People who support the vague democratic principle of public schools, funded by the entire tax base, will often say that education is a right and that our system of government depends on an educated populus. (In a future article, I hope to touch on some interesting moments in the history of education that shows the fallacy of this argument.) They will go on to pronounce how the only way to ensure equal opportunity for education is to have this enormous, shared tax as well.
But supporters of private schools often argue, correctly, that choice should be involved when a parent sends their children to a school. The very idea that parents should be perceived as customers, with the students as the resultant products, seems obscene to many public school supporters.
A few quick facts:
- According to the U.S Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics, our annual spending for secondary education, per student, was topped only by Switzerland and Norway for the 2004-05 year.
- All together, approximately $909,000,000,000.00 was slated for the 04-05 year (this includes elementary, secondary and higher education). Yes, almost one trillion dollars was allocated for public schools.
- The June 2005 document also notes that a "mere" $37.6 billion dollars came directly from the federal government. The rest of the money comes primarily from state and local governments.
- For a perspective, the report adds "taxpayer investment in education exceeds that for national defense." (For 2007, the president has requested $439.3 billion)
Even if we ignore the fact that this is an obscene amount of money (that has shown little in the way of results) it is necessary to point out that the majority of the money is coming from state and local governments. So who should be making decisions about the way our schools are run? Those at the state and local level. Federal financial mandates (as they are now) mostly apply to the improvement of science education ($13.3 billion) and special education ($11 billion).
What all this number crunching means then, is that parents and tax-paying citizens should be, for the most part, in control of how the schools are run. Yes, you are a paying customer with a direct say in the accountability of your local and state schools. If you see students graduating from high school that are "functional illiterates," then you have just wasted your (mandatory) investment.
To suggest that students go to school for a nurturing environment or socialization is to say that the only thing that massive amount of money pays for, are potentially "nice" citizens. Parents and the rest of us have every right to demand higher quality from our graduates. How we go about achieving this is always a matter of debate. But if we look at parents as customers as an effective model for ensuring success, then there must be some truth to the idea that competition spurs results.
"Oh, but what about the poor students who can't afford private school?"
The following article points out that there are several ways that states could go about changing the education system without having to resort to the outright destruction of public schools.
"On February 16, 2006, the president of the Milwaukee School Board, Kenneth L. Johnson, spoke at the Illinois School Choice Initiative's second monthly Educational Choice Speaker Series luncheon. His dialogue reflected the idea that parents must be considered customers of our schools….
Operating where parents had an option to choose something else and walk away from MPS meant that children aren't held accountable to the system, the system is supposed to be held accountable to them….
Johnson has been criticized for saying not to give the system more money until it can use what it has well, that way the consumer will know what whether it is a sound investment. Logic dictates that money shouldn't be given to people who aren't investing it well. There haven't really been complaints for more money. It is amazing what they have been able to afford using a customer driven model. Instead, they created efficiencies in bureaucracy by decentralizing the budget system. Governance councils of local schools control the budget and they approve of the education plan for that school. Councils made up of an educated populace; parents, business people, work well in a climate of customer service. It is their budget, their school, so they spend wisely…."
Interestingly, the change in finances for the schools also showed that lackluster teachers were abusing the system of seniority to avoid accountability. The direct involvement of all members of the community helped improve this particular district. Although competition between the public schools increased, the majority of parents opted to keep their children in these schools.
The article leaves out a few juicy details however. Did this new style of governance allow parents full vouchers to take their students to private schools? All the article tells us is the following vague detail:
"…MPS must improve and compete for students in a system where parents could choose whether to attend the public schools or some other program; charters or private schools within and outside of a school choice program."
Was there a measured increase in academic performance after these changes were made? Was there a measured increase in the quality of teacher as well, or did the changes merely stop the job-hopping?
Even lacking these details, it's heartening to know that the perception of parents as customers has been shown to be a positive influence on these public schools. If you have customers, they demand accountability, results, and a good deal for the money they invest. Certainly, this is a much more demanding route than just shoving students onto the next grade, regardless of their lack of skills. But hopefully, it will prove to be a highly positive influence on our standards of education.
