Posted on 06/30/2005 8:26:26 AM PDT by cinives
American public schools can be described in only one way: an unmitigated failure. The government has created an educational system free of the checks and balances that normally guide success and encourage innovation in the marketplace, namely, profit and loss in a setting of open competition. Instead, government schools shelter teachers through life-long tenure, virtually eliminating all accountability about what and how subjects are taught in the classroom. Furthermore, there are few incentives for cost-efficiency because this could result in budget reductions. Instead, whenever there seems to be a “learning problem,” the cry is for more of the taxpayers’ money.
The only real solution is to put education back into the marketplace. Unfortunately, some of the proposed “market solutions” are really still government solutions, since they come with political strings attached. One of the most popular of these is the school-voucher plan.
The Voucher Plan
The voucher has excited many pro-market advocates over the years. Under the plan, government would still collect taxes for education, but parents would be allowed to select the schools that their sons and daughters would attend. Theoretically, the government would be a silent third-party to the transaction, merely issuing the vouchers used as payment.
This would purportedly place all families in America on the same level playing field. School choice no longer would be a privilege of the rich; it would become a reality for all. Allowing parents to choose their children’s schools would make those schools accountable to them. If a school failed to meet particular parents’ standards, they would shift their children to another, taking the vouchers with them.
Unfortunately, proponents of the voucher fail to fully understand that the government involvement which has been so destructive of education would continue with their plan.
The Voucher Fallacy
For the voucher scheme to work as its advocates suggest, government would have to separate its check-writing powers from its regulatory powers. In other words, the government would have to allow parents to use the vouchers at any school of their choosing, without any comments, criticisms, or controls over that school’s curriculum or methods.
However, even a cursory examination of the reality of American politics exposes one inevitable truth: whatever the government pays for it ends up controlling. There are no exceptions!
Two cases prove instructive on this issue: Hillsdale College and the Virginia Military Academy (VMI).
Hillsdale College is a small liberal-arts institution in Michigan that has been admitting and graduating women, blacks, and other minority students on an equal basis with white men since before the Civil War. The college was never accused of or shown to have discriminated because of race or gender in its entire history. But in the 1970s the government decreed that because Hillsdale accepted students receiving federal aid it must comply with all federal regulations, including anti-discrimination laws. Hillsdale argued that since the government money went to students, and not directly to the college, it should not be subject to regulations. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that any college which accepts students who bring along federal dollars must follow the government’s rules. What was especially disturbing was the Court’s ruling that, even without evidence of discrimination, student aid could be terminated if the school failed to abide by federal guidelines concerning student admissions and anti-discrimination campus policies.
Twenty years later that precedent was used against VMI, an all-male military school that received money from the federal government in the form of student financial aid. A lawsuit against the school claimed sexual discrimination, and the court ruled that because VMI received federal tax dollars, it had to adhere to all federal regulations, including those prohibiting sex discrimination.
The Flawed Compromise
Although appearing to be a free-market solution, the voucher system could actually destroy any real alternative to the public schools. While vouchers might improve education slightly in the short term, over the longer run they would threaten to destroy any possibility of real school choice and undermine existing educational pluralism among private schools in America.
First, private schools accepting vouchers would become hooked on government money and increasingly doubtful over whether they could exist without it. Then, like the VMI and Hillsdale cases, government regulations would begin to envelop these schools. Maybe not the first day, or the first year, but eventually pressure groups with “politically correct” axes to grind would pressure the government and courts to extend controls to these new institutions caught in the web of government dependency.
Many private schools that wished to maintain their autonomy might be unable to survive the subsidized competition from the public schools and private schools that accepted vouchers. Those that did survive would most likely have to raise their tuition and once more become schools more or less exclusively for “the rich.”
Private schools accepting vouchers and the accompanying regulations would become de facto “public” schools, reduced to the standards and quality of the existing government system. All would be forced to conform to the government’s model, with no real competition and choice. This would take from parents any incentive to shop around for the best schools for their children. Some of the weaker schools might close, but the vast majority would exist under the government’s regulatory standard.
Finally, a new layer of bureaucracy would arise, with new offices to oversee the program and to assure that schools followed the rules. Once again, tax money would finance a bloated government infrastructure—money that parents could have been spending on their children’s education.
How different, then, would that system look from today’s current public-school system, in which parents are stuck sending their children to deficient public schools unless they can afford to pay more money out of their after-tax income for better private schools?
Although the voucher proposal may look like a market-based alternative to public education, when analyzed with foresight and an understanding of how politics actually works, it is revealed to be a mirage and not a free-market oasis.
Like it or not, it should never be forgotten that every government dollar comes with strings attached. Schools dependent on government money can never become the basis of an actual market-based educational system. To develop such a competitive system, we must allow and require schools to operate according to the rules of the market, where consumers—in this case parents—spend their own money.
This must never be forgotten.
Ok, then what is the solution? I can see his point and agree with it, but what is a good alternative to this situation? Anyone have any suggestions?
My solution is to put Republicans in charge of all teacher's unions and all public schools.
The answer is to require very limited testing twice a year for any student's school to receive the payment (and allow an option of only testing once a year, if the school is willing to wait a whole year to get any payment). Testing should be limited to math, reading/spelling/vocabulary/grammar, facts-only physical science, and possibly some very basic facts-only material on how government works (like the existence of federal and state senates and houses of representatives, governors, a President, etc. -- since a huge number of public school grads haven't a clue about this stuff). No room for political or religious issues, keep the tests to between 1-2 hours depending on age/grade level, and keep the questions and grading to a strictly right-or-wrong answer format. Have the tests administered at many convenient locations, administered by people who have no vested interest in the economics of the system, and who have no information about which students are attending which schools.
Set the standards to approximately the current 50th percentile of public school students, and once kids pass the twelfth grade level (even if they do it when they're 10 years old, which wouldn't be uncommon for a lot homeschooled kids), let them get their vouchers until they're 18, without any further testing. This system would allow homeschoolers, and little neighborhood private schools run by a mom or grand-dad or whoever in somebody's kitchen, to get the money for getting a minimum of the same job done that the public schools currently get done. Most would obviously do a lot more, but this would at least eliminate the need to limit vouchers to large schools which get inspected and regulated by the government, and would eliminate flat-out fraud by "home schools" or "private schools" which are doing nothing at all but pocketing the money (as is the case with a lot of federally funded adult vocational schools now).
See my post #4.
How about repealing all taxes used to fund schools (property taxes especially) and requiring parents to pay for school? Probably not realistic though. Some parents would still need financial assistance and there are state constitutional provisions mandating that the state provide an education to all. Vouchers with a provision that the government not be allowed to inquire as to which institution the money is directed by the parent? Feasible?
How about repealing all taxes used to fund schools (property taxes especially) and requiring parents to pay for school? Probably not realistic though. Some parents would still need financial assistance and there are state constitutional provisions mandating that the state provide an education to all. Vouchers with a provision that the government not be allowed to inquire as to which institution the money is directed by the parent? Feasible?
The solution is stated at the conclusion of the article - return the school systems to the private sector. Reform is impossible - all that does is add more layers of mandates and bureaucracy, driving up the cost and driving down learning standards.
Schools don't have to cost as much as they do today - most of the costs are a result of the bureaucracy and mandates from the state and federal government that have nothing to do with the 3Rs. The 3Rs and a lot beyond that can be accomplished in a lot less time than 12 years.
Public schools today are a jobs project, nothing more. Propaganda is second on their agenda, Education is last.
Most state constitutions that I have read on this subject limit themselves to promoting the education of children to be useful citizens. I've yet to see one (it may be out there but I don't know of it) that specifically gives children a RIGHT to an education.
In Pennsylvania, school codes from 1949 state this, but not the Constitution of PA.
Vouchers where the state has no oversight - not likely. How would you feel if your tax dollars went to vouchers to pay for an education in a madrassas here i the U.S. ? I know I wouldn't like it.
No, the only way is to stop funding education via tax money.
IMHO, there does not appear to be a politically acceptable solution to an intractable problem of poor schools.
see my post #9 - however, your solution is fatally flawed as well.
Think - who would set the standards for the standardized testing ?
If you rely on standardized testing to prove results, then you will need to use curriculum that matches the standards.
Most parents whose kids do not go to public schools (private, parochial, or homeschool) have problems with the curriculums (and methods) of public schools, and would not want to be held to public school standards for curriculums.
Sorry, I hit the post button before I was finished.
There's a difference between day care and schools that most people (not necessarily including you in this) have forgotten.
Our forebearers did very well with a 4th grade education - but, the standards were such that a 4th grade education in 1850 was probably the equivalent of a 12th grade education or better today.
And, I won't accept any argument that a high-tech society required better education. Yes, some jobs do, but consider this - the high tech society was created by school dropouts. Think Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, and many many more. And - have you met an 8 year old today who can't use a digital camera, computer with all types of software, and search on the Internet ?
Could most people pay for 4 years of school for their kids if they were not paying property and state and federal taxes related to education ? Maybe not the people with 8 kids, but those with 2 ? Of course they could.
Good idea for improving the voucher system, but I can go one better I can save the present system, (since our proposals are imposed and have no plan to get by the present Teacher-school board-voter coalition).
I would drop the requirement that teachers join unions (right to work states) I would require annual renegotiation of teachers contracts with a committee of the principal and several members of the community who would be elected during general elections and would be required to have no conflict of interest with the teacher's union.
I would accept the present system of school board and principal doing the annual renegotiation provided that every member of the board show that there is no conflict of interest with the teacher's union. In other words, eliminate the electoral influence of the teachers union and you have the job won. There is no way the teachers should be able to control the body that sets their salaries, approves their bosses and approves their curiculum.
Have the tests administered at many convenient locations, administered by people who have no vested interest in the economics of the system
You have noticed the conflict of interest issue I see.
I'd be happy to see all those consitutional provisions repealed. Nobody is "entitled" to anything that involves forcible taking of someone else's property.
But given the reality of innocent children with parents who are irresponsible enough to have children when they can't afford to support them (including paying for school), or parents who don't give a crap about their children's futures and spend all their money on booze or vacations or cars, I expect virtually all local communities would choose to set up some system to make sure these children get educated.
And the people with 8 kids should be getting the loud message that they have no business having 8 kids, if they can't afford to pay for their education and all their other basic needs, without taxpayer assistance.
Those types of parents are not seeing that their kids get an education even today, with all the welfare and gov't provided support. Seat time is not education.
You'll always have dregs in society. Why drag the rest of society down to the lowest level just because there are a percentage at that level ? Why not end the charade of educating those who don't want it/don't appreciate it, and set the standards higher for those who will work at getting an education ?
If education was cheap, and it had value in the eyes of society, even the dregs and the children of dregs might be motivated to try.
You don't appreciate what you get for free nearly as much as something you have to work for. Think the "Law of the Commons".
Indeed it's not. Which is why I propose a system in which tax dollars are only paid out AFTER some minimum results are achieved. And those minimum results, while very low, are still higher than what 50% of public school students are currently achieving at huge cost to the taxpayers.
Well, agreed there, but why tax dollars at all ?
Health care costs used to be affordable until the gov't got into it with medicare et al. Schools, the same.
Remove government and all regulations, that removes most of the cost, and each can afford his/her own.
Because the only atlernative is mandatory passive contraceptive installation in every female of child-beraing age who can't prove she'd be able to support a child if she had one. Irresponsible people keep squirting out babies they have no way of supporting, and if these babies grow up without any education whatsoever, they end up costing the taxpayers a lot more than the education would have cost (in many cases, by murdering or maiming said taxpayers).
"Set the standards to approximately the current 50th percentile of public school students, and once kids pass the twelfth grade level (even if they do it when they're 10 years old, which wouldn't be uncommon for a lot homeschooled kids), let them get their vouchers until they're 18, without any further testing."
***I agree. We have been discussing inexpensive ways to fast track kids through high school to avoid the liberal agenda and other idiocies:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1315730/posts?page=84#84
Unfortunately my thread title was not well thought out, because some parents might instinctively skip over it due to attached stigma, whether real or imagined.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.