Au contraire,
Pierre. That indictment couldn't be further from the truth. Who
could possibly be opposed to an educated public? It's the pathway
to success in our society. I'm very much a friend of rigorous
programs to create an educated public. And I'm also committed
to our traditional approach of funding universal education publicly,
with tax dollars. I don't, however, believe that the best way
to productively educate the public is the way we do it now, through
a government monopoly on the delivery of taxpayer-funded
education.
Choice, variety
and competition have been the bedrock of our free society and
the formula for success in most every other field. Why should
education be any different? There's certainly no shortage of competition
in higher education and that's delivered in large part by private
institutions.
The fundamental
problem with public education today is systemic. Public school
districts have increasingly become politicized, corpulent bureaucracies
in tow to their most influential constituent group: teachers unions.
The unions
have inordinate influence in recruiting and electing like-minded
candidates for school boards. Although individual teachers may
be dedicated to the welfare of their students, the first priority
and the raison d'etre of the teachers unions - like any
trade union - is the welfare of their rank and file. They negotiate
tenaciously for expensive benefits packages, pension plans and
restrictive work rules. Trade unions abhor competition among their
members, and the teacher unions are no different.
That's why
they resist compensation policies that reward individual performance
or salary differentials for teaching specialties that are in higher
demand or shorter supply. The unions prefer rigid pay grids based
solely on seniority and post-graduate college credits. These "friends"
of the public education status quo are, rather, foes of a better-educated
public.
The education
establishment is a closed loop. Teachers' colleges serve as the
pipeline for labor and the wellspring of bad ideas for curricula
and educational philosophy. From "look-say" reading
to "new math," one failed experiment builds on another,
impervious to complaints from parents. American students lose
ground each year to the youth of other countries in math and science.
Finite time and educational resources are redirected away from
basic academics to social engineering. Young minds are molded
to conform to the trendy liberal agenda, including diversity,
self-esteem, multiculturalism, environmentalism, situational ethics,
sexual reorientation, political correctness, etc. Little boys
are to be refashioned to fit the feminist vision.
Teaching
methods are dumbed down to accommodate the alleged short attention
spans of the MTV generation. (Absurd. Instead, educators should
be cultivating longer attention spans in students. The real world
doesn't reward short attention spans.) Homework is de-emphasized
because students don't want to spend time doing it and teachers
don't want to spend time grading it. (So they do "homework"
during class time!) Schoolyard games are redesigned to eliminate
competition, scorekeeping or "violence" (like dodgeball.)
Letter grades are disparaged (too judgmental and damaging to self-esteem).
Is it any
wonder that unionized teachers who themselves fear competition
are loath to sing its praises to their students?
Dissenting
parents are overwhelmed by the establishment. The power of the
unions and the politicians aligned with them, combined with the
apathy and naivete of too many parents make for an intractable
status quo.
I have long
despaired of substantive reform from within. What's needed is
a virtual revolution in public education. The best way to break
the stranglehold of the public education establishment and the
vested interests is to empower students and parents as true customers
rather than captive wards of the state. And the way to do that
is through vouchers providing portable funding comparable to the
current per capita cost of education in a government school.
The voucher
would be redeemable at the school of one's choice - public or
private. That way, the funding would follow the student. Over
time, as more private schools come on line to meet the demand
of newly-empowered lower- and middle-income parents (upper-income
parents have always had the financial means to opt out of government
schools), choices would abound. The power of the marketplace would
be unleashed to give educational consumers what they want while
forcing government schools to meet the test of competition by
improving their product and responsiveness.
Nobel laureate
economist Milton Friedman has advocated this proposal for many
years, during which time public education has only gotten worse.
It's an idea whose time is coming simply because there's no workable
alternative.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs
daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA.
