School Competition Rescues Kids

The government's virtual monopoly over K-12 education has failed.


For years, American education from kindergarten through high school has been a virtual government monopoly.

Conventional wisdom is that government must run the schools. But government monopolies don't do anything well. They fail because they have no real competition. Yet competition is what gives us better phones, movies, cars—everything that's good.

If governments produced cars, we'd have terrible cars. Actually, governments once did produce cars. The Soviet bloc puts its best engineers to work and came up with the Yugo, the Volga, and the Trabant. The Trabant was the best—the pride of the Eastern Bloc. It was produced by actual German engineers—known for their brilliance. Yet even the Trabant was a terrible car. Drivers had to put the oil and gas in separately and then shake the car to mix them. Trabants broke down and spewed pollution. When government runs things, consumers suffer.

Our school system is like the Trabant. Economist Milton Friedman understood this before the rest of us did. In 1955, he proposed school vouchers. His plan didn't call for separating school and state—unfortunately—but instead sought a second-best fix: Give a voucher to the family, and let it choose which school—government-run or private—their child will attend. Schools would compete for that voucher money. Today, it would be worth $13,000 per child. (That's what America spends per student today.) Competition would then improve all schools.

Friedman's idea was ignored for decades, but now there are voucher experiments in many states.

Do vouchers work? You bet they do. Just ask the low-income kids in Washington, D.C., who have participated in the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. The U.S. Department of Education found that the voucher kids read better than their government-school counterparts.

So what did the politicians do? Expand the program? No. Two years ago, President Obama killed it. Why?

"The president has concerns about … talking large amounts of funding out of the system," then-press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

(Article continues below video.)

Voucher families protested. One voucher student, Ronald Holassie, said, "President Barack Obama, you say that getting an education is a key to success, but why do you sit there and let my education and others be taken away?"

The program was reauthorized only after John Boehner became speaker of the House and insisted on it.

Holassie was a guest on my Fox Business show last week. He says the difference between a government school and his private school was dramatic.

"In the public school system when I was in there, (there were) lots of fights. There were shootings, stabbings, and it was really unsafe—drugs."

The Opportunity Scholarship didn't offer the full $20,000 that the district squanders on its public schools. It was worth just $7,000, but that was enough to get Ronald into a Catholic school.

"I was actually challenged academically," he said. "I remember when I was in the public school system, my teacher left in the middle of the year. I remember doing crossword puzzles and stuff like that. We weren't actually learning."

He says most of his government-school teachers acted like they didn't care. His mother, who's from Trinidad, was going to send him there because the schools are better than American schools.

"She wasn't going to continue to just let this system fail me."

But he got the voucher and a good education, and now he's in college.

Despite the data showing that voucher kids are ahead in reading, the biggest teachers union, the NEA claims: "The D.C. voucher program has been a failure. It's yielded no evidence of positive impact on student achievement."

Holassie asks: "How is it a failure when the public school system is failing students? I don't understand that."

I don't understand it either. Vouchers aren't a perfect solution, but they are better that leaving every student a prisoner of a government monopoly. District government schools have only a 49 percent graduation rate. Ninety-one percent of the voucher students graduate.

Why would the union call that a failure? Because vouchers allow parents to make choices, and many parents would chose non-union, non-government-run schools. The school establishment can't abide this. Too much money and power are at stake.

John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at


NEXT: Smoking in the Boys' Room

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No alt+text? Really?

    1. Preach it, brother!

      1. The government’s virtual monopoly over K-12 education has failed.

        True. Let’s carry that truth further, as follows:

        The government’s virtual monopoly over the Land has failed.

        So let’s deregulate big-government’s Land enTitlement program that restricts the free movement of free people to live in the natural lifeway of Non-State sociopolitical typology.

        That is, if libertarians are truly for deregulation, freedom, and Non-State lifeways.

        White Indian thinks they speak with forked tongue.

        1. I’d even give up alt text to remove this guy.

          1. Stupid pig-fucker can’t even post something he hasn’t posted a hundred fucking times already.

  2. 7AM Stossel post? Give me a break!

  3. But isn’t it unfair for the WannaLearns to have more opportunities than the Don’tGivaCraps?
    Where the Handicapper General? I wanna talk at him!

  4. “The D.C. voucher program has been a failure. It’s yielded no evidence of positive impact on student achievement.”

    The voucher program made us look incompetent. It had to be scrapped.

    1. The voucher program made us look incompetent.

      Perhaps. But, to be fair, did they really need the voucher system to look incompetent?

      1. Perhaps. But, to be fair, did they really need the voucher system to look incompetent?

        No, but some people miss the obvious. I’m guessing the voucher program made it easy for even those people to notice how bad things are in American education.

  5. Just why do we think the government should be the only supplier of education? Oh yeah…the politicians tell us how all our needs are being met as we watch the nation crumble under their great leadership.

  6. While I agree with much of what the voucher proponents say there are a couple of factors that aren’t getting mentioned (by the pro-voucher crowd because they aren’t pro-voucher, and by the Teacher’s Unions because they’re as dumb as posts).

    1) As mattes stand, Vouchers are a self-selected sample. This phenomenon has distorted debates on education before; many of the ‘progressive’ fads that swept educational theory in the 20th Century started out in small experimental schools that were 9or at least appeared) wildly successful. Like the voucher programs today (and also homeschooling) the existing conditions pretty much insured that the vast majority of students that went to such schools would have deeply motivated parents, and thus would be the kind of students who did well in school provided the school didn’t actively hinder their self-education.

    2) While inane educrat theories and simple incompetence certainly have an effect, some of what ails the present system is simply calcification. Any human system will calcify over time, and then need shaking up to function. This is less an anti-voucher argument than a warning; any voucher system will be subject to the same inevitable calcification. The biggest problem with the public schools is that, as oversight rose to the federal level, it became more and more rigid and less and less susceptible to the needed shake-up. Any voucher system that doesn’t allow for regular shake-ups will calcify quickly, and become as much of a problem as the present system.

    1. 1) Then you would expect that certain kids would have the same success in and out of public schools, but this isn’t the case. Whether you talk about graduation rate or level of engagement, or reading, or any other metric, they do better in private schools because they are challenged and nurtured there. I think that is what the point was in the video and the article, specific students did better once they made the change.

      2) It won’t calcify because it is based on competition. If a chain f private schools comes out and is wildly successful, perhaps it will calcify, but then another will emerge and take market share. That is like saying that our university system has calcified. Ever notice that we have one of the worst K-12 education rates in the world, but the best universities. The only difference is competition, except that liberal are trying to destroy that by injecting tax dollars into the system through endless grants and loans, and loan forgiveness.

      Stossel’s last thought it the article sums it all up perfectly, it is about money and power. Nothing else.

      1. Ever notice that we have one of the worst K-12 education rates in the world, but the best universities.

        We intend to correct that. Our universities be as good a K-12 when we get done.

  7. a relative recently became part of a teach kids how to read program in a mainly black-hispanic school with scores lower than the scores were five years ago. the intro to the program was a speech by the principal. the whole school attended. my relative could not hear what the man was saying because the noise never stopped, at no time did anyone stop talking, kids roamed up and down the aisles and in front of the podium. No discipline at all.
    a few months ago at a Catholic school, (for boys, I think) the diocese or someone tried to ban corporal punishment. the parents and the kids rose up in outrage. Why? because the school, over 90% black, successfully gets kids to learn, to read a grade level and better, many go on to higher ed, the school is safe, and they think that without such discipline the school would go downhill. I don’t know what the outcome was. I’m not arguing for corporal punishment even. But without discipline and the ability to sit still there is no learning. Public schools don’t do discipline (zero tolerance programs that punish kids for having asprin don’t mean discipline) because of a leftwing belief that until America makes everything perfect it is unreasonable and cruel and racist to make kids behave. First make it all good, then the kids will learn. Anyone who shows the kids can learn otherwise is an enemy to the Revolution.

  8. But government monopolies don’t do anything well.

    Except defeat Hitler.

    You wanna offer changes to education, that’s great. I think the evidence is in and the single most important factor in student achievement is tailored individual attention. Magical market competition is really irrelevant, especially since we’re not talking about a market, but voucherizing.

    The problem is your premise, quoted above, that you will refuse to ever rethink. So the more public schools fall behind, the more you can claim to be proved right, and the more you can provide intellectual excuses for making public education into a for-profit enterprise. There’s no reason to believe this would end up costing taxpayers less. All we have to do is look at the same shifts toward private prisons, defense contractors, and everything else government used to do but that entrepreneurs discovered they could make a lot of money from by accessing a vast source of revenue (taxpayers) and charging twice the price for the service.

    1. And yet only twice the price for the service is still 1/10th what the government provides the same services for. Case in point: Space travel.

    2. Well, that wasn’t the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. But it sure makes the top ten list.

    3. You make it sound as if nobody is profiting already from the current system while union bosses rake it in, teachers don’t have to be any good to keep their job, and school administrators makes multiples of what teachers make. I would much rather pay a private business to do a better job for less than let gov’t and its ineffectual appendages grow fat for doing an inferior job.

      You make it sound as if the private sector is bad based only on the fact that it is for profit. Profits are made because consumers want the product. If they provide an inferior product then there are still the gloriously altruistic public schools that will do a crappier job for them. I will remind you that the product here is a superior education for kids.

      How can this be a bad thing as long as the voucher cap is always less that what the gov’t spends on public education per student? Maybe private schools will make more, but is that a bad thing if they are doing a better job? Isn’t that how we determine who should make more money?

      1. Do market forces work when we’re still maintaining universal access by giving out vouchers?

        In every service where universal access is a goal (law enforcement, defense, and yes healthcare), adding profits into the equation make it more expensive for taxpayers. This should be obvious when we’re talking about subsidizing access to private schools. The point of the enterprises promoting voucherization isn’t to provide a better product at all–its to turn what was a public service into a profit center. Voucherizing doesn’t mean private entities compete for customers, it means they compete for taxpayer loot. For-profit colleges have been a fiasco. If we’re still interested in maintaining universal access to education (and as a modern civilization we should) then we ought to find ways to do it efficiently and effectively, not hope that the incentives line up once for-profit entities enter the mix, because they probably won’t.

        1. The key factor in any market is choice, the consumer’s choice to buy or not buy a product or service is what drives innovation for any provider of a good or service. Vouchers create choice and introduce market forces into the education system.

          1. I fail to see how market forces apply in a situation where government is subsidizing access, provides minimum standards, and when we’re talking about a 13-year commitment on the part of parents who may or may not give a shit.

            1. “I fail to see how market forces apply”

              Here, let me get that for you:

              “I refuse to see how market forces apply”

              You’re welcome!

            2. The point is choice. Healthcare might be something you want to make universal, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want to have choices. Not everyone has the same needs. People have different preferences.

              Government bureaucracy doesn’t provide choice. Usually it only allows us one option. Usually we are locked in to whatever it offers us. You are stuck with the sheriff you vote in until the next election (except in extreme cases). To the extent that you can’t afford to move, you are locked into whatever school district you happen to live in (usually resulting in less choice for the poor). You are stuck with social security’s plan for you, despite the fact that other options would provide better returns.

              Market forces apply because the market allows democracy to happen more quickly than any political system allows. People vote by choosing between options. They aren’t locked in for 13 years as you suggest but can use the voucher to change schools whenever they see a better alternative. The options that aren’t chosen die while the options that people like are reinforced.

              Allowing choice fosters innovation and customization to individual wants/needs. There isn’t one school model that best serves every student. There isn’t one healthcare plan that best suits every soul. There isn’t one social safety net plan that will serve individuals in the way they need to be served. These things do not really operate well as economies of scale and the federal government really needs to start understanding that.

        2. Adding profits actually reduces costs in EVERY MARKET, Tony. Get your facts right before you spew your inane bullshit.

        3. But how do they compete for the loot? Where would that be going anyway? Why are you so intent of lining coercive teacher union pockets rather than private business who use quality and incentive rather than strikes, slander, and lies to get their way? They don’t even do a good job.

          I think you need to figure out why you hate money and its transactions so much. Maybe you are an entitlement recipient. That’s what Francisco would say right?

      2. Joe, Tony knows this, we explain the concept of how competition and markets create better products and services to him nearly every time he posts here. He refuses to even consider the possibility that government inherently incapable of creating, well. pretty much anything.

        1. Because that’s an absurdity. I’m not the one thinking in black/white terms. I get what markets are good for. But I also know what they’re not good for–like providing universal access to education. How productive would markets be without government funding basic research? You simply possess a bias that makes it impossible for you to see the world the way it is. Government supports the market, and always has. The market can’t do everything, and it can’t do some things better. If you think so, prove it.

          1. How productive would markets be without government funding basic research?

            Why don’t you ask nearly every drug company, ever? It’s amazing how markets seem to always find a solution to every problem.

          2. Also, why is universal access to education a good thing? How does the government seizing billions of dollars annually to redistribute amongst its cronies actually help the average schoolchild? How do teacher unions promote a better education?

            When you can homeschool a student for the average cost of 500-600 a year, how is that not cheaper than the $5000 it costs the state to do it for you?

            Public education is simply a federally subsidized daycare program. Anyone that asserts otherwise is delusional at best.

          3. Vouchers create a market driving innovation and creating incentives for schools to improve while still creating universal access to education, sounds like a win-win to me.

            “If you think so, prove it.”

            With exception of national defense, which probably most of commenters in these parts would agree is a legitimate function of government, lets take the issue at hand, public schooling. Spending per pupil has increased over four-fold since 1961 and achievement levels have barely wiggled. This would not be an indication of an efficiently functioning organization.

            1. I’m still not convinced of how worthy a goal it is to achieve “universal education.” There are lots of students that simply don’t want to be educated, and I don’t see the value in throwing money at a problem that won’t be solved by throwing money at it.

              1. That’s not true, all people put forth equal effort for everything. If there are inequalities it is the system’s problem. A problem that can be fixed with bribes other people’s money federal dollars.

          4. No, you prove government can handle everything better then the private sector.

            If you are too intellectually lazy to make your argument, that does not invalidate my argument.

            You CAN”T say the only way the private sector can replace government is if we can prove the private sector does better then government in all things, without you have to prove that the government does all things better then the private sector. you are working off a flawed premise as if it is the gospel truth.

            Your invincible ignorance is ridiculous.

            Do you even believe this stuff you are saying or are you just an elaborate troll?

    4. “…the single most important factor in student achievement is tailored individual attention.”

      So you’re advocating private tutors for all? You might want to “rethink” that.

      “we’re not talking about a market”

      Wrong! That is precisely what we’re talking about. By providing vouchers, consumers (students and their parents) are free to determine which schools are providing the best educational experience and to reward those schools by purchasing their services. Failing schools either improve or go out of business.

      With the existing public school systems, parents have only the most indirect and ineffectual input regarding how those schools will be operated. In truth, the schools function primarily as jobs programs for union members.

      1. Why are vouchers OK for education but not healthcare?

        1. So you like Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare? And you for vouchers for healthcare to go to private institutions? I’ll take vouchers for low income citizens for healthcare over single payer any day

          1. Do you like it because it’s more expensive, less efficient, or just because it makes it easier to kill off universal access at some point?

        2. I have a voucher for healthcare, it’s called insurance.


      2. I’m saying research has shown that the best education is one in which students have access to individual attention tailored to their specific needs. We can either apply that finding to for-profit taxpayer leeches, or we can apply it to a public education system.

        1. That would make homeschooling the best option then, wouldn’t it?

          1. Assuming every parent were capable of providing a rigorous education. But homeschool advocates tend to be people who simply don’t want their children learning anything but what they deem is the appropriate fairy tale.

            1. And the Government knows better than these children’s own parents?

              I see a gaping hole in your argument here. You’re essentially stating that a highly centralized federally funded education system knows how to educate a child better than the child’s own parents. Care to walk that back before making yourself look like a complete moron?

            2. You don’t personally know a lot of homeschooled children, do you?

            3. Assuming that education takes any special credentials.

              My wife and I have no training in education whatsoever and our kids are a couple of years ahead in their work levels, and they attribute none of that to the schools they attend.

              Se define a “rigorous education” and tell us why “every parent” would not be capable of giving one.

              It is funny a statist like you will hold the government to no accountability at all and argue from a position that the government by default does a good job at something. All parents would have to do is beat the current illiteracy rate and dropout rate and international achievement rankings to be a better choice then government. The bar cannot be a quality education for all children, because the government system fails to deliver the product you insist the parents must deliver if they are to replace the schools.

              Why are parents not qualified if even one of them fails but the government is qualified when it fails at a much higher rate then one families children?

              Your logic is not logic, it is stupid conjecture mixed with straw-men, red-herrings and invincible ignorance, with some appeals to authority mixed in.

    5. Only government can educate kids properly.

  9. Actually the US government made winning WW2 a real mission with its ham fisted and stagnant ways. Pearl Harbor should never have happened if the government had been awake and doing ITS damned job!

    1. Not to mention most of the entire Italian campaign was unnecessary from a strategic standpoint. Perhapes we needed to nuetralize Sicily, but the march through Rome and the Tuscany wasn’t necessary.

      And while it is reasonable to argue that we needed national mobilization to fight WWII it is a poor standard to rally around for the cause of statism precisely because it was such exceptional circumstances. We’ve seen govermnt run education, and it simply sucks.

      1. Compared to what? All those examples of for-profit education that provide universal access without government subsidy?

        1. We can have government funding without having government supply.

          1. ^THIS

            Very few people connect the dots on this one.

        2. If government had a cock, I’d let it fuck me and suck the shit off it after.

      2. The main problem I see with it is that the whole enterprise has become far too centralized. I think Mark Steyn had made a point that the number of school districts has decreased dramatically from what it was 50 years ago, even though our population is much larger now than it was then. This centralization has taken a lot of control out of the hands of local administrators and educators, who are in a far better position to determine what their communities require, and placed it into the hands of increasingly detached bureaucrats trying to cram a disparate population into a system that currently reflects the worst of both the Prussian and Deweyian philosophies of education.

        It’s difficult to make the argument that the Department of Education has improved the knowledge base of the population in conjunction with their increasing control of the enterprise–it’s certainly not evident when colleges need to hold remedial math and reading courses for their students, and college itself has increasingly become nothing more than 13th-16th grade in terms of a learning environment. And this is after introducing the insidious “culture of testing” over the last 20 years or so.

        Nuking the Dept of Education would be a good first step to letting local municipalities and school districts take back control of their own curriculums.

      3. I disagree with the march through Rome; great propaganda.

  10. Vouchers are just an indirect method of the same level of full government control over the education system.

    The only viable approach to education is for the government to be completely hands-off. Increase the cash outlays to the poor if you must, in the name of ensuring that they can educate their kids but until government is 100% removed from education, schooling will be a disaster.

    1. It’s really just Steve Chapman, troll extraordinaire.

      1. Woops, wrong thread.

  11. There is absolutely no statistical evidence that charter schools or voucher programs produce better academic progress than public schools in the aggregate. Period.

    1. You’re wrong. There have been many studies done on the subject; a simple google search will yield results that seem to completely contradict your ignorant claim.

      1. This is the only national study that has been done that evaluates charter schools compared to schools that are similar in geography and student body composition.

        Results: 17% of charter schools produce statistically significant gains vs. public schools.

        44% of charter schools are statistically indistinguishable.

        34% of charter schools produce statistically significant losses vs public schools.

    2. The largest determinant of academic performance is family. Kids from families that value and promote learning will do well in public schools, and they will do well in private schools. The question is, what will they LEARN? I moved my kid to a private school, where she learns about twice as much as she did in the public school in the same amount of time. Yes, I could have supplemented her education at home after her 6.5 hour public school day so she could learn all that extra stuff, but it’s nice not to have to. It’s nice they are actually teaching it in her new school. She is now learning things such as grammar, which they don’t even begin to touch in the public schools here until 5th grade, and even then they only touch it faintly. She’d get good grades in public school. She’d graduate. She’d go on to a good college. But she would not have learned as much as she COULD have.

    3. “There is absolutely no statistical evidence that charter schools or voucher programs produce better academic progress than public schools in the aggregate. Period.”

      Excellent news! Can we eliminate public schools now?

      1. You would need to amend 50 state constitutions. Good Luck.

  12. Of course, the lack of vouchers and/or tax breaks for private education gives my kids an advantage. We can afford to send them to private school. Other parents cannot. Therefore our kids enjoy a privilege others cannot enjoy, and will be more competitive compared ot those others. A government monopoly on education is a fabulous way to keep the lower classes from competing with the upper classes.

  13. Expose that guy’s orange golf shirt.

  14. I think that umbrella knocked some of Arnold Diaz’s hair off.

  15. That umbrella is a dangerous product in the hands of Martha Stewart.

  16. Oooo, Arnold Diaz brought giant novelty teeth to combat the inevitable giant something from Stossel.

  17. Arnold Diaz is the Carl Monday of consumer reporting.

  18. “No comment” is pretty self explanatory.

  19. True, I’ve never heard of a website that reviews businesses. Good point, Arnold.

  20. Really? Licensing fees go somewhere?

  21. cer-tiffa-cation? Maybe you should go back to school to get your pronunciation license, Stoss.

  22. Arnold’s world and mine collide.

  23. “It tastes like a glacier.”

    Your tongue stuck to it?


  25. Unless this guy is about to spray something on Suzanne Somers, count me out.

  26. Ugh, Funt. I was hoping for Somers.

    1. That’s the part of Candid Camera that was left on the editing room floor each week.

  27. Hey stupid people, should the government protect stupid people from things?

  28. Is this a commercial for divorce?

  29. I’ve met a lot of people who eat organic. Cool is not the word I’d go with.

  30. Stossel trusts the government, only if it’s foreign.

  31. If you want to talk me into not going organic, you shouldn’t have brought out my frat bro to convince me.

  32. Despite all my rage, I’ll eat these eggs from chickens living outside a cage.

  33. Dinner party? Tell me more, ol’ sport.

  34. Stossel feels you on truck emmissions.

  35. Subtext: Diane Sawyer is a bitch.

    1. Yeah, but a licensed one.

  36. Oh great, I agree with you David Henderson but please don’t use the Obama-ish “almost all economists agree”

  37. Shut up and clean my rug, Hoover Institute.

  38. What if I’m buying sweat? Where else am I going to get it?

  39. David Henderson hasn’t been reading White Indian, he just described agriculture as hard labor.

  40. Using incense to cover the smell of burning rice.

  41. I didn’t know you could surf your Roomba.

  42. Oooo, nice decorative scarf, Babs

  43. Government force stops private sector force?

  44. Foxes produce hens?

  45. All of the AnCaps who are on the grid and have cable just shut their tv off.

  46. You say collusion, scarf says partnership.

  47. Barber is willing to sacrifice your sick ass for the greater good.

  48. Sigh, and now I’m forced to watch audience participation.

  49. Stop motion animation = expensive advertizing push?

  50. Three production assistants were crushed by falling boxes at Fox Biz studios Thursday night…

  51. Stossel once again repeats myths about vouchers in DC working. Only through the magic of rhee’s manipulation and falsification of records did the project come close to working. Research keeps proving these conservative, anti-American voucher programs are failures, yet stossel and his ilk keep repeating that they work. stossel is wrong, and his attempts to shape the issue using false information is immoral. Why do people like him keep getting a public forum to repeat their lies? Good thing the government does not operate the defense system. Imagine an American army or marine corps run by the government!! Why, let’s divert our attention to the govt run army of Cuba, or a sub-saharan African country for a comparison that is not even a bit comparable. Squirrel.

    1. The study that the Obama administration used as opposition to reinstating the program, according to the Boston Herald, “concluded that students in the program had a significantly higher chance of graduating from high school, along with showing modest gains in reading. Its lead author, Patrick J. Wolf, told a Senate committee last month that the program was good for students.”

      So the best opposition to the program they could come up with is an independent study that concludes that the program is “good for students”? Do you bother to even think about the mindless drivel oozing out of the corners of your slack-jawed mouth, or are you just following marching orders like a good little drone? Or perhaps you just hate the children?

      1. I am very familiar with all of the research on this issue, and would encourage you and your type of sheep to try to read it and understand it. The study cited found that the voucher students did not perform any better than the public school students. And research finds that private school students do no better than public school students when compared controlling for socio-economic factors. Stossel knows his audience does not think for themselves, that is why he can put forth this crap and his readers buy it. Think for yourself.

  52. Comparisons of education & defense are stupid. In the case of defense, our government-run armed forces usually beat their government-run armed forces. Except Vietnam.

    But look what happens when our government-run armed forces go up against a non-government group like Al Qaeda. Hmm…

    Anyway, everyone knows that private schools perform better than public schools: private school students learn more, graduate at higher rates, are far safer, and cheaper. Why do arguments persist?

  53. “The president has concerns about … taking large amounts of funding out of the system,” then-press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

    Need he say more? Kudos to Boehner for reversing this cynical assault on children and standing up to the naked greed of the NEA bosses.

    Speaking of public sector unions, against whom are they collectively bargaining when a big-government liberal holds office and has helicopters full of taxpayer cash at the ready? There is literally nobody sitting on the other side of the bargaining table. It seems the only function of a taxpayer these days is to keep beurocrats safe from the current depression.

    Good teachers need to realize that school choice means more compensation for them and less for the losers they have been carrying all this time. Oh, and incidentally, the kids will get a better education despite the blatant lies of the lying liars at the NEA (which by the way employs exactly zero teachers).

  54. outstanding quality, and also is not going to hurt your wallet importance items Moncler outlets qualities in a small fraction of the charge classic shops.

  55. outstanding quality, and also is not going to hurt your wallet importance items Moncler outlets qualities in a small fraction of the charge classic shops.

  56. Thanks this post really opened my eyes. it is not only eye opening rather very beneficial for the people those who want to do something good in his life

  57. HR facilitating the conversation and the employee was never given any solid reasons for the termination..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.