[mum]

Informative post
thanks Kman

[grassroots1]

Public education in Finland was completely reconstructed 30 years ago with the students well being in mind, our system is still the system created for industry.

That's not exactly true, if I remember correctly public education in the United States was greatly expanded during the progressive era which, if anything, was a movement on the part of the upper classes but was actually humanitarian (if a little paternalistic). This statement is inaccurate, I think, Mike. Also because Finland's educational system was created to give them an economic boost, and was not an entirely humanitarian effort.

The current public system inevitably does not provide education to most individuals, most of those individuals are indeed the poor themselves. A voucher system lets poor children go to good schools, they are more likely to get an education in a voucher system than the current one, whatever the flaws of a voucher system may be.

A voucher system lets poor kids go to (sometimes) better schools by paying directly into a private school. I don't think this is the proper solution, to sell public education down the river and turn education to the private sector. I think a better option is to improve the public system.

I do not know of any nation that doesn't have public education that is not also run by a despot or is not a war torn pile of rubble in the process of rebuilding.

In the late 19th century there was no compulsory education and no extensive public education system to speak of, and in that era there were the most child laborers, occupational fatalities and injuries, labor struggles, and in general one of the poorest qualities of life for the working man that this country has ever seen. Welcome to your war-torn pile of rubble in the process of building itself up. One important step on the road to that was universal, compulsory public education.

Kman:

34 years before compulsion laws began, Noah Webster estimated that over 5 MILLION copies of his Spelling Book had been sold? That's pretty good in a population of under 20 million, don't you think? And every purchase decision was made freely, by an individual or a family, and there were no federal, state or city tabs to run bulk purchases on – each decision was made privately, and in each somebody forked over some cash to buy a book.

This is not proof and is clearly written from a libertarian slant. "Every purchase decision was made freely, by an individual or family..."

I wasn't aware that propaganda counts as a source.

That would seem to suggest that most folks don't have to be compelled to learn, they do it on their own, because they want to.

Wow what a mind numbingly stupid conclusion this author jumps to.

William Cobbett on his return to America in 1817 observed that every farmer was a reader, unlike the European peasant.

This guy has an anecdote and you present it as proof? Did he speak to every farmer, I wonder? Is this better than a census?

You and I are confronted with a great mystery: we had a perfectly literate country before 1852 when, for the first time, we got government schooling shoved down our throats.

He has presented a figure for spelling books bought and an anecdote to prove that our country was "perfectly literate before 1852." That is bullshit Kman, real data and historical accounts suggest otherwise.

Mr DuPont said that less than 4 people out of every thousand in the new nation could not read and do numbers well.

Did he have any data to support this whatsoever?

What I am asking you for is data Kman. Not anecdotes or little stories that contradict the overwhelming evidence that public education has caused an increase and not a decrease (how would this even happen? Schools make reading difficult by teaching you to read?) in literacy...

Quality of life in this country has increased due to laws that are more beneficial to the common laborer, due to public education and health care assistance, due to economic development, and yet all of this is supposed to have come along with decreased literacy because public schools somehow prevent people from learning? This is bullshit. I want real data to prove this, not anecdotes Kman.

Let's look at Continental Europe:

Continental Europe

The ability to read did not necessarily imply the ability to write. The 1686 church law (kyrkolagen) of the Kingdom of Sweden (which at the time included all of modern Sweden, Finland, and Estonia) enforced literacy on the people, and by 1800 the ability to read was close to 100%. But as late as the 19th century, many Swedes, especially women, could not write. That said, the situation in England was far worse than in Scandinavia, France and Prussia: as late as 1841, 33% of all Englishmen and 44% of Englishwomen signed marriage certificates with their mark as they were unable to write (government-financed public education was not available in England until 1870 and, even then, on a limited basis).

The historian Ernest Gellner argues that Continental European countries were far more successful in implementing educational reform precisely because their governments were more willing to invest in the population as a whole.[12] The view that public education contributes to rising literacy levels is shared by the majority of historians.

Although the present-day concepts of literacy have much to do with the 15th century invention of the movable type printing press, it was not until the Industrial Revolution of the mid-19th century that paper and books became financially affordable to all classes of industrialized society. Until then, only a small percentage of the population were literate as only wealthy individuals and institutions could afford the materials. Even today, the cost of paper and books is a barrier to universal literacy in some less-industrialized nations.

From another perspective, the historian Harvey Graff has argued that the introduction of mass schooling was in part an effort to control the type of literacy that the working class had access to. According to Graff, literacy learning was increasing outside of formal settings (such as schools) and this uncontrolled, potentially critical reading could lead to increased radicalization of the populace. In his view, mass schooling was meant to temper and control literacy, not spread it.[13] Graff also points out, using the example of Sweden, that mass literacy can be achieved without formal schooling or instruction in writing.[14]

[url]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy[/url]

That is not the stats I have been reading:

Show me your stats.

"Official" literacy rates, published after the Census every ten years, have been as fictional as Little Red Riding Hood ever since 1940.

That's good since the statistics we are concerned with are before 1940.

I agree that the way we assess literacy nowadays is wrong and that our school system is failing. It does not follow that public education did not initially improve general literacy.

Simply posting some guys opinion that public schooling is the reason Finland is succesful is no better than you repeating your own previous unsupported assertion that it is the reason for finnish success.

"Some guy" is the head of education in Finland, Kman. You asked for a source and I provided multiple. You have provided shit if I might be so frank.

[Eran]

Has public education in this country been "captured" by teachers unions?

To a very large extent - yes. I am not familiar with Finland and its internal politics, unionisation rules, power balance, etc. In America, famously, teacher unions are holding back the public education system.

Numerous societies have existed without slavery. England in 1600 was essentially a non slave society.

Slavery was merely an example.

No society has ever lived by the NAP. By your definition states have existed through out human history even if they were just a meeting of the clan around the camp fire.

No, I am not equating states with NAP-violations. States always violate NAP, but not every NAP-violation is done by states.

In modern societies, NAP is only violated by criminals and by government. Criminals are recognised for what they are, and society can organise to fight them. Governments are considered legitimate, and thus their criminality escapes disapprobation. That is why I focus on governments. That, and the fact that they are much more powerful, can (and do) wreak much more havoc than any criminal organisation.

The whole Non aggression principle is utter bollocks. There is no agreement on what is legitimate and illegitimate homesteading. How much land can I homestead a tenth of an acre, an acre, a hundred acres? Can I himestead a stream, a river the Mississippi?

Communities are actually very good at defining the limits of reasonable homesteading. It is only when distant governments get involved that absurd results are produced. Be that as it may, some fuzziness around the boundary of legitimate homesteading is not an excuse for completely ignoring the principle of peaceful co-existence.

Libertarian NAP comes as close as humanly possible to creating a society based on mutual respect and peaceful collaboration.

I suggested a formulation of NAP in terms of avoiding physical invasion of another person's peaceful ongoing projects. If you are undergoing a project that legitimately requires exclusive access to a hundred acres (virtually impossible on your own), you can claim ownership to that land. More likely, a single family can only homestead a few acres at a time. Using a stream doesn't create exclusive claim - many people can use the same stream. Diverting its water to your fields may do so. It all depends on local circumstances.

Libertarians link legitimate property claims to an objective link between the person and the resources in question. Again, while the exact boundaries may be fuzzy, the principle is sound. It is much better than the current alternative, in which property is assigned arbitrarily, by political fiat. Don't you think?

Lets say you could get the Palestinians and Israelis to agree on the non aggression principle, what good would that do. They would both immediately create private companies to restore their rightful properties. The competing companies would be at war. The Non aggression principle answers nothing. Orthodox Jews could agree to the NAP of course. The Holy land belongs to God. God has lent out his rightful property to Israel. Similarly with Muslims the world belongs to Allah, if you want to live on the world you must obey the owners rules.

You are making a valid point, namely that NAP, in its traditional formulation which depends on the concept of property, is incomplete without an agreement on legitimate property. Hence my alternative formulation that speaks of people's ongoing peaceful projects. Or the homesteading principle which calls for an objective, interpersonally-ascertainable link between a person and the resources in question. Reference to divine promise isn't interpersonally-ascertainable. Having had your family work the land for generations is.

NAP would clearly back Palestinian refugee claims, btw.

Libertarianism is a pathetic joke. For me that's best illustrated by the Cato Institute.

How serious is your view when you take seriously the choice of name of one institution dedicated to the movement? Should I assume that you are one of the top 1% because you picked the nickname "Rich"?

It was only intended as an example of a free public school system that is extremely successful, to attempt to prove to you that publicly run schooling can not only be successful, but appears to be much more successful than a fully private alternative.

It can do no such thing, not only because there is no fully private example available, but also because different countries and cultures differ substantially.

In any given country, private schools tend to do better than public ones, despite the fact that the former are based on forced tribute from the general population.

If Finland had private schools, don't you think they too would be much superior to American private schools?

A voucher system lets poor kids go to (sometimes) better schools by paying directly into a private school. I don't think this is the proper solution, to sell public education down the river and turn education to the private sector. I think a better option is to improve the public system.

Why? Is your goal educating all people, as you claim, or supporting the concept of public education which you seem to cherish?

If better education could be better provided privately (just as food, shelter and clothing are), why not support it?

In the late 19th century there was no compulsory education and no extensive public education system to speak of, and in that era there were the most child laborers, occupational fatalities and injuries, labor struggles, and in general one of the poorest qualities of life for the working man that this country has ever seen. Welcome to your war-torn pile of rubble in the process of building itself up. One important step on the road to that was universal, compulsory public education.

The country was much poorer then. Child labour, occupational hazards and poor quality of life are all symptoms of poverty, and have nothing to do with public education.

What I am asking you for is data Kman. Not anecdotes or little stories that contradict the overwhelming evidence that public education has caused an increase and not a decrease (how would this even happen? Schools make reading difficult by teaching you to read?) in literacy...

Are you able to provide historic data to support your view? Even anecdotal data?

Public schools can certainly cause decrease in educational abilities, by either forcing or tempting parents to send their children to the government-sanctioned establishment rather than to the one which they believe will best help their children.

Just as public provision of housing, clothing and food made people in socialist countries worse off.


I picked one sentence from the Wikipedia article you quoted: "it was not until the Industrial Revolution of the mid-19th century that paper and books became financially affordable to all classes of industrialized society. "

Yes. It was the Industrial Revolution and the increase in wealth it created that made widespread literacy both possible and (later) beneficial for all classes. It wasn't (and couldn't have been) government fiat.

[mikema63]

Eran addresses the rest but

That's not exactly true, if I remember correctly public education in the United States was greatly expanded during the progressive era which, if anything, was a movement on the part of the upper classes but was actually humanitarian (if a little paternalistic).

Finland started from scratch, we treat our education system like a Christmas tree and just keep adding ornaments, the problems with the education system are at the core adding another program does not help and has over time decreased the flexibility of teachers and schools which is at the core of Finland's success.

They have basically replicated one of the greatest attributes of a private school system.

[grassroots1]

To a very large extent - yes. I am not familiar with Finland and its internal politics, unionisation rules, power balance, etc. In America, famously, teacher unions are holding back the public education system.

The American public educational system is influenced far more by industry than it is by teachers' unions. If teachers' unions were a driving force you wouldn't think that a teacher's salary would be one of the lowest you can get for an educated individual, would you?

If you want to get a sense of how pervasive corporate influence in U.S. education is, just take a tour of your neighborhood school. Enter the cafeteria and you'll probably find wrappers from Taco Bell, Arby's and Subway, fast food chains that provide school lunches. The third grade class may be learning math by counting tootsie rolls. Science curricula might well come from Dow Chemical, Proctor and Gamble, Dupont or Exxon.

If you live in Jefferson County, Colorado, Pepsi donated $2 million to build a school football stadium-in exchange for exclusive rights to sell soft drinks in all 140 district schools and to advertise in school gymnasiums and athletic fields. That deal is estimated to earn the company $7.3 million over seven years. If your local high school is like 40 percent of secondary schools in the U.S., students get their current events from Channel One, a twelve-minute television news program with two minutes of commercials. One Texas school even rented its roof as advertising space aimed at airplanes flying overhead.

It doesn't end there. Education in the U.S. has become big business. The "education industry," a term coined by EduVentures, an investment banking firm, is estimated to be worth between $630 and $680 billion in the United States. The stock value of 30 publicly traded educational companies is growing twice as fast as the Dow Jones Average. Brokerage firms like Lehman Brothers and Montgomery Securities have specialists seeking out venture capital for the 'education industry.'

"The timing for entry into the education and training market has never been better," glows a Montgomery Securities report. "The problems with American education have elevated education reform to a high political priority and technology is demanding and enabling a transformation in the delivery of education."

Analysts at the conservative think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation, Hudson and Pioneer Institutes, tell us that the problems in education stem from inefficient, bloated school bureaucracies. Conservatives talk about "school choice," referring to vouchers and other public/private schemes. Free marketeers strike a chord with many parents when they point out that families do not have the choices they deserve, especially in urban school districts.

However, according to progressive school activists, the problems in education have their roots in decades of unequal school funding. They say that as long as school districts are financed through property taxes, kids in poor, urban districts will never receive an equal education with suburban schoolkids. Wide disparities in school resources open the door for corporations to fill the gap (and their pockets), especially in inner city schools.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=889

An intuitive conclusion and the correct one.

not only because there is no fully private example available,

Find them in American history, when literacy was much lower and when children spent more time in factories than in a classroom Eran.

In any given country, private schools tend to do better than public ones,

Private schools have rich kids. Public schools have poor kids. Big surprise.

If Finland had private schools, don't you think they too would be much superior to American private schools?

If Finland had no public education system, I imagine that their population on average would be much less educated. That is what the data suggests.

Why? Is your goal educating all people, as you claim, or supporting the concept of public education which you seem to cherish?

Public education is what educates all people. Not a lump sum.

The country was much poorer then. Child labour, occupational hazards and poor quality of life are all symptoms of poverty, and have nothing to do with public education.

I'm sorry, but back then a few lived in extreme opulence and many lived in extreme poverty. The country was not much poorer then. The people were much poorer then.

Are you able to provide historic data to support your view?

I have already.

by either forcing or tempting parents to send their children to the government-sanctioned establishment rather than to the one which they believe will best help their children.

Parents have every opportunity to send their children to a private school. My parents did. I found that I received a far superior education in public school, personally, because it was more rigorous and less concerned with the opinions of my parents.

Just as public provision of housing, clothing and food made people in socialist countries worse off.

The "socialist" countries you're referring to were undemocratic. The "socialist" system I envision is democratic. In other words, ACTUALLY socialist.

Yes. It was the Industrial Revolution and the increase in wealth it created that made widespread literacy both possible and (later) beneficial for all classes. It wasn't (and couldn't have been) government fiat.

It was both. The industrial revolution created wealth. Government, under the influence of popular demand, ensured that it wasn't concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists.

Eran I will get to your post in the other thread tomorrow. It will be a long one.

Mike:

They have basically replicated one of the greatest attributes of a private school system.

Regional autonomy can just as easily be one of the greatest attributes of a public system. And do you have any source to substantiate that the regional autonomy is as great as you suggest?

[Eran]

Private schools have rich kids. Public schools have poor kids. Big surprise.

Not true. In India and in Africa you will find private schools in urban slums and poor villages, with tuition of $2-5/month, and still being self-sufficient and operating on a for-profit basis.

[grassroots1]

Yes look up "private schools in the third world" and you're bound to find a dozen articles from Cato, Reason, and Heritage touting the great beacons of market success.

[Eran]

Look up A Beautiful Tree. The author, James Tooley, is a professor of education policy.

His book documents detailed research, conducted in several countries, using dozens of volunteers, and published in peer-reviewed academic journals.

[mikema63]

An intuitive conclusion and the correct one.

I don't know about most states but Florida property taxes are pooled by these state before being divied up, the way money is sent to schools is independent of how much in property taxes a district pulls in. (of course there is also the federal money sent to states which has nothing to do with property taxes at all.)

Find them in American history, when literacy was much lower and when children spent more time in factories than in a classroom Eran.

And the average standard of living was so far below ours that families starved without their child's labor.

Private schools have rich kids. Public schools have poor kids. Big surprise.

What is your opinion on the privately run Harlem charter schools that have exclusively poor students from one of the worst school districts in the country, and might I add very successful students.

If Finland had no public education system, I imagine that their population on average would be much less educated. That is what the data suggests.

The only private schools in Finland are faith based schools legally required to be copies otherwise, there is no way to compare, that was also not the question.

Public education is what educates all people. Not a lump sum.

If all children have the money (even in the form of vouchers) to go to private schools why would only a lump sum be educated?

I'm sorry, but back then a few lived in extreme opulence and many lived in extreme poverty. The country was not much poorer then. The people were much poorer then.

The wealth of a nation is the wealth of the people.

Parents have every opportunity to send their children to a private school. My parents did. I found that I received a far superior education in public school, personally, because it was more rigorous and less concerned with the opinions of my parents.

I went to public school and they seemed far more concerned with the fcat than anything else, frankly one of the least rigorous places I have ever been in my life.

Then again since you wen't to private school I can only assume your family was much wealthier than mine, I wen't to one of the worst public school in the county, some of my classmates in high school were legally illiterate.

Regional autonomy can just as easily be one of the greatest attributes of a public system. And do you have any source to substantiate that the regional autonomy is as great as you suggest?

This is better for discussion in the new thread but the teachers have complete control over how they teach a class.

The curriculum requires that children can do algebra by year x, teachers have complete control from there, American schools have a curriculum the stipulates not only that children can do algebra by year x but what concept in algebra a student must understand by week y what book the teacher will use and how the teacher will teach it.

[Zarex]

Was a very good read guys, I asked about libertarianism because while I said I agreed with neo-marxism, that was an ideology I held for awhile before I had an epiphany about i. The past few weeks have, if anything, pushed me towards a sort of evolution and reexamination of my beliefs and I see myself now as a left wing libertarian, more aligned with the libertarian socialism school

[mikema63]

Nothing wrong with voluntary socialism, it does still qualify under what I consider to be a free market.

[Zarex]

What do you consider a free market?

[mikema63]

People are free to organize themselves into any system without interference from government, if socialism is more efficient society would become socialist on its own without being forced, if capitalism is better capitalism.

No one view about what is best is forced onto others, they operate freely as the wish to what ends they wish, a free market is generally considered capitalist but if there is no one imposing capitalism, and capitalism really does work worse than socialism, socialism would prevail.

[grassroots1]

, James Tooley

He is an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute

Like I said...

And the average standard of living was so far below ours that families starved without their child's labor.

This is also the reason that recently it was attempted that child labor should be legalized in this country because of "freedom to work."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/15/944736/-The-Right-to-Work-Now-Available-in-a-Junior-Edition

A magnificent step toward freedom it would be...

What is your opinion on the privately run Harlem charter schools that have exclusively poor students from one of the worst school districts in the country, and might I add very successful students.

If they work, that is fantastic. It does not justify a privately run school system in general.

Do you have a source?

If all children have the money (even in the form of vouchers) to go to private schools why would only a lump sum be educated?

Because you don't know that the person is receiving even close to a decent education if they need to rely on the private sector. If they have a flat $10,000 sum to contribute, they might only have a few options of private schools in their geographical area that are realistic to send their children to. If those schools are not up to snuff, they have no other option. If they have a public option, they can send their students to school free of charge. I am in favor of improving the public education system to the point that it is a valued and efficient and excellent education, much like the Finnish system, rather than turning it over to the private sector, which invites all sorts of problems. Including but not limited to children not receiving any education at all.

The wealth of a nation is the wealth of the people.

Meaningless platitude. The distribution of wealth in a nation is equally as important as the quantity of wealth produced.

the teachers have complete control over how they teach a class.

Again, do you have a source for this?

The curriculum requires that children can do algebra by year x, teachers have complete control from there, American schools have a curriculum the stipulates not only that children can do algebra by year x but what concept in algebra a student must understand by week y what book the teacher will use and how the teacher will teach it.

Again I do not deny that the American system is flawed. At this point you are only arguing that the structure of Finnish public education is superior to ours, and I can only be in complete agreement with that fact.

more aligned with the libertarian socialism school

Glad to hear it, this is where I align myself.

[mikema63]

I just got off of an overnight shift so I can't respond to your whole post before bed but.

Glad to hear it, this is where I align myself.

Libertarian socialists, from what I understand, tend to be for community run schools built by the parents and community in a form of co-op. While I certainly think such a school would not only viable but superior to government schools, it is not public education in the same way that you mean public education. A libertarian socialist would be for creating a school outside of the state, not for reforming state schools.

[grassroots1]

They are for communally run and operated schools which is what I am arguing for, as opposed to the privately owned profit-motivated alternative.

[mikema63]

I draw a strong distinction between community run and politician run.

The community is the actual people living in the community, with the child's interest's at heart, and with people who actually know the children, their needs, and their unique circumstances.

The local education boards, much less the Department of Education, do not know or have any of these, they worry about their contributions and being re-elected, they know nothing about the children, how to educate them, what unique need they have, they can't even agree with each other what shall be taught, and they certainly don't care about the children as their first concern.

How could that system ever be made workable? The more local and community driven (as opposed to politically driven) schools are the better.

Anyway, if I don't go to sleep now life will be hell later.

[grassroots1]

I draw a strong distinction between community run and politician run.

As you should and as do I.

Much like I draw a strong distinction between community run and private run.

Anyway, if I don't go to sleep now life will be hell later.

Same here, friend. Politics aside Mike, I don't want to be hostile with you.

[mikema63]

Same here, friend. Politics aside Mike, I don't want to be hostile with you.

I don't want to be on bad terms either.

This is also the reason that recently it was attempted that child labor should be legalized in this country because of "freedom to work."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/1 ... or-Edition

A magnificent step toward freedom it would be...

Freedom of contract and all that. Child labor laws do not prevent all child labor anyway, illegal immigrants and family farms being the highest use of child labor, people who are generally desperately poor should be able to get the extra income if they need it.

If they work, that is fantastic. It does not justify a privately run school system in general.

It does help the argument that a system under which schools compete with each other for students works better than a heavily controlled government system.

Do you have a source?

http://projects.nytimes.com/new-york-schools-test-scores/counties/new-york/districts/new-york-city-district-3/schools/harlem-success-academy-charter-school

Because you don't know that the person is receiving even close to a decent education if they need to rely on the private sector.

Parents are in the best position to know whether or not a child is receiving a decent educations, if a parent is dissatisfied they move the kid. I see no reason why I personally need to know exactly what everybody is learning in what order at what times.

If they have a flat $10,000 sum to contribute, they might only have a few options of private schools in their geographical area that are realistic to send their children to.

With of course, under all voucher programs proposed, the option of the public school. Besides a few choices is better than 1 choice. (also never underestimate the power of the internet to proliferate choice)

If those schools are not up to snuff, they have no other option.

I went to a failing public high school, I had no other option.

Again, do you have a source for this?

Highly qualified teachers and pedagogical autonomy

In Finnish culture, teaching is one of the most important professions of society, and substantial resources are invested in teacher education.

Teachers are trusted to do their best as true professionals of education. They are entrusted with considerable pedagogical independence in the classroom, and schools have likewise enjoyed significant autonomy in organizing their work within the national curriculum.

All Finnish teachers complete a master’s degree, either in education or in a teaching subject. They are considered pedagogical experts.

Additionally, the profession of classroom teacher is greatly valued and popular among post-secondary students. Only 10% of the applicants for teacher-education programs are admitted.

Finnish teachers set high standards for students’ literacy skills and interests.

Regarded as educational experts, Finnish teachers are relied on when it comes to student assessment, which usually draws on students’ class work, projects, teacher-made exams, and portfolios. In Finland, teacher-based assessment is all the more important because at Finnish comprehensive schools students are not assessed by national tests or examinations during the school years or upon completing school.

Teachers are vested with considerable decision-making authority as concerns school policy and management. They have almost exclusive responsibility for the choice of textbooks and have more say than their counterparts in the OECD countries in determining course content, establishing student assessment policies, deciding which courses the school should offer, and allocating budgets within the school.

http://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=7988&printPage=true

Relevant points bolded for emphasis.

Edit: Have you ever watched the John Stossel special "Stupid in America"? It has a good deal of the libertarian arguments about public schools and vouchers and probably makes the case better than I do in a more entertaining way.

[grassroots1]

Parents are in the best position to know whether or not a child is receiving a decent educations, if a parent is dissatisfied they move the kid. I see no reason why I personally need to know exactly what everybody is learning in what order at what times.

Parents are not. Parents often aren't aware of international evaluations of educational quality, parents can't guarantee that the schools in their city are quality, etc., especially if they do not have access to a democratic process that can guarantee it. I don't think you need strict curriculum either but it is important to have SOME curriculum and SOME standards of education.

I went to a failing public high school, I had no other option.

Your parents did not have enough money to send you to private school? Without public school, you would have had no option whatsoever. You would have been one of those kids with the right to work so that your family could scrape by while some wealthy capitalist reaped the rewards of your labor. This is liberty and justice?

Relevant points bolded for emphasis.

The cited article makes the case for why the structure of Finnish education is superior to ours, and within that context shows the importance of the freedom of individual teachers. That is not an argument for private education.