It don't follow these matters that closely, but is there an example of a "successful" country without a public education system?
I am unaware of a private school in the US that does not have selective admissions.
Is your argument that were public schools to be eliminated that a private interest would emerge to fill the market niche of those with no money to pay and/or require more resources? Or is this where the voucher steps in?
Just googling I have found a few municipalities and when digging up public cost per student and tuition at private, the numbers are more or less on par.
I was educated in US public schools with peers who attended both public and private school when attending college and didn't see very good evidence and any chasm of differential services or product, certainly not something that could substantiate rhetoric at the level of "masquerade".
Do you have any facts so to speak to back up your assertions or conclusions? ... which are, so far, indistinguishable to me.
Should such prioritization occur at all levels?
Generally (at least for me and many others) those spheres of life where there is a role of government are others areas where there is a clear common interest. Roads, firefighters, some sort of legal system, and (to me) a ubiquitous basic level of education.
In areas where the consequence of the lack of a wall-to-wall system exceed the costs, those are the areas we employ government. So while you say "there is no need for government involvement whatsoever", I am inclined to think that in order to maintain a reasonably productive civil society some form of essentially compulsory, wall-to-wall, available to all system must be in place.
Is your beef just with the US public education system or is it a broadly held opinion, that the UK, Canadian, German, French, Swiss etc .... public education systems are all charades as well? Certainly in those examples government is the principle player.
| 