, that's $240 per classroom hour. Considering that the teacher in that classroom probably makes something on the order of $30/hour, I think we could see a lot of cost savings in our system without diminishing the quality of teaching.

I think so too, and this applies to all of our systems.

But that's a different conversation than the WSJ journal article. There are a lot of people arguing for demolition of public services. Those of us who see value in public services need to realize that there are real gaps there, and to start holding administrators accountable rather than to simply say our system is fine as it is.

And comparing to the US is becoming more and more pointless as they're really talking about going in a different direction than we are.

In my view, open government initiatives - using the web to publish plans, performance statistics and th e like - would go a long way to putting the spotlight on administration and management of public services.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

That $8/hour is for each of the kids in the classroom. With ~30 kids per class on average, that's $240 per classroom hour. Considering that the teacher in that classroom probably makes something on the order of $30/hour, I think we could see a lot of cost savings in our system without diminishing the quality of teaching. The private school I went to, which was small (there was just 2 teachers/classrooms) ran on $12,000/month (about 20 students total, each paying about $600/month) which would be about $46 per classroom hour instead of $240, and let me learn far more than I ever did in public elementary school.

I'm taking your numbers. $12,000 * 12/20 = $7200 tuition.

7200/194/6 = $6.1/classroom hour.

How many years of inflation should I adjust that rate by?

http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html

Samples:

- If you have been out of school for 10 years...

-> $9103.50 Tuition (almost bang on for public school cost)

- If you have been out of school for 20 years...

-> $12,007.97 Tuition (25% more than public school cost)

I'm sure there are efficiencies to be gained, but not on the scale that you believe they are.

First off, the average class size is not 30, especially in elementary.

Secondly, the public school cost includes purchasing new computers and equipment (including robotics, manufacturing, construction and other resources needed for technology programs in high school), maintaining and repairing schools, building new schools, funding special needs programs, standardized testing, busing of students etc. The $8/classroom hour is the entire public system rolled up into a convenient figure... including the beaurocracy of the Ministry of Education.

The minimum curriculum requirements can be taught in far less than the amount of time available throughout the school year. A private school can teach a lot of extra "knowledge" in addition to that which is required by the province.

I will give you that. It is backed up by research but, not directly because of private school itself but the environment that is allowed in private school. Low end students who slow down the class are removed. Which is arguably just action even for the low end students with the studies I have read. The lower end students perform better in classes when they feel they are on an equal level. Not only that but, advanced students can cover a hell of a lot more with students who are motivated by the fact that their parents are paying good money and will be displeased if they are not putting an effort into learning.

I don't want to appear too lopsided. I'm not "The public education system is the end all, be all as it currently stands". I think we need to change aspects of it but, it is more of a fine tuning than a massive overhaul.

For instance, the public system is often slow to incorporate and differentiate based on new information (integration of weak learners makes them feel more segregated because they can't answer the same questions resulting in disengagement) and too reliant on being politically correct (why can't public schools offer optional religous instruction based on local demand? Whether it is Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc. Just offering the courses in a single environment embraces the idea of acceptance of one another)

Not only that but, I personally want to try opening my own private school at some point in my life. I have the credentials, just need the money

[August1991]

For instance, in Ontario, public schools are funded based on enrolment. Not by the exact district that a specific school lies within. This means that if your child/grandchild chooses to go to a different school within the school board, they can. Provided parents are willing to transport them.

Depending on province, I think you're wrong. If a child is not resident in a certain area, schools can refuse the child admission even if the parents offer transportation.

I think that MCC did a great job of addressing this stupid article.

..

It's their country, though. If they want to spend zero on education and transfer that money to the military that's their choice.

It's not a stupid article, and the point is that Americans spend alot of money on education without effect.

Despite my response to MCC above, we in Canada have adopted many of the practices that the article implicitly argues would be better for the US. We have state-financed, language or religious-based schools. We have many state-financed schools with special vocations. In Quebec, we have many state-subsidized private schools that are free to refuse students.

Michael, as to your view of US military spending, I am reminded of the comment of Australia's PM John Howard: "Be careful of what you wish for. You may just get it." Michael, would you prefer a world where the US military was not dominant?

Fact: Canada placed second in education by the OECD.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/overview/Educationskills.aspx

It was one of the only 2 countries on the rating to receive an A grade.

I have problems with the PISA study.

To start with, when government agencies design a study to study a government undertaking of such dimensions, what do you expect? If Exxon and Shell formed an industry group to study energy production, what kind of report would it deliver?

I am astonished when people assume a government study is "objective".

As to PISA, two points to consider: it shows that girls do better than boys. Why is that? It also shows that Shanghai, China and South Korea score the highest of all. Why is that?

In my view, open government initiatives - using the web to publish plans, performance statistics and th e like - would go a long way to putting the spotlight on administration and management of public services.

Information without the freedom to choose is useless. People in the Soviet Union had information; but they had no alternative.

No - I think that there is a place for private schools. I went to a private school, so I see value in them.

In this thread, that's a remarkable admission and Michael, I give you credit for your integrity.

-----

IMV, the article in the OP raises a good question.

Food is critical for life and yet we in the modern world now rely entirely on anonymous markets to provide our daily bread. There are private farmers, private wholesalers, private truck drivers, private food processors and private food retailers.

Education, the transmission of accumulated knowledge from one generation to another, is no less critical for life as we know it. Why do we assume that the State must do this? More fearfully, what does it mean when we entrust this task to the State?

In the case of food, we have broad choices and remarkable innovations. Consumers can choose from OGM to "organic". Compared to 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago, widespread famine is no longer a scourge even in poor countries. (When UNICEF now seeks funds, it usually appeals to educating children.)

But for education, there has been little innovation or change. Most schoolteachers around the world are government paid, possibly unionized, and use chalkboards to teach about 30 pupils in a group. Kids sit like this, day in and day out, for about 10 years of their life, from age 6 to 16. Innovation? This is how children learned 50 or even 100 years ago.

Edited May 18, 2011 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

It's not a stupid article, and the point is that Americans spend alot of money on education without effect.

No - it compares spending money on education with having a bureaucracy around food distribution, which is just stupid IMO.

Michael, as to your view of US military spending, I am reminded of the comment of Australia's PM John Howard: "Be careful of what you wish for. You may just get it." Michael, would you prefer a world where the US military was not dominant?

They would be dominant at half the price, especially when you consider their powerful allies.

Information without the freedom to choose is useless. People in the Soviet Union had information; but they had no alternative.

We are free to choose our elected leaders, who promise to do better than the other elected leaders. But there is little visibility into how well our services are provided, over the whole system. To my mind, a monopoly needs to be more transparent because there are no other options.

But for education, there has been little innovation or change. Most schoolteachers around the world are government paid, possibly unionized, and use chalkboards to teach about 30 pupils in a group. Kids sit like this, day in and day out, for about 10 years of their life, from age 6 to 16. Innovation? This is how children learned 50 or even 100 years ago.

Absolutely not true. Do you really think our education systems haven't substantively changed in 20,40,60 years ?

As for my note about private schools - as I said I attended one.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Depending on province, I think you're wrong. If a child is not resident in a certain area, schools can refuse the child admission even if the parents offer transportation.

I have problems with the PISA study.

To start with, when government agencies design a study to study a government undertaking of such dimensions, what do you expect? If Exxon and Shell formed an industry group to study energy production, what kind of report would it deliver?

I am astonished when people assume a government study is "objective".

Point 1 - "I think", back it up or stop talking out of your arse.

Point 2 - Objective enough to give some public education systems a ranking of D. I could have used a private study, that was only funded by government and you'd say it was biased. So, find me a study that has no investment or funding from anyone wealthy enough to benefit from scrapping public education.

IMV, the article in the OP raises a good question.

Food is critical for life and yet we in the modern world now rely entirely on anonymous markets to provide our daily bread. There are private farmers, private wholesalers, private truck drivers, private food processors and private food retailers.

Education, the transmission of accumulated knowledge from one generation to another, is no less critical for life as we know it. Why do we assume that the State must do this? More fearfully, what does it mean when we entrust this task to the State?

In the case of food, we have broad choices and remarkable innovations. Consumers can choose from OGM to "organic". Compared to 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago, widespread famine is no longer a scourge even in poor countries. (When UNICEF now seeks funds, it usually appeals to educating children.)

But for education, there has been little innovation or change. Most schoolteachers around the world are government paid, possibly unionized, and use chalkboards to teach about 30 pupils in a group. Kids sit like this, day in and day out, for about 10 years of their life, from age 6 to 16. Innovation? This is how children learned 50 or even 100 years ago.

The manure pile keeps getting bigger.

First off, how would the free, private market offer high quality education for poor people? They wouldn't. Poor people don't have the money. They would get textbook learning, if they could afford even that.

Second, food is a resource that can be grown, transported, bought, sold, shipped, exchanged. Education is not a resource. It is a service.

Third, you know... based on your argument why not have free market police? Fire fighters? You know, food is essential and such. It is run by private businesses. Why can't firefighters and police be part of the free market as an essential service. Only those who actually use the service can pay for it and you can select what company offers the service! For instance, if you require police assistance, dialing 911 would first offer a selection of services (health, fire, police) and then could give you up 9 selections of which local police service you want to come to your aid! it would only cost a few grand or whatever other price the free market determines per visit. Maybe private police would be more efficient? If people don't call them in fear of paying, less crime will be reported! Win-win imo. Free market wins, politicians win.

[August1991]

Third, you know... based on your argument why not have free market police? Fire fighters? You know, food is essential and such. It is run by private businesses. Why can't firefighters and police be part of the free market as an essential service.

As you say, education is a private service - like a restaurant meal. With a good teacher, you benefit from what you receive.

Policemen and firefighters are different. If a fireman puts out a fire, he protects my neigbours - as Ben Bernanke once made plain.

----

MCC, education is in the interest of kids, and parents. It's a private good. Fires and banking are public goods.

Fairness is not the issue.

[jacee]

I have problems with the PISA study.

To start with, when government agencies design a study to study a government undertaking of such dimensions, what do you expect? If Exxon and Shell formed an industry group to study energy production, what kind of report would it deliver?

I am astonished when people assume a government study is "objective".

As to PISA, two points to consider: it shows that girls do better than boys. Why is that? It also shows that Shanghai, China and South Korea score the highest of all. Why is that?

Asian schools/families/communities are very achievement oriented.

Girls usually outperform boys.

The study is international, so the bias of any particular state is minimized. Assessments are based on elements common to all curricula in the countries participating.

[Dithers]

Indeed, the culture emphasizes rigidity and skills in education. It produces very strong results at early ages.

The article mentioned by the original poster is ridiculous. Our system is beyond reproach. The only reason the American system under-performs is that it is underfunded. Standardized testing, used the way it is in the States, causes damage as well.

[August1991]

Asian schools/families/communities are very achievement oriented.

And the Chinese (Communists) have a reputation for cheating - most recently in the Olympics. Do you think that they might also spruce up their statistics in an international education competition?

As to Korea (and China), any Westerner who has taught in either place will soon talk about the astonishing amount of plagiarism/cheating that occurs in both countries.

Girls usually outperform boys.

Uh, your comment begs the question. That is, do you really believe that girls are smarter than boys? Or maybe, just maybe, the results have something to do with the way our education system is designed.

-----

Sadly, each of us brings our own prejudice to this debate. According to you Dithers, the socialist education system is perfect - it just needs more money.

The article mentioned by the original poster is ridiculous. Our system is beyond reproach. The only reason the American system under-performs is that it is underfunded. Standardized testing, used the way it is in the States, causes damage as well.

In fact, if one compares Americans of different ethnic/cultural background with similar people abroad, American students perform well.

Look, the Soviets managed to build apartments so that, on average, each person had about 50 square feet. And most Soviet citizens received at least a loaf of bread everyday or so.

But IMV, that's not a good measure. We in the West fail tragically in educating young people. We waste their time. Our education is not adapted to their needs.

No - it compares spending money on education with having a bureaucracy around food distribution, which is just stupid IMO.

But that's what we've got increasingly in our education system, Michael. More "bureaucrats": librarians, guidance counsellors, assistant principals, psychologists, counsellors, advisors - and then the full regime of administrators. Typically, these are people (women) who started as teachers but no longer want to deal with kids yet still want the Tuesday bank deposit. (Call it an iron rice bowl.)

This process is typical of socialist regimes.

Edited October 29, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

Point 1 - "I think", back it up or stop talking out of your arse.

I don't know what teh rules are in each of Canada's provinces. I know that in Quebec, the State is only obliged to provide access to a specific school, of a specific language. Parents are not free to choose. I believe that this is the same in other provinces.

Point 2 - Objective enough to give some public education systems a ranking of D. I could have used a private study, that was only funded by government and you'd say it was biased. So, find me a study that has no investment or funding from anyone wealthy enough to benefit from scrapping public education.

The State is typically involved in most education systems around the world. But it is not involved in our food system to the same degree. Simply put, we don't have a point of comparison. And returning to my OP, i don't think the lack of comparison matters.

Once people are into a State-organized system, and various problems become apparent, it is very, very hard to imagine how any other system would work.

Heck, there are still people in Eastern Europe who think that the State should build apartments, produce food - and teach children.

Edited October 29, 2011 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

But that's what we've got increasingly in our education system, Michael. More "bureaucrats": librarians, guidance counsellors, assistant principals, psychologists, counsellors, advisors

So what ? The initial argument still is a gross oversimplification and dumbs the issue down beyond the point of usefulness. If you like dull arguments that we have heard so often before, then help yourself.

This board usually gives us better options to discuss.

[bush_cheney2004]

....This board usually gives us better options to discuss.

Really...as most were educated in Canada's public school system.

[Michael Hardner]

Really...as most were educated in Canada's public school system.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. We have posters here from Canada and the US and their education backgrounds isn't usually important to the discussion.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. We have posters here from Canada and the US and their education backgrounds isn't usually important to the discussion.

You missed the point...I was sarcastically making a reference to the alleged superiority of the Canadaian/Ontario public school system.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

You missed the point...I was sarcastically making a reference to the alleged superiority of the Canadaian/Ontario public school system.

Everyone has a soft spot for being worse at something than someone else, this is no secret.

But, this is where you bring in information that shows otherwise to enhance discussion.

Edited October 31, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[bush_cheney2004]

Everyone has a soft spot for being worse at something than someone else, this is no secret.

But, this is where you bring in information that shows otherwise to enhance discussion.

If I have to explain the comment (twice), then clearly more education is in order. Good luck...Ontario.