In the comparison of private to public schools there are a number of reasons that private schools inevitably do better than even the best of public magnet schools. There are the lower teacher to student ratios, the reduced bureaucracy, the reduced overhead which allows more funds to be sued directly for education, the greater flexibility, the ability to select better pupils, and so on. But there is one area in which even the worst private school still has an advantage over even the best public school. Private schools can expel students.

Public schools can expel students after a fashion, in that they can kick them out of a given school, but they can't really remove them from the system. Instead they end up kicked from school to school, disrupting various classes, until they end up at the worst, most dead end school they can find, where the inveterate trouble makers all end up.

So, why is this a problem?

First of all, it is a waste of time and resources. I know many claim that every child can be reached, but I have my doubts. And even if they can, there is a point where the child has to want to be reached, and if they don't, keeping them in school is just wasting their time and the school's time and money. Will they do better for having repeated ninth grade three times before turning old enough to drop out than they would if they had just been expelled? Would they not benefit more from three years of work experience than from three years of bad school experience? Some students just are not willing to accept education, and even in public school we need to recognize that.

Second, on their way to the final student dumping ground, these students disrupt classes up and down the academic ladder. Were we able to expel students rather than having to shuffle them slowly down the ladder, many, many students would be spared this disruption and would not lose valuable time having their courses disrupted by students who just don't want to be there.

Third, and most disturbing, public schools have a hard time distinguishing between students who fail due to discipline problems and students who fail due to academic deficiencies. This means that trouble makers and slower learners end up in the same classes. In other words, those who need the most attention, the most stable classrooms and the fewest distractions end up in classes filled with trouble makers who disrupt class, monopolize teacher attention, and generally make learning impossible.

All of which is the inevitable outcome of our commitment to making sure every student receives an education, whether they want it or not.

In place of this doctrine, I propose an alternate approach. Rather than a coerced public education, which forces education on children, I suggest we accept that some children, and some parents, will not see the value of education, and that many will make education more difficult for those who do want it. So, instead of required education, if we are to have public schools, why not write laws so that education is made available for all students, but they must avail themselves of it? And part of that process is that they must agree to abide by certain standards of behavior.

Rather than trying to keep students in school who do not want to be there, would we not be better served by providing education only to those who want it and are willing to behave themselves to receive it? Or are we not only to continue wasting resources but also impede the education of willing students by forcing unwilling students into their classrooms to disrupt classes and waste time, all to the benefit of no one?

POSTSCRIPT

As I have written before I believe that education is not properly the function of the state, and should really be left to the individual. On the other hand, I also would be quite happy to see nothing more than  the end of federal control of public education and the return of this function to the states, as it would allow much greater flexibility than we have today. Were states free to try alternate solutions without having to worry about the loss of federal funds we may see more alternatives being explored. Not just charter and magnet schools, but even vouchers, and, perhaps eventually in some states, completely private schools. It would be interesting to see what solutions a few decades of truly independent state solutions would produce.

Of course, this would also demand that the federal courts stay out of the matter as well. It would do little good for the federal government to remove itself from the area of education only to have the federal courts begin making rulings about national standards of education. So, in addition to the removal of the Department of Education, we need to recognize that education is not a federal matter, and that there are no "rights" associated specifically with education. So long as the states abide by the minimal standards expected of every government endeavor (color blind, neutral as to sex, and so on) the states have absolute control over the form and content of education, subject only to the voters in that state.