The reasons I swayed away from liberalism and to more pragmatic libertarianism weren't that I hate government. No, I swayed that way because I came to hate much of what the federal government actually accomplishes with the money they get and spend "wisely". That doesn't mean I dislike everything the government does or has done...indeed, there are things the government MUST do and these things need attention. My thoughts here lie more with things the government chooses to do and we allow them to do because we think "it's for the best". But is it always?? Hell, no.

Leaving aside, the quick and general discussion of energy in my last diary, let's move to something just as alarming but seldom given honest discussion: education.

Now, now, I know the arguments for favoring "public schools". I used to make them. My focus here is a little difference. I'm not railing against the idea of public schools, just the way it's done and what we get for it. Unlike the unfair dogmatic trap that such discussions like the following are likely to get put into, there is really a serious debate to be had here. And you can be on side I argue for and favor public education at the same.

This article from Lew Rockwell inspired me to write this diary. Indeed, it is something I've come to see the sense in though there was a time in my youth that I thought it unconscionable.

In referring to a Wapo front pager on the dismal state of DC's public schools, the author says:

Despite spending more per student than virtually any other school district in the nation, the capital's pupils are tragically deprived of a decent education, with nearly three-quarters of them lacking basic math skills.

"The district spends $12,979 per pupil each year," the Post reported. "But most of that money does not get to the classroom. D.C. schools rank first in the share of the budget spent on administration."

And the schools aren't even safe. The Post reports that it takes more than a year to fix even the most dangerous conditions. The series tells a troubling story of bureaucracy, mismanagement, incompetence and corruption.

So, money is not really the issue here. And these districts that cry for more are simply throwing money at a non-monetary problem. Drastic situations need fresh ideas. Small town schools do just fine with less funding per pupil. Keep in mind, I'm NOT suggesting that inner city and urban schools should be expected to produce the same results. I realize it's harder. But, it's not getting any better and the same ol', same ol' isn't getting the job done. Anyone who's serious about public education of any kind should be appalled by the stench that comes out school systems that suck in a lot of money and achieve nothing. Clearly, different ideas need to be put on the table.

Like the title says, it's a brick! It ain't all that. Let it go. it's not like we're defending gold nuggets or something. When I watch people defend the system and additional funding without end in light of what it accomplishes and the destruction it causes to the very minorities whom the system is supposed to be protecting from being left behind in a cut throat world, I can only say: AND???????????????

And then people who decry the system are dismissed as uncaring, cheap and even BIGOTED! Figure that one out.

Keep in mind, that schools that are "good" aren't even that good compared to equal schools in other countries. And no, they don't necessarily spend more per pupil.

the article makes an interesting comparison:

Reading these stories reminds me of those reports about the economic situation in the old Soviet Union, where central planners were incapable of allocating resources to the right places. As a result, factories overproduced unneeded tractors but underproduced basic consumer goods. People waited in long lines to get foodstuffs. We're always told that education is so important that it must be left to the experts, yet experts cannot be all-knowing. Would you trust the production of food, clothing or shelter – even more important to our well-being than education – to the same people who are producing education in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and even wealthy Capistrano Unified? I didn't think so.

That's the same problem with the school systems in America, which are not particularly different than the Soviet economy. An elite group plans and directs a one-size-fits-all system. There are few choices. There are no consumers. This is a top-down, government-controlled monopoly system, with more than a little bit of coercive force at its disposal.

Indeed, in many countries, students are given a choice. They are not tied to one school....this is one factor that inadvertently segregates children...since poorer people tend to live in the same areas and must attend an assigned school. hardly dynamic.

What are the answers? Well, that's an unfair question. That would have been like asking me in the 1980s what would happen when deregulated telecom. How was I supposed to predict the dynamic market, technologies and choices available. I can't...no one could.

What clear is that the status quo is not good and trying to polish a brick isn't going to turn it into gold.

The first thing, IMO, is to abolish or severely curtail the department of Education. Not only is it a constitutional position, it makes sense too. Why do bureaucrats in DC need to have so much sway over every school? Doesn't seem to be accomplishing much to me. This is a state matter. I'd rather see 50 different laboratories for ideas at work to get better answers. Federal funding? Well, it either get's dispersed based on population OR tax reform is done to leave that money in the states so the state can collect and allocate it.

As for solid ideas, I say skies the limit. We need to unlock the potential and let innovation take over...the same innovation that makes so many things the government isn't all over like a heavy wet towel work so well for us.