This short post excepts from a paywalled Wall Street Journal article setting out the talking points for the current round of education reform advocacy. "The government will spend nearly $250,000 on each of her children. Yet she won't have much of a say in how the dollars are spent. Without her consent, the bureaucrats who run the public schools will build facilities, hire teachers and plan curriculum that may leave her children far behind their peers, all at exorbitant prices."
I can see the argument for putting the money directly into parents' hands. They would be able to make choices that the current system doesn't support. And I'm not going to fall into the trap of saying that these would be bad choices, or that parents would spend the money on themselves. No, let's address the core point head on: the private sector does not provide social services more efficiently than the public sector. If it did, the U.S. health care system wouldn't be such a mess. If it did, we'd be comfortable with private road, police and fire services. If it did, charter schools would already outperform much less well-funded public schools. If it did, we'd outsource the military function to mercenaries. The core of the WSJ article is based on a lie.
Today: 3 Total: 3 [Direct link] [Share]
