Ms. Conservative wrote in some interesting comments in response to my last post. I'll address one of them now, and perhaps the others later on.

Home schooling is indeed quite valuable for many people. I'm glad that it exists. The home-schooled children I have known have been remarkably well-behaved, mature, and intelligent.

If you think about it, home schooling does have a lot going for it. We often hear politicians and others talk about the need to make classrooms smaller. Now, the evidence on that point is actually shaky, and the benefits, if any, would likely come only after cutting classes by portions far beyond what has been tried to date--say, by half.

Even if you are still convinced that smaller classes are good, think of this: what is a smaller class than a child and his or her parents and siblings? That's what a large of what home schooling is about.

(I should point out that it's not just Mommy and Johnny; many home schooling parents are involved in associations that pool resources for special activities such as high school science.)

I remember a time when home schooling was illegal in that state where I was living. Some friends of mine, who lived at the edge of a smaller metropolitan area, did homeschooling. But it was practically (or in fact, I don't recall) illegal for a parent to teach his or her child in a home school. So my friends hid the existence of their kids from most everyone. Not an idea situation, of course, but it was what they thought was necessary.

Fortunately, home schooling is now open and above board in most (all? I don't know) states.

Rose P. writes in response to my previous post:

What we really need is a massive in-depth internal audit of education spending at both the Federal and Local levels. I agree that we have been throwing money at the problem for years now rather than fixing what really ails our education system.

Thanks for writing in, Rose!

Audits. Oh yes. Rather interesting things are going in in the record of financial accountability these days. Governments are now having to deal with the fact that their retirement systems are poorly funded--in large measure due to changes in laws dealing with accountability.

I'm all for increased transparency in public spending. If we're being taxed to do something in our name, then we ought to know how it's being spent. More and better audits, certainly.

That said, the record on education is fairly clear that more fundamental change is required. Despite a doubling of spending on public education over the last 30 years (I think that's right; see Education Myths, by Jay Greene for details), student performance has remained flat.

Many things contribute to that fact, and doubtless, fraud and the like exist. But a more serious problem, one that policy makers should and can address, is to introduce the use of the market through vouchers, tax credits, or other means.

Is a school year that originated in the demands of an agricultural economy suitable for today? Perhaps not. Writing in the Washington Post, Frederick M. Hess says that the current approach has many flaws. To name but two, it contributes to the achievement gap, and it puts the U.S. at an economic disadvantage compared with other wealthy countries.

I'd prefer to see some significant element of school choice implemented if such an approach were ever adopted. We've significantly raised spending for decades now, with little to show for it. Changes in how we spent the money are at least as important as the amount we spend.

Political commentator John Hood (here's a link that will be obsolete tomorrow) offers some useful words on political debates, and contrasts two approaches:

"At one pole, you have the shrill, mindlessly partisan, intensely personal style of political invective that has unfortunately become ensconced in some of the broadcast media and blogosphere. At the other pole, you have the namby-pamby, shades of gray, can’t-we-all-just-get-along approach that attempts to define differences way in a seemingly endless stream of weasel words and psychobabble."

True enough. What caught my eye was the word play in the next sentence.

"Neither serves the public interest. Neither keeps the public’s interest."

How so?

"The shrillness gets boring after a time, like watching the fourth or fifth season of a sitcom where the characters are all fixed in stone, the jokes are repetitive, and the put-downs obvious and absurd. And the namby-pamby is intentionally boring, right from the start, as a strategy to mute debate rather than air and resolve it."

The best path is to be willing to accept and even welcome significant differences in opinion without resorting to conspiracy theories, name-calling, and always thinking of the other side as living in bad faith.

Due to the qualities of human nature, that's easier said than done.

There many ways to use government for self-enrichment, including political patronage and outright fraud. But one form that often escapes the attention of even consumer advocates and “good government” watchdogs is self-serving government regulation.

Over 160 years ago, Frenchman Frederick Bastiat wrote the satirical Petition of the Candlemakers, who asked the French government to protect domestic industry by regulating the light of the sun.

The spirit of self-enrichment continues to this day. People who wish to work as snowboard instructors in France must first be certified as ski instructors. Though the sports are related, they are different, so the requirement gives an economic advantage to long-time ski instructors. Since Britain and Germany have their own organizations for certifying snowboard instructors, the ski-first, snowboard-later rule also favors French nationals over British and German ones, contrary to the spirit and rules of the European Union.

Happily for British and German snowboarders who wish to earn a few Euros by teaching their enthusiasm in les Alpes françaises, the European Commission has ruled against France.

Freedom for would-be instructors to ply their trade, and the prospect of lower prices for consumers. The European Commission got it right on this one.

Welcome to the policyguy.townhall.com blog. While I do a fair amount of blogging elsewhere, stop by here for observations and commentary, too.

As an introduction to this blog, let me say what it's about:
- Public policy
- State government
- Budgets, economics, education, health care, taxation, and other topics which concern state and local officials.

Here's what it isn't about:
- Politics
- Popular culture
- Sports

Here's what I won't be doing:
- Second-guessing the political strategies of politicians
- Serving as a booster of any political party
- Handicapping political races
- Telling you what I think about the latest blockbuster movie, what I ate for dinner last night, or philosophical or religious controversies.

If there's a word for this blog, it may be boring. Boring in the sense that it's focused on ideas and not personalities, analytical rather than partisan, and  earnest and not clever.

If you find the blog useful or a worthy read, great! If not, well, one of the great things about this country is the innumerable options available to us. Life's too short to spend your time reading stuff that has no interest or use to you.

By the way, thanks to the folks at TownHall.com for (re)launching this site. It should prove interesting.