Sasha Volokh has a post up about compelled speech and raises a point I've made before: it's impossible for any useful education system to be ideologically neutral (see that post for my specific concrete example).
Mr. Volokh summarizes the problem with public education very succinctly:
(a) The government shouldn't set up a system that rewards people for subscribing to one ideology over another, violating their religious or other deeply held beliefs, etc. (b) Unfortunately, any drama/literature/etc. program worth its salt will violate someone's deeply held beliefs. (c) Therefore, because the government would only be permitted to offer an awful, useless, watered-down program, it should leave it to the private sector.Not only that, but public education is expensive and ineffective.
There is a reasonable argument that it is wrong for the government to tax people to fund the teaching of viewpoints they find offensive. At the same time there is a reasonable argument that the government should not tax people and then refuse to teach viewpoints those taxpayers think should be taught.
Given that the views held by taxpayers are not consistent, this puts public schools in an inherently untenable position. The only solution I can see in the long term is privatization.
I'm glad to no that my publik educashun wasn't affective. I kan quit trying to pretend I lerned anything. And I'll tel my sister to quit teeching Spanush in publik skools because it aren't no use.
There used to be one good argument for public education. Aside from providing the basics, it was to serve as the medium for transmitting a common culture and values to a nation of immigrants. Public education has long since abandoned that mission, and in fact has become hostile to American values. Multiculturalism has come to mean every culture is equally good, except that anything European or Judaeo-Christian is bad.
Dave: Excellent point. That would be a valuable service. Too bad!
JT: It's a matter of efficiency. I went to public school too and look at how smart I turned out! Still, it's much less efficient than private schools would be with the same resources.
If Volokh's premise (a) is wrong, as I believe, then the argument falls apart.
Classic liberal arts education (i.e., that which established Western values in the first place) is by nature inefficient. But if you want the most efficient system, it's a waste to bother with universal education. A form of genetic determinism ala Brave New World (only capitalistic) would be the most efficient private sector alternative.
Mark: Most people don't think the government should be spending public money promoting ideologies. If you do, how would you want the government to select which one gets promoted?
Michael: There are basic Western beliefs/values that underlie the institution of public (or universal) education. There's no problem actively re-inforcing or re-asserting the justification for your existence. Necessarily, this means that you will exclude certain opposing ideologies.