Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/12/2019 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    If daylight savings time really doesn't save energy and doesn't help farmers, then wouldn't it make more sense to lock in standard time than locking in the artificial daylight savings time? In another words, once we go back this fall, never change the clocks again. Worked for Indiana for a long time until it tried to keep up with the Joneses. Then again, maybe Indiana isn't the best state to use since, even as small as we are, we still have two times zones to start with.
  2. 1 point
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/college-cheating-scandal.html Shocking news. I guess money does always talk.
  3. 1 point
    Per this story from Kyle Neddenriep, not only is the IFCA changing the Mr. Football voting process, but it is also "studying" 8-man football. I'd *love* to see 8-man football (or even 6-man) to provide more opportunities for players at smaller schools which might not have the enrollment to field 11-man teams. Several states do so for smaller schools.
  4. 1 point
    http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26152205/barnwell-2019-nfl-free-agency-trade-grades-tracking-every-big-signing-move First reaction is seeing @Irishman packers spending LOTS of money ....... old adage, their is a reason why the player is a FA, see Adrian Amos. Nick Foles gets 50 million guaranteed. Oh Jags......
  5. 1 point
    They could put Wendy Robinson's photo at midfield, I could care less. I'm just happy to never have to work another game on that goat ranch they called a field.
  6. 1 point
    Well you can't control folks who believe that the Nazis are coming for their guns and run out plop down lots of money "just in case." Obama signed two gun laws while he was president. Those expanded the rights of gun owners.
  7. 1 point
    I would assume that once EG is set to announce their coach they will let the world know
  8. 1 point
    One would assume attempt to trade him next 2 months One idea is to trade him for a player they like that is also almost out of contract or has a big deal in place so that money they just saved in cap space can be applied there. They signed Mike Davis RB Seattle to 2 year 6 million and Slot Corner Skeen from Jets. I would like to see Callahan back as well
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    Region 4 does that as well last few years as Coach Stewart just outlined it. The biggest frustration being part of the process myself as well in 2015 was having guys no show or back out last minute. Sometimes injuries happen from selection to game week and we all get that, but if the player says he is going to play then just says NAH, its just bad form and a deserving kid then has to scramble to try to make it. One our better LB's was from Lowell and we got him down there Monday Night and first practice was Tuesday, he ended up tearing his ACL in the game, just brutal, great kid, went onto to ST JOE and played there after he healed up. IFCA wants kids who are of great charchter and will represent themselves in a way that will make their family, school proud. Each North and South must have 5 1a kids and 5 2a kids.
  11. 1 point
    https://ifca.net/north-south-all-star-game/ Congrats to all those selected to play!!
  12. 1 point
    I can our speak for Region 5, but in our Region if you are a D1 commit that cannot play in the game, we recognize them as Region All-Stars, but they have an asterisk next to their name that they are not eligible for the All-Star game. Then the coaches from our region that are selected to coach in the All-Star game will reach out to everyone that has been selected to the region team and ask "If your player is selected to play in the All-Star game, are they able and willing to play in the game?"
  13. 1 point
    just read it....Lori Loughlin (former Full House star) paid $500K to have both her kids listed as a crew team recruit, which allows for a lower standard to gain admittance to USC. They had never been on a crew team prior. Basically paid to build a fake profile. Got to love Hollywood....."don't look at the man behind the curtain!"........
  14. 1 point
    Would assume he needs more because of teams that play out of state teams.
  15. 1 point
    Each of the 10 regions votes for players in their region. A team can nominate 3 players. Now, if a school a player has committed to says don't play, then the player is not nominated. Each class has to be represented in each region. Then at the State clinic, the committee votes on who makes each team. Things may vary slightly from region to region, but that is the gist of it.
  16. 1 point
    That would make a lot of sense for a lot of reasons. It also makes the south come together pretty easily. 5: HSE/Fishers/LN/LC 6: Pike/BD/Avon/Brownsburg 7: WC/Tech/Southport/Perry Meridian 8: Franklin Central/CG/Columbus North/East
  17. 1 point
    Whoa! That took a sharp left turn. He was asking a question, not making a statement. I guess it's good just to be able to support a little ole 1A team in the middle of a cornfield and only have to travel 1 hour and 15 minutes to our most distant away game. Oh well, carry on. It's just a game.
  18. 1 point
    warsaw is not going to fort wayne
  19. 1 point
    Well earned by these men. I know only 3 are allowed to be nominated from each team, but IMO Cade Jones was as great a glue guy as any player. I just felt like he deserved a mention
  20. 1 point
    I would NEVER lead anyone astray on this forum... 😊
  21. 1 point
    Nobody is pushing to shut down this "expression of ideas". But one should be prepared for debate and criticism once those ideas are expressed, or is it this debate and criticism that should be suppressed?
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    Ale Emporium wings win!!!!!
  24. 1 point
    This is one amazing story.
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-doyel/2019/02/22/fishers-high-school-swimmer-suspension-botched-hse-school-board-ihsaa/2949529002/ Disgusting. All Around. And have pretty much lost all respect for the governing aspect of the IHSAA.
  27. 1 point
    Bobby Cox is embarrassing as a leader. The IHSAA could have easily not granted the waiver. I agree that the bulk of the blame rests with the school and this kids parents but the IHSAA has quite a bit of culpability.
  28. 1 point
    According to Mr. Doyel they did have a choice: Now I can understand such a petition for relief being granted in something like the death of a close relative. But relief because you were suspended earlier in the season? I don't think so.
  29. 1 point
  30. 0 points
    A Professor Spoke the Truth, He Still Pays the Price: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/professor-samuel-abrams-spoke-the-truth-he-still-pays-the-price/ Crazed student demands are not new on American campuses. Outrageous mischaracterizations of opposing views are par for the course (really, read Abrams’s essay and see if he’s guilty of any of the charges against him). Yet matters get more alarming when professors and presidents take radicals seriously. Reportedly, the president of the college has already met twice with the protesters, and 25 professors have signed a petition declaring they “stand in solidarity with the student activism happening this week.” Years ago, when I’d speak about the larger dangers of the campus culture wars, I’d often hear adults dismiss my concerns by confidently stating that these students would “grow up” when they encountered the harsh and unforgiving “real world.” Well, campus radicals have encountered the “real world,” and they’re remaking it in their own oppressive image. The call-out culture has migrated from campus to corporations, and now everyday Americans live in fear that their words — even words uttered in good faith and with great respect — can cost them their livelihoods. And on campus, dissenters from campus orthodoxy often need not just tenure but a rare kind of personal fortitude, including the ability to withstand repeated calls for their termination, repeated disruptions of their work, and sometimes even outright slander. Publishing truthful information about ideological imbalances threatens no one’s “safety.” Questioning the priorities of progressive administrators endangers no one’s “wellbeing.” Colleges should not “protect” anyone from New York Times essays. And the fact that even a syllable of this nonsense is taken seriously by professional academics indicates that our culture of free speech is already in decline. I've read Mr. Abram's essay at the NYT, and don't see where he is guilty of any of the charges the Sarah Lawrences Snowflakes accuse him of.
  31. 0 points
    Stinky, Stink, Stink 1.2.3. STC will be VIP cause you already know he likes ICP!!!!
  32. 0 points
    Indiana driver's licenses now have a third gender option: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/03/12/indiana-drivers-licenses-now-have-x-gender-option/3138447002/
  33. -1 points
    They don't want your money. They just want to hear you whine about how tough it is for an old white man with a government education.
  34. -1 points
    I am hearing Westfield, NC, Carmel , Zionsville are going to be together. Jeff going to region, Noblesville to Ft. Wayne and HSE/ Fishers go South.
  35. -1 points
    Ok, I can tell when I'm not wanted somewhere. Enjoy your continued conversation with those other voices in your head. Good Day!
  36. -1 points
    And another convo devolved into a mind numbing, ad hominem, straw man, goal post shifting cesspool. Thanks for staying true to your school. #MyManMuda
  37. -1 points
    https://mises.org/wire/problem-reparations But here's the rub: in order to do this with an eye toward justice, one must identify specific victims and specific perpetrators. Potentially, as Block suggests, one could envision a legal case in which the heirs of victims would be paid reparations by the heirs of perpetrators. But again, we still encounter the problem of identifying specific persons (and heirs) involved. Reparations cannot be paid in the abstract, since, as Chris Calton has noted: In light of this, we can see that many of the currently proposed methods of paying out "reparations" are imprecise, vague, and consequently unjust. A program, for example, that forces all taxpayers (whether guilty or not of any relevant crimes) to pay reparations to a specific group of people raises several key problems that must be addressed: 1. What if a taxpayer is descended from people who didn't even arrive in the country until after emancipation? That is, should a Japanese-American, whose immigrant ancestors arrived in the United States in 1910, be forced to pay reparations? How about descendants of Mexicans who arrived in the US in 1925? 2. What if the taxpayer has some ancestors who lived in the US before emancipation and some who arrived here afterward? Would that person's "reparation tax bill" be pro-rated to match the fraction of his ancestry that shared antebellum guilt? 3. What if a taxpayer's ancestors were abolitionists who opposed slavery? 4. What if a taxpayer has no ancestors who owned slaves? The (Bad) Economics of Collective Guilt In all of these cases, it's hard to see how the person paying reparations is in any way actually responsible for the kidnapping, theft, assault, and other crimes perpetrated against actual slaves. Yes, many activists may claim that "everyone" is — in the vague abstract — "guilty" of slavery because one's ancestor once bought cheap cotton dungarees in 1858, or once (even unwittingly) worked for a company that sold timbers to ship builders who built slaving ships. These arguments rely on the same twisted logic which would have us believe that people who buy gasoline are somehow morally responsible for the brutality of the Saudi Arabian dictators, or that a teenager who smokes a joint is responsible for terrorism like that perpetrated on 9-11. (Yes, the US government created an ad campaign saying exactly this.) This everyone-is-guilty claim, in fact, is one invented by the slavedrivers themselves in an attempt to claim that all white Americans — including Northerners — somehow directly benefited from slavery, and thus all abolitionists were hypocrites. It was always a desperate and unconvincing argument, but by putting these claims forward, the slavedrivers of old helped pave the way for the modern-day reparations advocates. In real life, the people responsible for slavery are only the people who directly owned, sold, or traded in slaves; and the politicians who pushed to preserve, spread, or defend slavery through legislation and the state's police powers. Slavery Suppressed Wages for Many Workers Moreover, many non-slaves can be shown to have been negatively impacted by slavery because it acted to suppress wages. As historian Kerry Leigh Merritt describes in detail in her book Masterless Men: Poor Whites and Slavery in the Antebellum South, wage-earning, non-slaveholding whites in the South — who constituted the overwhelming majority of the population — received far lower wages than they would have had they not been forced to compete with slave labor by a legal system designed to favor the tiny minority of slaveowners. Nor were these effects limited to Southern whites only. The increased profitability of agriculture in the South — thanks to slavery — acted to divert resources from Northern agriculture and industry as well, thus lowering wages for at least some Northern workers. Moreover, capital that poured into the slave plantation could have been used to improve worker productivity through innovation in machinery and other capital. Instead, that investment was diverted away from improving free labor, and devoted to expansion and maintenance of the slave economy. Overall, the presence of slaves suppressed wages nationwide. The fact that slaveowners and plantation owners indisputably benefited from slavery hardly means that white day laborers benefited as well. Yes, chattel slaves fared far worse than any other group. But that doesn't mean those day laborers were — to use the modern parlance — "privileged" by the existence of the slave economy. In practice, it significantly lowered their income. So, once again we are left with the problem of determining who is legally and morally responsible for paying out these reparations in any way connected to identifying truly guilty parties. In practice, it's nearly impossible, although government being what it is, advocates for reparations are likely to simply demand that all the taxpayers foot the bill to pay one identifiable interest group, whether or not the taxpayers involved can be shown to have any direct involvement in the perpetuation or spread of slavery. Ultimately, the issue shouldn't even be regarded as a complicated one. If "reparations" are truly that, then they can only based on handing over stolen property from the thief to the victim (or their heirs). So long as these specific individuals are not identified, then the policy being discussed has nothing to do with reparations. It's just a wealth redistribution scheme. A logical and concise explanation regarding the problem with paying reparations by Mr. McMaken. Too bad it will mostly be ignored, overwhelmed by emotional hyperbole.
  38. -1 points
    Ocasio-Cortez takes a swing at Reagan -- Here's what she doesn't get about our 40th president: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ocasio-cortez-takes-a-swing-at-reagan-heres-what-she-doesnt-get-about-our-40th-president
  39. -1 points
    But it wouldn’t be fair to small businesses: http://reason.com/archives/2019/03/12/illinois-governor-proposes-a-fair-tax Good luck with that. I feel sorry for the common citizens of Illinois, and that includes several relatives of mine. But then again you would think they would be able to vote these shysters out of office, but it hasn't happened.
  40. -1 points
    http://reason.com/archives/2019/03/11/does-prosperity-trigger-calls-for-social Some interesting questions. Perhaps some of our pro-socialist champions here on the GID can help answer them?
  41. -1 points
    College RA training guide: ‘Make America Great Again’ example of white supremacy: https://www.thecollegefix.com/college-training-guide-make-america-great-again-example-of-white-supremacy/ Note that this conversation did not take place inside a classroom—it took place in a training seminar for student resident advisors and housing staff. This is concerning, as part of a course's curriculum, one might reasonably expect this information to be presented by an academic expert on white supremacy, and the subsequent discussion to contain some nuance and room for disagreement. The Office for Inclusive Community, on the other hand, is an activist bureaucracy. What free speech assurances are there for students entering an administrative training program?
  42. -1 points
    https://www.investigativeproject.org/7847/sarsour-and-her-islamist-entourage-protect Anti-Semitic activist Linda Sarsour on Wednesday ordered people associated with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to physically block former Wall Street Journal journalist and Muslim Reform Movement leader Asra Nomani from entering U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib's (D-Mich) office. Nomani, a longtime CAIR critic, posted video of the encounter. Sarsour is overheard in Arabic telling her crew to block Nomani's entry. "Don't let her [Nomani] be one of the first ones in. Do you all hear me? Come stand here. Don't let her be one of the first ones in." The video shows Sarsour with CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, Ahmed Bedier – former director of CAIR's Tampa chapter – and CAIR's Government Affairs Director, Robert McCaw. The group was on Capitol Hill to lobby against a resolution condemning anti-Semitic statements from Tlaib's colleague, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar even though the resolution does not name Omar. From its creation, CAIR was part of a Hamas-support network called the Palestine Committee. Awad was featured on a list of Palestine Committee officials whose mission, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found, was to "support Hamas from abroad." Sarsour has espoused anti-Semitic smearsworse than Omar's and advocates for one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – meaning Israel would be eliminated. Rejecting Israel's existence is a form of anti-Jewish bigotry according to the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism. "I am an unapologetic pro-BDS, one-state solution supporting resistance supporter here in the U.S.," Sarsour told an audience at the Islamic Society of North America's (ISNA) annual convention in September, the Investigative Project on Terrorism exclusively reported. These are the types of characters who meet privately with Rashida Tlaib to defend Ilhan Omar. Criticism and condemnation rained down last month on Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, after she tweeted, "It's all about the Benjamins baby" to explain why she and fellow Tlaib draw attention for their "criticisms of Israel." Who is the source of this popular reference to cash? "AIPAC!" Omar added, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Facing serious backlash from many in her party, Omar issued a caveated apology. Omar has since doubled down on purveying anti-Semitic tropes, by depicting support for Israel as a form of dual allegiance. From the outset, Omar and Tlaib's Islamist backers immediately came to their defense. Wednesday's footage shows these radical supporters will not back down. Yeah, she's not anti-semantic......She's just debating......That's what HAMAS and CAIR are really all about.....Getting along.....
  43. -1 points
    Ok. Thank you for that concise explanation.
  44. -1 points
    Homestead will be even better next year. That program is getting better every year..
  45. -1 points
    Let's start with Carroll, then Homestead, then maybe Penn if you can get out of Sectional 3..........................Baby steps. Seriously, I hope you guys really can compete with Penn. However, you have along way to go to be put in the "Penn" category. Right now I would say Warsaw is Carroll caliber. And I only put them in Carroll's category because they had a decent 2018. Earn your way to Penn. If you can get out of sectional 3 by upending the favorite..........Homestead..........then I will be the first fan in the stands to watch Warsaw compete with Penn. Realistically, if you go to Penn's sectional, it could be one and done. I've always thought, under the right leadership, the Warsaw community could put a quality product on the football field. I'm thinking of the Phil Jenson led teams of 2000 and 2001. In 2000, they rolled their way to a 9-2 record, beating a very good Northwood team 29-28. Their only other blemishes were an overtime loss to Homestead and a second round loss to Penn (eventual state champs) 10-7. Then came 2001. The entire Warsaw community had Penn on their mind.............they wanted revenge. However, this time, they were assigned to Sectional 3...............SNIDER. They rolled through the regular season undefeated and waxing every opponent they faced, including Kokomo 62-0 in the opening round of the sectionals. When they took the field against Snider, I couldn't believe how big they were..........their offensive line was enormous............one of the biggest I've seen at the high school level. Right away, 14-0 Warsaw. Then Snider made a slow comeback. 14-14 in the 3rd. 20-14 Warsaw (missed extra point). Last minute drive, 20-20 (missed extra point). Overtime...............Snider 23-20. That was one of the best football games I've ever witnessed. Both Penn and Snider eventually lost to Valpo that year. Valpo eventually lost to Ben Davis. It is my hope that Bart Curtis can get Warsaw to that 2001 level again. Good luck to the Tigers, I really wish them success. We need more strong programs representing 6a north.
  46. -1 points
    As you said, baby steps for Warsaw. They are the team on rise, but are still behind Carroll, Homestead, Penn and probably Valpo in region and then Jeff and Carmel for Semi. So they got a ways to go, so lets see what they can do in next 3-5 years. That will tell you if program is "stepping" up.
  47. -2 points
    Enterprising Education: Doing Away with the Public School System: https://mises.org/library/enterprising-education-doing-away-public-school-system The very suggestion that government should be removed entirely from the realm of education is either taken as irrational and malicious or viewed as foolhardy and quixotic. This seems very peculiar when considering that the critics of the present state of public education appear on both sides of the political spectrum. Still, the overwhelming sentiment, ubiquitous in both the general citizenry and academia, is that while public education may need to be reformed, it still should be guaranteed "free" to all by government. Education, like any other service, cannot be provided more efficiently than via the market. Contrary to most modern arguments claiming to favor the "privatization" of schools, we do not view the government contracting of private companies, the issuance of government vouchers for payment of education, or the direct subsidization of private institutions as free-market solutions.1 Indeed, the only free-market solution is the abolition of all governmental ties to primary education. Education is a Service Primary education — i.e., that which begins in grammar school and continues up through high school — is a service like any other and can be allocated through the market and the price system. Parents, in general, would like to provide education for their children. Teachers, administrators, and owners of school buildings will provide this service to these children as long as they are compensated for their labors. When a parent approaches an institute of learning, he values the service offered. The school, drawn into the industry by the desire for profit,2 incurs costs in providing its service. It will only accept a price greater than or equal to these costs. Likewise, the parent will only offer to pay a price less than or equal to his valuation of the education rendered. If a price is determined that is satisfactory to both parties, an exchange will occur and the child will be provided with the service. In this straightforward way, familiar to every economist and intuitive to nearly everyone else, the market can provide primary education just as it provides hair styling, automotive repair, and the innumerable other services that people bargain to provide and receive. Despite virtually omnipresent dogma, there is no simple explanation as to why government provision of primary education must be substituted for private alternatives.3 Education is a service, and innumerable services are being provided by the market at any given moment. For society to hold to, and tax from individuals the resources for, government provision of primary education, there must be a justification. If it can be satisfactorily articulated, then, and only then, would government provision of primary education be legitimate. What are the arguments in favor of government-provided primary education? They are as follows: It is a necessary aspect of democracy and, paradoxically, the citizenry must be taxed for that system to secure their own freedom. The market would not provide an equal opportunity for and quality of primary education to everyone. Education is an example of an external economy; market provision would therefore be under optimal. Let us consider each. Necessary to "Freedom"? The view that primary education should be available to all through a public system has been made inseparable from the concept of a republican society over the years. Pierce (1964, pp. 3–4) provides a historical demonstration: This view of education as catalyst for successful democratic government has metamorphosed through the passing of time into a view of education as a veritable necessary condition of freedom. For this expansion to occur, the meaning of freedom had to be modified. As Graham (1963, pp. 45–46) states, people might mistakenly, "interpret freedom in terms of their right to criticize and to choose their masters — the men for whom they work, the politicians who direct their public affairs, the newspapers, books, speeches, and television programs that influence their thinking." But a more correct definition, "for a democratic society would recognize the need for authority in any social group and equate freedom with the right to participate in power" (Graham, 1963, pp. 45–46). To participate in the power (i.e., the representative nature of American government) citizens must have information, ergo to educate is a legitimate function of the state.5 This view of freedom is questionable though. Consider the view of liberty espoused by John Locke, one of, if not the, major philosophical influences of the American Revolution. Freedom is based primarily upon man's reason according to Locke. Because he possesses reason, man has the faculties and duty to rule himself. This Lockean concept of freedom was spread through early America in Cato'sLetters (Rothbard, 1978, p. 4). This concept of freedom was also that of John Stuart Mill, who wrote later on in the 19th century: "…the same reasons which show that opinions should be free, prove also that [an individual] should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost" (Mill, 1956, p. 23).6 Furthermore, while a cultivated citizenry might be more capable of exercising its influence in a republican government, there is something perverse in the state itself educating the citizenry on how to operate the state. As Lieberman (1989, p. 11) notes: As Boaz (1991, p. 19) observes: "Even in basic academic subjects there is a danger in having only one approach taught in all of the schools." The state-monopolistic nature of a public school system fosters undesirable conformity of curricula. Williams (1978) correctly describes a public educational system as one which, "requires a collective decision on many attributes of [education]," and that education is offered to all, "whether or not [a parent] agrees with all the attributes or not."7 The individuals entrenched in positions of power in the state are those with control over what children are taught concerning history, government, economics, and so forth. The result is a citizenry educated by operators of the state on how to choose the operators of the state! Of course, those government agents who plan and direct the curricula are most likely well-intentioned people,8but, as Ludwig von Mises (1952, p. 47) correctly notes: "No planner is ever shrewd enough to consider the possibility that the plan which the government will put into practice could differ from his own plan." In other words, no matter how much such a person sincerely plans in the interests of others, ultimately the plans are still his own. Furthermore, it should be realized that, for all the talk about the noble ideals of Thomas Jefferson, the foundation of America's government by the people, and the preservation of citizens' "freedom," the realization of public primary education in the United States was ushered in with quite ignoble motives. "[O]ne of the major motivations of the legion of mid nineteenth-century American "educational reformers" who established the modern public school system was precisely to use it to cripple the cultural and linguistic life of the waves of immigrants into America, and to mould them, as educational reformer Samuel Lewis stated, into "one people" (Rothbard, 1978, p. 125). Particular targets of the American educational reformation were the Germans and the Irish. Monroe (1940, p. 224) articulates, with disarming benignity, the attitude towards these waves of immigrants and the cultures which they brought to America: Notice how the English and Welsh, with cultures more compatible with predominant American beliefs, are mentioned only in passing, while the more exotic Irish and Germans are elements to which "our political and social structure must be subjected," creating an "educational problem." Further, the individual liberties that America granted to its citizens and "led men to object to all form of governmental restraint caused such excesses that the success of self government was seriously questioned. Much of the responsibility for this condition approaching anarchy was popularly attributed to the untrained and unbridled foreign element…" (Monroe, 1940, pp. 223–224). Immigrant culture was seen as a cancer on the United States society, incompatible with American liberty. Paradoxically, the solution which would allow immigrants to enjoy liberty was to deny them freedom of education and instead force them to pay for public schools whether or not they wanted to attend. A study of problems with the existing school system by the Secretary of the Connecticut School Board in 1846 noted numerous defects: "The tenth defect was the existence of numerous private schools" (Monroe, 1940, p. 244). The existence of private schools was seen as especially troublesome with regards to the Irish Catholics. As Rothbard (1978, p. 125) writes: "It was the desire of the Anglo-Saxon majority to … smash the parochial school system of the Catholics." Taxing indiscriminately for education, thus forcing those individuals who would opt for private education to pay twice (once in taxes, and again in tuition to the private school), was one method for discouraging private education. Even more blunt was the attempt in Oregon during 1920s to outlaw private schools (Rothbard, 1978, p. 126). A law was passed making private primary education illegal and compelling all children to attend public schools. Fortunately, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Supreme Court found the law to be unconstitutional. Equal Opportunity? No matter what motives are revealed to have been behind the origin of a public system, however, there are those critics of the market who reply that presently government assures equal educational opportunity. The strongest of these critics even finds the lack of "free" public education to all to be unconstitutional (Pierce, 1964, p. 12). The fact that market provision would not guarantee this service to each and every individual is undeniable. Under a market system, education is not a right. If one does not pay for it then one does not obtain it.9 As long as one pays for it though, one will receive it. Therefore, to assist the market's critics for a moment, the real problem they are noting is not a lack of schooling for all. This is obvious because, under a market system of provision, all can afford some quality of tutelage, but they are not guaranteed a high quality service, nor one equal to that which all other individuals receive.10 As the US Department of Education claims: "Our Mission Is to Ensure Equal ACCESS to Education and Promote Educational EXCELLENCE throughout the Nation."11 This modified argument is still undeniable. A market system would not provide an egalitarian, high quality education for all; but in order to justify state provision it must be shown that state provision indeed provides a more egalitarian and higher quality education to all. As far as egalitarian goals go, the state system does a horrible job. Even its most vehement supporters would scarcely claim that public schools offer equal quality of education across socioeconomic lines. Jencks (1985) declares, "the annual expenditure per pupil in a prosperous suburb is usually at least fifty percent more than in a slum in the same metropolitan area … taxpayers typically spend less than $5,000 [per pupil, per year] for the formal education of most slum children compared to more than $10,000 for many suburban children." Also, the statist system has failed to equalize primary education along racial lines. Coleman and Hoffer (1987, p. xxiv) found in private schools less racial segregation than their public counterparts. Furthermore, public education, even on average, is far from high quality. The National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that 50 percent of all high school seniors in America could not answer this question: The NAEP also reported that a mere 7 percent of America's 17 year old individuals, "have the prerequisite knowledge and skills thought to be needed to perform well in college-level science courses" (Boaz, 1991, p. 3). Further, a 1989 National Endowment for the Humanities survey discovered that 54 percent of college seniors, the vast majority of whom came from the public school system, could not identify the half century during which the Civil War occurred, 58 percent could not name Plato as author of The Republic, and 23 percent made the mistake of placing Marx's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," in the text of the US Constitution (Bacon, 1989). Not only is the quality of the public school system horrendous, but its cost is extraordinary. America's public primary schools spent $5,246 per pupil on average during 1989.12 That is $130,000 for a classroom of 25 students.13 Furthermore this is above that of many private schools. Of the approximately $212 million spent on education through high school in 1989,14 only 40 percent went towards teachers' pay (West, 1983).15 Where did the other $100 billion plus go? Far too much goes to administrators and bureaucrats. Boaz (1991, p. l7) writes: Graham (1963, p. 57) claims that, "Modern education's chief contribution to preparing children for life in a democratic society is its emphasis upon cooperation in solving problems," (Graham, 1963, p. 57) but when a system spends more than twice as much on bureaucrats than on the actual teachers, there cannot be much cooperation going on, and the problem that is not being solved is the unconscionable waste of taxpayer resources. The solution to this massive waste of resources being thrown at goals which do not materialize, is the market. The public education system wastes resources because, like all socialistic endeavors, it cannot rationally calculate in the absence of prices and private property rights (Mises, 1981; Hoppe, 1989). Under a market system, businesses receive signals from consumers in the form of their choice to buy or not to buy. Public education, on the other hand, gets partial signals from consumers (as voters) electing some officials every few years. Furthermore the signals are muddled by the fact that voters elect officials based upon a plethora of issues other than education. On the other hand, consumers of a private service send a scintillatingly clear, immediate signal when they choose whether or not to enroll their children. The clear, immediate signals which a market system provides are necessary for educational (or any other) firms to be motivated towards increased productivity. In a private system, teachers, principals and administrators are accountable to the consumers. Boaz (1991, p. 28) writes, "[in the public school system] no principal or teacher will get a raise for attracting more students to his or her school." Just as critical, principals and teachers are rarely fired or reprimanded for not providing education excellence in a public system. Lieberman (1989, p. 62) notes such in California: Civil servants lack both positive and negative incentives to educate children in a manner satisfactory to the parents who foot the bill (i.e., pay the taxes). There is no automatic feedback mechanism encouraging government hirelings to design productive, cost-effective schooling which fits the distinct tastes of their "customers." For example, perhaps poor families would forgo the cost of hiring teachers for basic physical education and art classes which often consist of no more than the activities children pursue outside of school on their own time. Under the public system, however, administrators have no incentive to challenge predominant school structure. If they do, there is no immediate effect on the tax structure, so parents would only see their children as losing services with no decrease in the price of education; also there would be no increase in salary for the inventive of the administrator. Supporters of the public school system, once having abandoned market forces as schools' drive toward productivity, can only point at a district, state, or federal bureaucracy to take their place. There is only one way to restore the proper incentives toward a quality educational system. It is to take control away from the state. As Mises (1952, p. 45) observes, it is a question of either letting "individuals choose how they want to cooperate in the social division of labor and … what the enterprise should produce," or letting "the government alone choose and enforce its ruling by the apparatus of coercion and compulsion." Is Education a Public Good? The final argument put forth in favor of government-provided primary education is that primary education is a public good. A public good is one that is nonexcludable and/or a collective-consumption good (Holcombe, 1997). Nonexcludability means that there are prohibitive costs to keeping people from consuming the good once it has already been produced. A collective-consumption good is one that, once it its produced for an individual, additional individuals can consume the good at no additional cost. Primary education, according to the public good argument, is nonexcludable. Externalities are associated with primary education which cause benefits to be realized by individuals who are not the primary (i.e., paying) consumer of education.16 Peterson (1991, pp. 345–346) writes: Because schooling is nonexcludable, it will be provided at a sub-optimal level. Individuals who benefit from the primary consumer of education free ride on the provider's (e.g., the school's) service. Since these free riders are not paying for the tutelage, educational providers are not receiving payment from the full scope of schooling demand. Ergo, educational providers will provide too little schooling. The solution, according to the public good argument, is that free riders must be made to pay for primary education (i.e., citizens must be taxed for it) so that it is optimally provided for. There are many problems with this public good argument. The most glaring problem that should be noted immediately is that, assuming that education indeed cannot be provided optimally by private means, what in the world would move someone to believe that government can better determine the optimal amount? Buchanan (1975) correctly notes that many economists, as soon as they believe that they have diagnosed a public good, fail to consider critically the role that government can play: "It was as if the alternatives for public choice were assumed to be available independently from some external source; there was no problem concerning the behavior of [government] suppliers and producers." Furthermore, Tideman and Tullock (1976), who labored to design a process for social choice, admit that, "the process will not cure cancer, stop the tides, or, indeed, deal successfully with many other problems." Keeping that in mind, let us also ponder how many times the political process successfully translates economic theory into policy reality. In the political world of campaigns, interest groups and compromise, the answer is: very seldom, if ever. Therefore, we can not assume that government has the ability to determine efficient allocations. Another problem with the public good argument — one which is not entirely independent from the above problem — is that it is doubtful that the only motive of the state in operating schools is one of concern for optimal provision. Above it has been demonstrated that public schools were founded as a means to attack the culture of certain immigrant groups. Also, as Holcombe (1997) observes: "…the government has the incentive to create the impression among its citizens that its actions are legitimate…. [It can do so by] creating propaganda that brainwashes citizens to respect government institutions and processes." Government desires to educate because it can foster an obedient and loyal citizenry. "One has no trouble understanding why dictatorships demand government control over mass media, or why freedom of the press is viewed as a fundamental check on government's power…. Governments can still control the flow of ideas without controlling the mass media if they control the education system" (Holcombe, 1997). The public good argument for public schools lacks any strength when examined. It assumes that government can provide optimal levels of a service without any justification for such an assumption. Also, the argument assumes that the state is motivated solely by creating an optimal provision. However, government has ulterior motives which work against any presumed motive towards optimality. Conclusion All the arguments in favor of a public provision of primary education prove to be unfounded and/or incorrect. The failure of the state to provide a high quality service to all (its explicit goal) has rendered public primary education illegitimate; and the immeasurable waste of resources and rejection of consumer desires has left public education borderline immoral. As well, if an educated citizenry is to be considered necessary for the operation of the republican government, then it is an inexcusable conflict of interest when elected officials are the ones in charge of providing that education. Furthermore, the argument of externalities and nonexcludability fails to buttress the case for socialist education. The only ethical, reasonable system for the provision of primary education is the free market.
This leaderboard is set to Indiana - Indianapolis/GMT-04:00
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...