Friends,
Lately, we have been struggling with where to send our kids to school. I have had numerous conversations with friends and other parents only to find that nearly universally; most parents are seriously concerned about the lack of quality of education that exists today. The problem is this. A really good education costs a lot of money at a private school and a really bad education is free at a public school.
Private education has been and will always continue to provide our kids with the highest level of discipline within the classroom as well as the best academic skills when they leave for the workplace or higher education. But for that service, it costs a lot. In my area, private schooling starts at $9,000 a year and goes up from there. Then there is the home schooling route. This route provides the greatest possibility for academic success. The curriculum will be completely catered to the individual. However, kids who are home schooled have trouble interacting with their peers. This consequence is obvious. Students in public and private schools are interacting with their peers all day long. They learn to deal with other kids through their own experiences. Sometimes this is good and other times this is bad. But on the whole, this is life. Kids who graduate home schools tend to perform very well academically but they possess very poor social skills. Unfortunately, poor social performance may have a significantly greater consequence in the real world of business than a poor academic performance.
The last and worst option is public education. In this arena, teachers cater their curriculums to a lower caliber of student because it is the government mandate that no child be left behind. That means that if a few students begin falling behind, the teacher will have to slow down so as not to leave them behind. At a private school, these stragglers would be given an ultimatum. Perform or get out! Furthermore, since it is the law that every child be educated, there will be a group of students at a public school whose parents could care less about their academic performance. These parents view school as a form of free day care. Since most studies connect academic success with parental involvement, its safe to say that in any cohort of public students there is going to be a sizable percentage of students who don’t care about learning and will consequently drag the rest of the class down.
Moreover, what is being taught at public schools is controlled by the government and it is not necessarily what the parents of those kids would wish to be taught. In private schooling, parents ultimately control the curriculum because if the schools fail to provide a product worth purchasing, parents will withdraw their students and the business will go bankrupt. In public schooling, parents have little choice as to what is being taught. Even if those teaching contradict our values and our traditions, we must cope with the consequences that government education brings.
There is an obvious solution to the problem of “free” public education. The answer lies at the word “free.” See, a public education is not really free. We are still paying exorbitant prices for a lousy return on our most precious investments. How are we doing this? You are paying through your property taxes or other local and state taxes to repay various bond measures and public fiscal expenditures. The result is that you are paying a great deal for a very bad product. Since it’s our money, the voters have the right to determine how those funds are best used.
The best solution to solve this public school problem is to return to free market economics. Privatize! Schools would then, like any other private firm, be forced to compete for business. In this sense, the product that they would be competing to sell would be a good education. This would be accomplished by simply allotting each taxpayer with school aged children a voucher. This would be like a government reimbursement for taxes already paid, to subsidize our personal payment to a private school. Parents could then use this voucher to send their kids to any school into which their kids were accepted. Remember that under this plan, all schools would be private and students would have to apply for admittance.
What would the consequences of a voucher system be? Since schools would be forced to compete, many of the systemic failures would naturally be eliminated. Kids could be expelled for bad behavior or for academic failure. Kids would have to produce if they wish to go on in school and if they don’t, the state could provide trade schools to give kids working skills in lieu of an education. They do this in socialist Europe – I lived in France for 2 years and I had a chance to talk with lots of kids and college students. In order to go to college you have to pass the Bac – like the SAT in America. If you don’t pass the Bac then you can’t go on. The Bac is also designed to only pass approximately 30% of those who take it. Your option at that point is to go to trade school and enter the work force. The point is that kids would learn a totally different message than they are learning now. You have to produce if you want to go to the next level. Right now, kids are moved ahead even if they fail to learn the material. After all, we don’t want them to have bad self esteem! (Extreme sarcasm added) Most importantly, kids who excel could be moved ahead according to their competence with the material. There would be no incentive for schools to keep kids locked in “peer groups” as is currently the case. For the students, there are no downsides to privatization.
Furthermore, if parents did not like the curriculum, they could pull their kids out and send them to another school that was more in line with their wishes. After all, public education belongs to the people and not the bureaucrats. With fierce competition, schools failing to provide a good product would go out of business. Vouchers would also be ideal for good teachers by naturally creating a market for quality teachers. Really good teachers would command a higher salary than poor ones because they would be more valuable to the school as a means of selling their product, better education. Simply put, schools would be able to brag about their “teaching talent” as a means of attracting more students and more money. This would also instantly break the “Union” which is now holding the education of our kids’ hostage.
On the other hand, opponents of Vouchers argue that this system would create an unfair system that would perpetuate the usual societal injustices. The response to that simpleton argument is this. Do not schools in “richer” geographical areas provide a better education than schools in the inner city or “poorer” geographical areas? The problem is that your geographical location determines a lot about the kind of education that you can get. In the Voucher system, performance will be the underlying factor. Kids from any demographic or social situation could get into the best schools if they work hard. What a positive message! In stead of teaching kids that they don’t have to work to succeed, they would learn the rewards of hard work early in the school years. In stead of kids getting chided by their peers for academic success, they will be praised. With a more academically inclined student body, teachers would be able to teach to a much higher caliber of student than in our current system. I see no downsides. We would be replacing a lumbering, static system with a dynamic, merit based system.
There is only one danger. Since the government would, in a sense, be paying for nearly every education in America, they could interfere with the curriculum that is taught. For instance, what if a voucher school opened as a religious school with a Christian or Muslim philosophy? In the voucher system, they should be able to set their own rules and curriculum requirements independent of government interference. We must be careful that we prevent the government from controlling what the market will naturally control. If there was an economic demand for this school, they would stay in business. What I’m saying is that the market will determine these things freely and naturally. However, there must be safeguards that would prevent ridiculous lawsuits or unreasonable government interference. The government should only be able to oversee that kids are learning in a safe environment from any sort of criminal mischief. (Not politically correct mischief—that’s left up to the parents to determine what curriculum is appropriate and inappropriate)
I stand in favor of this system, because it would open up a lot of good possibilities for our kids. If the government was unwilling to work with taxpayers on this issue, we should all get refunds for the taxes we pay for public education if we have to send our kids to private schools. After all, we are giving the government our money to provide a product that fails in every sense of the word.
-Dave
Lately, we have been struggling with where to send our kids to school. I have had numerous conversations with friends and other parents only to find that nearly universally; most parents are seriously concerned about the lack of quality of education that exists today. The problem is this. A really good education costs a lot of money at a private school and a really bad education is free at a public school.
Private education has been and will always continue to provide our kids with the highest level of discipline within the classroom as well as the best academic skills when they leave for the workplace or higher education. But for that service, it costs a lot. In my area, private schooling starts at $9,000 a year and goes up from there. Then there is the home schooling route. This route provides the greatest possibility for academic success. The curriculum will be completely catered to the individual. However, kids who are home schooled have trouble interacting with their peers. This consequence is obvious. Students in public and private schools are interacting with their peers all day long. They learn to deal with other kids through their own experiences. Sometimes this is good and other times this is bad. But on the whole, this is life. Kids who graduate home schools tend to perform very well academically but they possess very poor social skills. Unfortunately, poor social performance may have a significantly greater consequence in the real world of business than a poor academic performance.
The last and worst option is public education. In this arena, teachers cater their curriculums to a lower caliber of student because it is the government mandate that no child be left behind. That means that if a few students begin falling behind, the teacher will have to slow down so as not to leave them behind. At a private school, these stragglers would be given an ultimatum. Perform or get out! Furthermore, since it is the law that every child be educated, there will be a group of students at a public school whose parents could care less about their academic performance. These parents view school as a form of free day care. Since most studies connect academic success with parental involvement, its safe to say that in any cohort of public students there is going to be a sizable percentage of students who don’t care about learning and will consequently drag the rest of the class down.
Moreover, what is being taught at public schools is controlled by the government and it is not necessarily what the parents of those kids would wish to be taught. In private schooling, parents ultimately control the curriculum because if the schools fail to provide a product worth purchasing, parents will withdraw their students and the business will go bankrupt. In public schooling, parents have little choice as to what is being taught. Even if those teaching contradict our values and our traditions, we must cope with the consequences that government education brings.
There is an obvious solution to the problem of “free” public education. The answer lies at the word “free.” See, a public education is not really free. We are still paying exorbitant prices for a lousy return on our most precious investments. How are we doing this? You are paying through your property taxes or other local and state taxes to repay various bond measures and public fiscal expenditures. The result is that you are paying a great deal for a very bad product. Since it’s our money, the voters have the right to determine how those funds are best used.
The best solution to solve this public school problem is to return to free market economics. Privatize! Schools would then, like any other private firm, be forced to compete for business. In this sense, the product that they would be competing to sell would be a good education. This would be accomplished by simply allotting each taxpayer with school aged children a voucher. This would be like a government reimbursement for taxes already paid, to subsidize our personal payment to a private school. Parents could then use this voucher to send their kids to any school into which their kids were accepted. Remember that under this plan, all schools would be private and students would have to apply for admittance.
What would the consequences of a voucher system be? Since schools would be forced to compete, many of the systemic failures would naturally be eliminated. Kids could be expelled for bad behavior or for academic failure. Kids would have to produce if they wish to go on in school and if they don’t, the state could provide trade schools to give kids working skills in lieu of an education. They do this in socialist Europe – I lived in France for 2 years and I had a chance to talk with lots of kids and college students. In order to go to college you have to pass the Bac – like the SAT in America. If you don’t pass the Bac then you can’t go on. The Bac is also designed to only pass approximately 30% of those who take it. Your option at that point is to go to trade school and enter the work force. The point is that kids would learn a totally different message than they are learning now. You have to produce if you want to go to the next level. Right now, kids are moved ahead even if they fail to learn the material. After all, we don’t want them to have bad self esteem! (Extreme sarcasm added) Most importantly, kids who excel could be moved ahead according to their competence with the material. There would be no incentive for schools to keep kids locked in “peer groups” as is currently the case. For the students, there are no downsides to privatization.
Furthermore, if parents did not like the curriculum, they could pull their kids out and send them to another school that was more in line with their wishes. After all, public education belongs to the people and not the bureaucrats. With fierce competition, schools failing to provide a good product would go out of business. Vouchers would also be ideal for good teachers by naturally creating a market for quality teachers. Really good teachers would command a higher salary than poor ones because they would be more valuable to the school as a means of selling their product, better education. Simply put, schools would be able to brag about their “teaching talent” as a means of attracting more students and more money. This would also instantly break the “Union” which is now holding the education of our kids’ hostage.
On the other hand, opponents of Vouchers argue that this system would create an unfair system that would perpetuate the usual societal injustices. The response to that simpleton argument is this. Do not schools in “richer” geographical areas provide a better education than schools in the inner city or “poorer” geographical areas? The problem is that your geographical location determines a lot about the kind of education that you can get. In the Voucher system, performance will be the underlying factor. Kids from any demographic or social situation could get into the best schools if they work hard. What a positive message! In stead of teaching kids that they don’t have to work to succeed, they would learn the rewards of hard work early in the school years. In stead of kids getting chided by their peers for academic success, they will be praised. With a more academically inclined student body, teachers would be able to teach to a much higher caliber of student than in our current system. I see no downsides. We would be replacing a lumbering, static system with a dynamic, merit based system.
There is only one danger. Since the government would, in a sense, be paying for nearly every education in America, they could interfere with the curriculum that is taught. For instance, what if a voucher school opened as a religious school with a Christian or Muslim philosophy? In the voucher system, they should be able to set their own rules and curriculum requirements independent of government interference. We must be careful that we prevent the government from controlling what the market will naturally control. If there was an economic demand for this school, they would stay in business. What I’m saying is that the market will determine these things freely and naturally. However, there must be safeguards that would prevent ridiculous lawsuits or unreasonable government interference. The government should only be able to oversee that kids are learning in a safe environment from any sort of criminal mischief. (Not politically correct mischief—that’s left up to the parents to determine what curriculum is appropriate and inappropriate)
I stand in favor of this system, because it would open up a lot of good possibilities for our kids. If the government was unwilling to work with taxpayers on this issue, we should all get refunds for the taxes we pay for public education if we have to send our kids to private schools. After all, we are giving the government our money to provide a product that fails in every sense of the word.
-Dave
2 comments:
I am right there with you on the Voucher suggestion. I have heard this being discussed the past few years and it is frustrating that it has not caught root yet.
As in many examples related to taxes, political powers seem to desire satan's route using force and compulsion with individual money instead of promoting individual choice.
I hope the opportunity comes for voters to be heard, and I hope that if the majority speak in favor, that politicians let the decision stick instead of choosing to blaze ahead with thier own agenda as they have shown recently here in Oregon with other issues.
One thing I would add however is that while freedom to use funding for the school of choice, and fostering that kind of competition and improvement is good, I think more than any other factor, the kind of time parents spend teaching thier children at home has the most influence regardless of income or school.
By virtue that private schools typically attract parents who care about thier children's education and development more than the average public school parent, the statistics are a bit misleading because these same parents are also some of the ones that are spending more time with their children tutoring and teaching them at home.
There are quite a few parents who do this for their children who are attending public schools and it is producing results of the same level as private schooling.
Right off the top of my head I can think of a few parents with Elementary kids who are in public schools and they are phenomenally intelligent kids who by comparison significantly outshine many of thier school peers.
Parents need to understand that they will have the largest impact on how well thier child does - even if they will never be geniuses, they will always learn and grow much better with the proper support of their parents despite the performance of their public or private school.
All that said, I do feel that vouchers and privitization will force the most positive changes in education at a system level, because the schools will have to work harder and smarter to attract paying students and this will also encourage parents to think more about thier decisions and to be more involved spending time with thier kids after school to help them be successful.
I love what you are doing here - president Hinkley has challenged us all to be more influential and stand up for what we believe is right.This is a good way to encourage dialogue and get people thinking about things far more meaningfull than television drama.
_Todd McD.
I think that you are absolutely correct in your assessment that kids of actively involved parents tend to do significantly better than kids of parents who care very little. It would be fantastic if parents could expect that from 8 till 3, their kids were getting the kind of academic instruction that our parents and grandparents received up to the 1950's, which has led to the greatest economic boom in all of human history.
Post a Comment