Yesterday, I concluded by promising a solution that's ideal for everyone (except the government).

That solution is not new, it's not complex, it won't cost more, and it can provide what each of us wants for our children. I know that sounds idealistic and far-fetched, but that's only because we've been brainwashed by our government into believing that education must be complex, expensive, and bureaucratic. That's utter hogwash, and I hope to convince you that we MUST get government OUT of education.

There was NO need for government to get involved.
Before 1850, when Massachusetts became the first state in the United States to force children to go to school, literacy was at 98 percent. Quoting from Dr. Mary Ruwart's "Healing Our world"... 

"schooling was neither compulsory nor free, although private "charity" schools provided education to those too poor to afford formal instruction. Many of those schools taught hundreds of children at a time, using a monitoring method pioneered by the British Quaker schoolmaster Joseph Lancaster. The Teacher would instruct several older children, and they, in turn, would instruct others under the teacher's supervision. Lancaster perfected his method so that he was able to teach a thousand pupils at one time - for free!"

There was a wide variety of private schools, some free, some inexpensive, some expensive. Many immigrant-organized schools taught both English and their native tongue. America was admirably well-educated, and recognized as such around the world. For example, the novel "Last of the Mohicans", in 1818, sold 5 million copies in a population of less than 20 million people.

If it was so good, why did government get involved?
The primary reason was to try to mold the large numbers of immigrants into "uniform" and "proper" citizens. Supporters expected poor immigrants to rush to free public schools, but they didn't... they were already in good schools, and many immigrants had come to the U.S. to avoid such intrusive, controlling government. When New York City offered free schools, attendance didn't increase. Even poor immigrant families valued education enough to pay for what they wanted.

"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all: it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality." -- H.L. Mencken

"State education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly alike one another, ...in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body."
-- John Stuart Mill (1859)

In education, as in all other areas, there is an alluring temptation to use the POWER of government, the FORCE of government, to promote ones own agenda, at the expense of all others.

I spoke about all of us fighting each other to make our ONE government school system what we each think it should be. In 1922, the state of Oregon passed a law outlawing private schools and compelling all children to attend public school. The law was later decared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but the instructive part of that episode is... WHO spearheaded the effort to get private schools banned?

a. Well-intentioned liberals?
b. Educational progressives?
c. Communists?
d. Socialists?
e. Teacher's unions

The effort to forcibly eliminate private schools was pushed by the Ku Klux Klan, which was quite powerful then. They simply wanted to eliminate Catholic schools, which had been created to counter the Protestant-controlled "public" schools.  It's a good illustration of the danger of having a single, government-controlled program of any kind. The KKK only had to influence a few politicians by appealing to bias, a desire for more power, and whatever other incentives they may have offered behind the scenes.

Haven't public schools improved education? Literacy has been on the decline since government took over the schools. Before the end of World War II in 1945, 18 million men were tested to see if they could read well enough to be soldiers. Only 4% failed. By 1952, during the Korean War, 19% were turned away as illiterate. By the end of the Vietnam War in 1973, 27% read too poorly to be accepted.

By 1996, the U.S. spent 14 times as much on education, per pupil, as in 1920, even after adjusting for inflation.

Locally, Minnesota (2000-2001) spent $10,193 per pupil, 2nd highest in the nation after adjusting for cost of living.

Of the 100 largest school districts in the U.S., Minneapolis ranks 2nd highest in per pupil cost at $11,365. St. Paul is 6th at $9,859

For all of the 37 years I've lived in the Twin Cities, I've listened to impassioned pleas that our schools need more money, smaller class sizes, and better-paid teachers.

The number of students per teacher in MN, 1994-1999
1994   17.5    
1995   17.8
1996   17.6 
1997   16.4  
1998   15.7
1999   15.2  
(Those numbers are better than the national average)

In 1971, a public secondary teacher taught 134 students per day. By 1996, that had dropped to 97 students. Average inflation-adjusted teacher salaries have increased since 1972, and teacher salaries have outpaced inflation.

But... the percent of education spending devoted to teacher salaries' has dropped from over 50% to under 40% over the past 40 years, as more and more money has been diverted to administration.

Many alternatives to choose from,
instead of ONE like-it-or-lump-it plan.

Alternatives are already being taken, in spite of the burden of paying for public schools. 6.5 million American children are already being educated outside of public schools, for reasons of safety, academics, or morals. Their parents have chosen private schooling, religious schooling, or are teaching their children themselves at home. That group already includes a lot of the children of government officials and public school teachers. Isn't that food for thought?

If the massive $300 billion burden of public schools was lifted, and that money left in the hands of parents to make their own choices, we would see a marvelous explosion of alternatives from which to choose.

In Part 4, I'll try to paint a picture of just how a free market in education would please each of us (except the government).