James Madison: Thoughts on Public Education (my title)

The Founders' Constitution website ^ | 4 Aug. 1822 | James Madison

[Huck]

Read Federalist #10 and you'll learn what a Statist Madison really was.

You've done it again. You're talented.

[Huck]

I concur with everything you said.

[Huck]

Jefferson was a socialist and a statist. LOL!

[Roscoe]

This is where they normally shriek, "Well, he owned slaves!!!!"

[LarryLied]

The founders didn't mind religion being taught in government schools either. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, went even further than Madison in supporting public education:

(The student) must be taught to amass wealth, but it must be only to increase his power of contribution to the wants and needs of the state. . .Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property. Let him be taught to love his family, but let him be taught at the same time that he must forsake and even forget them when the welfare of his country requires it."

[Huck]

The part of this that is interesting to me is the general principle. It is interesting that Madison and Jefferson and Adams all favored a publicly financed system of education all the way through to the university level. It is interesting that they all thought it valuable, indeed, patriotic, to set up a system that would take money from the rich to support education for all. Without even weighing in on whether it has worked or not, it is interesting that they all believed it.

As you know, there are some freepers who consider this "statism" and "socialism" and even "slavery." Well, there you have it. Madison, Jefferson, and Adams, tyrants all. Anyway, I think most of the complaints on this thread deal with the quality of education, not with the method of funding. And not with the premise behind it.

[Huck]

Benjamin Rush

He was an interesting fellow. A doctor, as I recall. Great friend to John Adams. What incredible times those must have been. I was recently in Philadelphia taking it all in. Amazing.

[Roscoe]

As you know, there are some freepers who consider this "statism" and "socialism" and even "slavery."

And most of them are disinterested in historical facts.

[edsheppa]

The real point is that it's not an either/or situation. Certainly education is a public good. But it is also a private good. It shouldn't even be that hard to put a reasonably accurate money value on the respective benefits and split the costs proportionally.

IOW, what would be fair is that the public should pay for an education in proportion to the benefit it receives and the individual should also. I don't see why this couldn't be turned into practical policy applicable at all levels of education - except for the politics of course.

[Roscoe]

But who can adjust with precise accuracy the amount which each individual in an organized civil community shall contribute to sustain it, or can insure in this respect absolute equality of burdens, and fairness in their distribution among those who must bear them?

We cannot say judicially that Kelly received no benefit from the city organization. These streets, if they do not penetrate his farm, lead to it. The water-works will probably reach him some day, and may be near enough to him now to serve him on some occasion. The schools may receive his children, and in this regard he can be in no worse condition than those living in the city who have no children, and yet who pay for the support of the schools. Every man in a county, a town, a city, or a State is deeply interested in the education of the children of the community, because his peace and quiet, his happiness and prosperity, are largely dependent upon the intelligence and moral training which it is the object of public schools to supply to the children of his neighbors and associates, if he has none himself.

KELLY v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, 104 U.S. 78

[Roscoe]

You've done it again. You're talented.

[edsheppa]

I hope you're not agreeing with that argument. Precise accuracy in public policy is a foolish standard. It's ridiculous to say that because we cannot be precisely fair in the allocation of costs we shouldn't attempt to be fairer.

[Roscoe]

Specific suggestions?

[edsheppa]

Do you mean what s/b the allocation? Or how could one figure an allocation? Or the means of allocation?

[Roscoe]

"Fairer" is pretty vague.

[edsheppa]

Oh come on, the concept of "fairer" is not vague at all. What can be hard sometimes is comparing the relative fairness of specific alternatives. OTOH a lot of times it's not hard at all. For example, it's common for education to be funded by uniform property taxation. An alternative is that only properties owned by people whose SS# ends in an even digit. Would you have any problem saying that the former is fairer than the latter?

The point is that the idea that costs should be rationally allocated in proportion to relative benefits isn't even considered wrt education and many other areas besides.