Say Anything Blog

Ms. Board of Ed

Let’s face it; present-day public school education ain’t pretty—note my usage of “ain’t” (acquired in public school). The classrooms are stuffed with students and the curriculum is stuffed with preparation for standardized tests. Kids are frustrated, parents are frustrated, America is frustrated. It seems reasonable to expect that our government should begin making public education its priority in terms of attention, research, and financial support, yet some people believe that the exact opposite will do the trick: privatized education.

Now while this might seem like a swell alternative for the middle class family that already pays its fair share for school through taxes, it is a non-alternative for families of low socioeconomic status and for recently immigrated families.

It is important to keep in mind that school is not just a place to learn math and spelling. School facilitates cognitive and social development, provides a safe and structured environment, drug and sex education, breakfast and lunch, and an opportunity for underprivileged children to be productive members of our society.

It’s difficult enough to find a decent paying job without a college diploma, how hard will it be without an elementary school education? The rate of violence is bad enough with mandatory schooling in place, what will our streets look like when school becomes optional, and for many families simply impossible? The gap between the poor and the wealthy is gaping now; what will our society be like if even education becomes a privilege of the privileged?

Joe “Voucher Boy” Schmoe

No one denies that education is an essential public good; America, with its service-focused economy, would never survive without an educated citizenry. So among the few responsibilities to which we should hold our government—and these should be few indeed if we are to maintain a successful free-market system—education reigns supreme. If for nothing else, we pay taxes so that our government could redistribute those hard-earned dollars for the benefit of the nation; and nothing benefits America more than a strong education system.

Education, if privatized, does not have to become “a privilege of the privileged.” According to the NY Times, the nation annually spends an average $8,701 in tax dollars per student. We spend this money on children across all levels of the income range. At the same time, parochial schools, even in larger cities like New York and Boston, have an average annual tuition of $4,000.

Now we all know that parochial schools rest on the lower rungs of the private education ladder, but few would deny that the average parochial student finishes school with more tools to get into a good college or become a productive citizen than even some of the best public school students.

In Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman once proposed a voucher system which would take that tax money and give it right back to the parents to spend on their children’s education. Laws would insure that education remains mandatory, while the vouchers would prevent fraudulent spending. Given the average parochial school tuition, we could end up spending less for a better education. When you factor in the rise in efficiency that a free-market scramble for consumer-students would produce, where cheaper, better schools would rise to compete with the current “product,” things would only get better and cheaper as we move forward.

Ms. Board of Ed

Dear counter of my point, I fail to see how your suggestion would improve our education system as a whole. The nation’s present goal in public education is focused on standardization for the sake of equality. Thus, regardless of the neighborhood, kids are learning the same thing, in the same way, at the same time. If all schools were privatized, who would determine the standards? Who would design the curriculum? If you say a government funded board of education, then what would be the difference between a private and a public school? And if you say that each school would be responsible for its own standards and its own curriculum, then we go back to the same achievement gap that exists today—perhaps to an even greater degree. 

If education were to be privatized, schools would become as varied as department stores. There would inevitably be the pricy, trendy ones, complete with freshly pressed uniforms and upper middle class boys and girls. And, of course, there would be the bargain depot ones, with discount teachers teaching discounted lessons for the kids of parents who could only pay by voucher. 

Now while having a wide array of choices in department stores is ideal for a society filled with folks of different strokes, is this really what we want for our children? 

Joe “Voucher Boy” Schmoe

Yes, it is; because a “department store” system would still rank considerably better on the model-citizen-production-scale than the current mess of uniform, rusty plumbing.

In what great biblical moment did the nation decide to ordain the edict “equality for all?” Has America ever been a nation of equality? Last I checked, what made us great was the stringent meritocracy of our “you get what you work for” system. If the current system is failing, that is precisely due to the soporific effect of equality.

Now does that mean that some kids will get poorer educations than others? Definitely. But it does not mean that those kids will get a worse education than they are getting now. If the lowliest parochial school teaches better than the average public school and charges half the price, even our worst-educated students will learn more in a privatized system than they do now.

And as for standards; we don’t need a complicated, bureaucratic board of education to set them. If we choose to have a uniform, base standard that all students must achieve in order to succeed in our society, this can just as easily be set by a House or Senate committee, which would hire the necessary professionals to write the few national exams to test those standards.

The efficiency of a highly competitive, private market will turn every currently-squandered dollar into a well spent commodity. Greedy capitalism makes an iron-handed auditor. And if those exams prove to be anything like our current “standardized” tests, the students of a truly motivated teacher—regardless of his level on the department store scale—would find those tests a joke, money being the ultimate motivator.

Ms. Board of Ed

You’re absolutely right, “you get what you work for” is pretty much the American dream (albeit worded in a manner less poetic than the Founding Dads would have liked). I have no problem with this system. It’s awesome. But can it really apply to children who have no choice but to take what they are given?

I am not suggesting that we force equality among naturally unequal people. All I am saying is that we need to provide an equal foundation: a starting point to allow children to reach at least some of their potential. This is the whole point of the Board of Education’s efforts to standardize the curriculum—a feat that can only be accomplished if schools have to answer to the government.

And as for your claim that even the worst parochial schools are better than most public schools—how do you know this will still be the case if the system is privatized? Competition tends to improve the quality of products and services, but how many schools will compete to serve the kids of the lowest socioeconomic status who can only afford to pay by “voucher” and who come complete with a slew of behavioral and emotional disorders? Or say one giant of discount schools, let’s call it “McPrivate’s” makes competition from smaller but potentially better schools impossible? Parents of low socioeconomic status tend not to value education highly or are poorly informed as to the quality of a school or the educational needs of their children. Many would opt for the cheapest school—with the cheapest teachers, lunches, and textbooks. Is this really a better alternative for our children? 

Joe “Voucher Boy” Schmoe

A voucher school system does not necessarily imply an unstandardized curriculum. All current businesses answer to the local or federal government in one way or another to maintain their licenses to operate. Voucher schools can just as easily follow government regulations—albeit, the simpler the better—to maintain a uniform standard of education. If a senate committee on education decides that all American schools must teach their students A, B, and C before awarding a diploma, then voucher schools will have to do so in order to keep their licenses.

As for knowing that private schools would remain better than public schools if the system were privatized, well, you tell me: If you had $8,000 to develop a marketable product, would you spend that money more efficiently by trying your hardest to beat out the competition, or by seeking advice from a group of unionized, third-rate bureaucrats who have their jobs merely because they’ve rested their laurels at the desk longer than the next guy? 

Schools will compete to serve all kinds of kids for the same reason that companies compete to serve every kind of customer—the smell of money produces quite the motivational frenzy to serve. And if “McPrivate’s” kills the competition, in a pure market system, that would only happen if the competition sold a lesser product at a higher cost; the second “McPrivate’s” makes a mistake, a slew of higher quality competitors will emerge to take its place. And it is irrelevant that some parents value education less than others, the cheapest schools would still get at least the amount of the voucher; which if we keep at the same value that the government currently spends on a child’s education, should buy at least twice the quality of the current average of parochial schools. And really, whether or not you value education, when does a person not want to get the most bang for his buck? 

Ms. Board of Ed

It isn’t just a matter of “what we teach,” it’s a matter of how we teach it. You say that the Senate can decided to make the topics A, B, and C mandatory, but they cannot control for the quality of education, which requires a whole lot of moola to be spent on research and development, high quality teachers, good school layout, new textbooks, etc. If schools are privatized, the discount schools may teach all the right things, but the experience still won’t result in good education.

As for the almost-inevitable rein of a McPrivate’s—you say it won’t happen in a pure market system. Well gee, how about a little old company called McDonald’s? There are plenty of small, higher quality places to get food, but they don’t stand a chance against the Big Mac. Is it because McDonald’s is really offering the best bang for your buck, or is it because the average consumer is easily lured by cheap and tasty junk? The education equivalent of this would be a cheap school in a convenient neighborhood with a principal that doesn’t ask much from the parents and a “degree factory” reputation. Think about the average 2-year college advertised on the subway and picture the elementary school version. Yes, schools would compete but on what basis? Would they offer the best education or the best bargain?

I am not implying that the system we have now is satisfactory. In my book, it gets a big fat D-. But what you are proposing is the opposite of what our education system needs. We don’t need less government interference in terms of schools but more. We need more tax dollars going to R&D, teacher training and salaries, text books, and all the other little necessities—like a decent lunch with a hint of vegetable and a smidge of nutritious value.

A public school system makes enrollment and attendance simple, whereas a voucher system might be confusing or arduous to the point of preventing busy parents from even bothering with school. Privatized schools might be great for the middle class, but not for the children who need a decent foundation most. Children of low socioeconomic status and children of neglectful parents would end up in the worst and cheapest schools, with less protection and supervision from the government. Sure, some of us would save a bit on our taxes but only at the expense of stunting the development of potentially productive members of our society—something we’ll complain about later when it’s too late. 

Joe “Voucher Boy” Schmoe

This argument is not about “saving on our taxes,” which we won’t if the vouchers remain at the same price as what we currently pay for an average child’s public education. This is about developing the best method to cut the gross inefficiencies of our public school system.

McDonald’s does not thrive because it offers the best bang for your buck. It thrives because a good chunk of America’s population cannot afford a better dining-out experience. Take a look in the restaurant; on the rare occasion that you see a suited-Wallstreeter buying a Big Mac, you’ll see the other patrons eyeing him with a look that says, “Man, you’re slumming today, aren’t you?”

The beauty of a voucher system is that every parent will be able to afford twice what the average parochial school provides. If we currently spend an average of $8,000 per child, why do some neighborhood schools provide good educations, while others lag far behind? If you guessed “the teacher’s union,” you win a prize!

That’s right, the teacher’s union: an anti-free-market organization that places good, experienced teachers in high-income area schools with other good, experienced teachers. What do they do with the bad, inexperienced teachers? They send them to the low-income, “high risk” schools with the other bad, inexperienced teachers. Notice a trend?

If you’re worried about “how we teach” as apposed to “what we teach,” I’d say the best way to make an impact is by getting rid of those factors that contribute to the quality of education discrepancies between schools. And the best way to do this is to get rid of unions and privatize the whole thing. When you make it private, the business owner will pay the best rates to get the best teachers in his school; not because he loves the students, but because he loves the money that their parents bring him.

Now under this system, will some parents be able to afford to send their children to even more expensive schools? You bet; the parents who care more about their children’s educations or are capable of investing more will get the better schools: you get what you pay for. But even the lowest income parents will be able to afford better schools than we have now. Why? Because when competition exists between businesses, they have the incentive to invest in R&D—far more incentive than a government whose leaders only have four to eight years of job expectancy to worry about before passing the failure to the next guy elected.

In a voucher system, schools will only compete on the basis of a better bargain down to the minimum cost of the voucher. The schools that charge $8,000 per child could only compete on the basis of education quality—there’s no point in getting cheaper, the parents have to spend at least the minimum $8,000 voucher (it’s the law). Given that it would still be the law to send your child to school (no option for opt-outs), how do you suppose that a pay-and-play system would be more complicated and arduous than our current bureaucratic mess? If we spend less time micromanaging the leviathan that is our education system and let the thing regulate itself, we just might burn the cobwebs and stir some much needed creative juices.