Does our educational system make the grade?

"Save America — Abolish Government Schools." That's the latest conservative-activist slogan I came across the other day while perusing one of my favorite Internet forums. The poster — a homeschooling father of five — had a clear message: government schools (public schools in the more PC parlance) are incompatible with American ideals of freedom, self-sufficiency and yes, equal opportunity.

The ultimate goal for this movement is to have families teaching their own or to have privatization for those who don't want to homeschool. Other posters echoed him, calling for the "separation of school and state."

It's not an idea that I think will catch on soon. Most Americans went to government schools and, Chicken Little predictions aside, most Americans are happy with their schools. There are some good ones. After all, many of us went to government schools for 13 years and still managed to get into Princeton.

But since ex-President Clinton told us the era of big government is over, why not consider the idea?

Schools, with their lockers, cafeterias and age-segregated classrooms, are etched deeply in American pop-culture. But schools themselves — brick buildings where you sit and learn for 180 days a year, seven hours a day — are social constructs. Schools exist to provide an education. What are the goals of education? In our country, I'd say it's to produce self-sufficient, independent thinkers who can participate in the democratic process. There are plenty of homeschooled children who meet this goal and plenty of conventionally-schooled children who don't meet it. Obviously, it's not the building or the pop-culture references that educate a child.

For my thesis on homeschooling regulations, I studied parents who opt to avoid school altogether. They come in many different forms, particularly as ideologues and pedagogues. The ideologues are well-known for their views — that government schools assault their values and indoctrinate children in secular humanism. The pedagogues are more surprising. Many of these homeschooling families are quite liberal. They are well-educated and middle-class. They homeschool simply because they believe children learn best one-on-one. Many free-spirited parents even consider the idea of schools to be somewhat fascist. Why should the government be able to tell you where to be 180 days a year?

Whatever the reason, homeschooled children tend to do quite well. They score well on tests (a good indicator of their later ability to be self-sufficient), and they learn more about citizenship from parents who have to deal with laws all the time as a result of their practice. Coupling these children with the millions who attend private or religious schools, it makes one question the need for a system of public schools.

Why do we have such a system? Education is a good with positive externalities. We all benefit from an educated workforce, and educated citizens are necessary for democratic self-government.

But while these externalities may justify subsidies, they do not justify a state-run system. Education isn't a natural monopoly.

In fact, education is almost unique among goods with external benefits that aren't natural monopolies in being state-run. We also benefit, for instance, from a well-fed workforce, and from children receiving proper nutrition. Yet with food, we have a private distribution system (multitudes of grocery stores) with redistribution policies for those unable to afford to purchase their own food. As a result, our food supply in this country is excellent and relatively cheap. There is great choice and, interestingly enough, in many towns across America, the poor shop at the same places as the rich. How often does that happen with schools?

Sure, we should all shoulder the cost of primary and secondary education, but that doesn't mean the government needs to operate these schools. Why not privatize existing schools, give vouchers to those who can't afford private school tuition and allow everyone else a tax write-off as a subsidy?

Of course there would be objections — what about standards? With the current failing rates on standardized tests in some districts, it's hard to see why private schools' standards would be higher. What about producing good democratic citizens? Yet people don't question the system of public schools, and half of eligible Americans don't vote. What about tolerance for those of different ethnicities or religions? This is the best objection, but again, it's not entirely clear that many of the nation's private schools are any less segregated than the public ones after white flight out of cities and into private schools. Furthermore, when it comes down to it, is it better to have diverse student bodies or simply good schools for everyone?

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

As I said before, I don't envision the abolition of government schools happening anytime soon. President Bush's voucher plan appears 'Dead On Arrival' in Congress, and local voucher programs are being declared unconstitutional at a disturbing rate. People also have fond memories of schools — lockers, gym class and all.

But a growing number of families are homeschooling, and as their children succeed and are admitted to top colleges, more families will join them. Private schools are blossoming everywhere, including in urban areas where the odds are against them. Many public schools are quite good — but we have nothing to lose by rethinking existing institutions. That's quite a liberal idea — even if it tends to be liberals who support this country's existing educational arrangements. Laura Vanderkam is a Wilson School major from Granger, Ind. She can be reached at laurav@princeton.edu.