A colleague and I were debating education policy the other day at work. If we can transfer that debate here, this blog might actually live up to its name and purpose!
This post is going to be about big picture education ideas, so if you want more specifics from me, look here (be warned, it is probably far more detail than you want). But the big ideas we will talk about get at fundamental philosophies of public education.
Let me start with the least controversial idea (at least in the context of a debate between two avowed liberals). I think if we really want to improve education, we need to spend a lot more money. There is a reason people with means spend $30,000 on private education. They clearly feel that the education is worth that much money. In an ideal world, we would be able to spend that much money per student on public education. And based on how private schools spend their money, we use that money to get much smaller class sizes, more teacher support, and more subjects.
But we don't live in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we live in a world with trade-offs and budget constraints. So while I will always advocate for more money for education, I recognize that significant increases are unrealistic in the near term.
While we are not, and cannot, spend as much as we need on education, we need to have policies that give all families the freedom to make educational decisions that are best for their children. And the best way to give families choice is through charter schools and vouchers.
Before I continue, I should say that I do not believe that charter schools and vouchers will necessarily improve the community public schools. My faith in choice and markets is not that blind.
Instead, I believe all families should have the ability to take their kids to other schools - be they charter, secular private, or parochial - when the local community school is failing them. In situations where the local public school is not delivering, middle and upper income families find ways to get their kids out of those schools. High income families usually find private schools while middle income families move to another neighborhood. Lower income families however are often trapped because they cannot afford either option.
The really big problem is that they don't have to be trapped. We could give them the opportunity to attend a comparably priced private school or charter school. Many liberals however believe that by letting poor kids leave public schools, we are hurting the failing public school by taking motivated kids out of the school. I do not think it is fair to require low income students to stay in a bad school in hopes that it won't get worse when we don't require middle or upper income kids to do the same.
That line of thinking seems to rest on the assumption that the government's goal is to protect public schools. I disagree completely. I think the government's goal is to educate children. Allowing children and families the choice over how they are educated fits perfectly within that goal. Protecting public schools that do not provide a good education does not.
I also think, although this argument is on shakier ground, that by giving families choice over their education, you can make them more motivated. After all, if a family's only choice is a terrible public school, what motivation do they have to spend a lot of effort on education. Instead, I can imagine families being more motivated and engaged when they have the choice between the local school, charter schools, and private schools. I of course cannot back this up - it is just a theory of mine.
Some on the left are concerned that vouchers would violate the establishment clause of the constitution since they would allow children to use public money to attend parochial schools. I don't think this argument has any merit whatsoever. Providing funds for children to attend private schools of their choice cannot reasonably be construed as the government establishing the religion of any or all of the parochial schools the children choose.
I am also not convinced that charter schools or vouchers will hurt public schools - at least financially. Most public schools (especially in city and county-wide school districts) are funded based on per pupil formulas. When children move out, the school's budget decreases. So the same thing happens whether a child moves to a different town or uses a voucher to attend a private school. We aren't up in arms about schools losing money every time their population decreases, so we shouldn't think it would be a catastrophe when the same principle is used with vouchers.
The only way that I could see vouchers hurting public schools was if the vouchers were not means tested. If we start subsidizing families that were going to send their kids to private school anyway, it is likely that significant money would leave public education.
I do recognize the problem with "skimming off the top." It is likely that the better and more motivated students would leave the poor performing public schools. But I feel that freedom and choice for the family is a greater concern. And again, I don't see why we should hold low income motivated students hostage at bad schools.
The bottom line is that I believe that all families should have the ability to choose the nature of their kids education. (On a slight tangent, this is why I oppose a national curriculum, even if I was confident that it would be a progressive curriculum. While I want my kids educated in that way, I think parents should be free to chose a different form, even *gasp* one that uses rote learning.) And so it is with vouchers. Low income families should have the same ability to chose what type of education their child gets as middle and higher income families do. They should not be anchored to failing schools in a misguided belief that we need to protect public schools. Giving every kid, or as many as we possibly can, the best education possible is government's goal.
17 comments:
PART I
Vouchers and charters are two different issues, although they really are two sides of the same coin. Vouchers, by and large, are on the decline because of their controversial experience in public policy and because of the rise of charter schools, which voucher advocates feel accomplishes the same goal.
Both deal with the concept of “choice.” But let’s get to that later. First, let’s start with the question of whether or not vouchers actually work. You stated the primary goal of the government’s role in education is to “educate children.” So, when implemented, do vouchers actually improve the education of children? By and large, the evidence is that they decidedly do not.
The most significant voucher program in the United States exists, and still does, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It was announced to much fanfare, but in the two decades since its implementation, the data is an enormous disappointment. Initially, the data was mixed, but the most recent research (for example, the studies performed by the University of Arkansas’ school choice demonstration project) show that voucher students don’t actually perform any better than their peers not participating in school choice. And, in some cases, they perform far worse. This isn't very surprising. Overall, the test scores of private school students and public school students are basically on par. The data becomes more complicated when looking at where the students came from. In most studies, the students that show the most gains are those that came from non-SINI (schools in need of improvement) schools, while their counterparts from SINI schools did not see any gains. This mitigates any claim that we are improving the education of students who are in struggling schools.
Moreover, the data in Milwaukee seems to show that the voucher program has had little to no impact on the improvement of public schools by creating an environment of competition or extracting low-performing students from the system. I say “seems” because, as with all education policies, it is always hard to say what has an impact with the innumerable competing reforms going on at the same time. That said, this seems to be the consensus of the researchers.
Finally, the number of opportunists that took advantage of the voucher program is extraordinarily disappointing. In Milwaukee, a convicted rapist ran a “school” (in reality it was little more than a few rooms where marginal instruction was going on) and collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money. This, perhaps, could be blamed on poor administration of the program. But it points to a fundamental flaw in the voucher system. We are providing large amounts of taxpayer dollars that end up in the coffers of organizations we have no control over. Voucher advocates wouldn’t want us to increase our control over these organizations, because that would defeat the purpose of vouchers. But they can’t escape the fact that taxpayer dollars are being funneled to private organizations that may be upstanding, stellar educational institutions or they may be dysfunctional failures or, worse, complete and utter frauds.
There are a number of other issues I could address with regard to voucher performance. But, because of the efforts of voucher advocates, we have a wealth of data in our hands from Milwaukee to Cleveland to DC. And the data only disappoints. On the whole, vouchers simply do not provide gains. They don’t improve the education of children. In my opinion, the argument should basically end there.
PART II
But it likely won’t, because of this notion of "choice." School choice has been increasingly fetishised in the "reform movement." The obsession with choice as the answer for school improvement, I think, is ironic since its origins are less than savory. School choice began not as a public policy notion to improve education for all students, but with desegregation. White parents, angry that their kids would have to sit in a classroom with black students, rallied behind "choice." If they wanted, they argued, white parents (and, in fact, some black parents, because in this era the concerns often went both ways) should be able to send their kids to the schools they thought were best for their kids (i.e. white schools). Of course, we found fault with this argument. Its discriminatory, it would undoubtedly lead to decreased performance among non-white schools (the consequences of which, we still see today) and there is an inherent educational benefit to diverse classrooms. And so we forced desegregation and began bussing kids.
(Side note: as to the religious question, which I won’t go into in great detail, this is far from a settled matter. The only reason we allow vouchers for parochial schools is because of a 5-4 supreme court decision. There are 4 very significant supreme justices who, frankly, think you’re wrong.)
I won’t argue that widespread school choice would inevitably lead to this kind of de facto segregation, at least not here. But that argument has merit and this is the origin of the movement.
I will argue that I don’t think there is any fundamental right for parents to decide that they should be able to send their kid to whatever school they want to: public, private, or parochial. There are a number of reasons for this.
PART III
First, the government has a responsibility to provide an education system that benefits to the greatest degree the greatest number of students. It can’t appropriately do this if parents are, willy nilly, sending their children wherever they want. Schools are, by definition, a collection of students, teachers and administrators. While teachers are incredibly important, the student body is just as important. Students will often learn more from their peers—from content, to motivation, to socialization, and to emotional development—than they would ever learn from their teachers. The government has a responsibility to provide public schools that enjoy this beneficial environment for all students and it cannot do this when many students are leaving for private schools on the government dime.
Second, there are very few government programs in which we just offer out money to individuals and trust they will make the right choice for taxpayer funds. We don’t do this because, by and large, people are terrible at making responsible decisions, especially in the aggregate. This may sound paternalistic, but it’s the basic reason for government’s existence, whatever your political philosophy: government solves coordination problems. The reason we, along with most developed nations, have a public education system is that we think that by pooling our resources, we can develop a system that benefits all of us better than if we went it alone. It’s the same reason why we have a national military, why we have a municipal fire and police department, or a municipal sanitation department. Beyond the guarantee of trust, government exists because by pooling our resources we do better than by going it alone.
Third, it’s a misappropriation of taxpayer funds. This is my tea party moment. My goddamned tax dollars aren’t gonna go to some private school I have no control or vote over. Goddamnit.
Fourth, the public sector is the public sector and the private sector is the private sector. Government has the responsibility to provide public systems that are available to ALL citizens. In some cases, the private sector may do things better. And that's their prerogative. That’s not limited to education, it’s true in a variety of industries. But just because in some cases, a private company may appear to do something better doesn’t mean we abandon the public system. The public system is OUR system. It is available to everyone. It excludes no one. Does it have problems? My god yes. But we don’t quit and run by providing some families taxpayer-funded government hand-outs so they can run to the private sector.
In conclusion: vouchers don’t work, and even if they did, there is no fundamental right of parents to them.
PART I
Let me start off with the comment that I find the most appalling, and probably the one that is at the root of our debate.
You say that people of any political persuasion agrees that people make terrible decisions in the aggregate and need government to solve coordination problems. I would say that very few people feel this way about government, least of all me.
I think government exists for three reasons, which I can explore further in another post but will summarize here. First, government exists to protect and encourage market transactions. Second, government exists to solve specific market failures, like public goods and negative externalities. And finally, government exists to provide people with their civil and human rights.
Education, I believe fits into both of the last two categories. It is both a public good that would be underprovided without government support and also is a human right. Public goods we know suffer from free riders unless provided by government. However, government still solves the free rider problem if it privatizes any of its services. The problem is more in collecting the revenue than in who actually provides the service.
While the free rider problem sounds similar to the coordination problem you mention, I feel that there is a distinct difference between our two positions. You seem to think that people always make bad decisions, in the aggregate (you are right to say it sounds like paternalism). I believe that in general people make good decisions except in cases where incentives push them the wrong way.
I think about my own life and am appalled that someone thinks that government can and should make decisions for me. I know what is best for me and my family and I want the most flexibility to do that. I want the option to send my kids to the local community school, a progressive charter school, a traditional single-sex charter school, or a private school.
You can argue that government shouldn't subsidize families of means who want to send their children to private schools, and I would agree. But people without means should have the same freedom as everyone else.
Part II
You also talk about results. I explored this concept in an old post, but one thing I want to mention again is that studies in DC showed no gains at charter schools, but parental satisfaction was higher at charter schools. My take on that is that parents want options and they are happier when they can choose and choose successfully.
But part of me also thinks results be damned. What is important is the principle of freedom. If parents want to send their children to a charter school or private school for whatever reason, they should be free to do so. Maybe they care more about the type of education (progressive or traditional) then they do about learning from other kids in their community. I believe that parents can and should make those decisions themselves - not self-important bureaucrats.
You suggest that private schools are out of the control of the government as a reason for opposition. That is something easily remedied. The government can provide much more oversight through auditing and accreditation. Thus dealing with your public is public rant and the so-called opportunists.
Finally, I will touch on your theory of the origins of the choice movement. First of all, even if your take on history is true, I find it irrelevant. If we are concerned about segregation under the current plans, than let's address that. But don't play that lame argument tactic where something is guilty by perceived association.
Modern efforts at school choice are attempts to reverse segregation, not promote it. And it is hard to have a system that is more segregated than it is now. Most of the under-performing schools are in urban settings and largely populated by children of color. Vouchers and charter schools at least offer the possibility of further integration, whereas the community schools are locked into the demographics of the neighborhood.
To conclude, I firmly believe that all people want control over their lives and freedom to make decisions about education for their families. No one wants, nor should they want, the government to make these decisions for them. Right now, that choice only exists for upper and middle income families, and that is the epitome of unfairness.
PART I
The position that government is a means to provide for collective action has always been seen as one of, if not the, fundamental roles in government. And it underlies all three of your justifications for its existence.
I will explain in turn:
First (it disturbs me only a little that you put this first, but no bother) government's protection of market transactions is actually just an incarnation of a solution to a coordination problem. Without government, if I'm equal in strength or stronger than you, then there's little incentive for me not to just defraud you in any transaction we have and take you for all you've got. The market is basically a set of rules for successful collective action, and it is guaranteed by government, without which it would not exist or have any value.
Second, a market failure is, at its basic level, an instance of a coordination problem. To take your example of negative externalities, if all the factories polluted all they wanted, they’d all be fucked. Or at least their children would be. A market failure and a coordination problem. Hence government intervention.
Finally, civil and human rights. These also, are basically principles to solve a coordination problem. Maybe you’re a natural rights believer, in which case, we will just agree to disagree here. But if they are not natural, then they are the product of a social contract that we have with one another. Again, a contract to solve a problem of coordination.
But here’s the crux of our disagreement. You seem to believe that disallowing choice within the public schools is somehow government encroaching on a "right" or "freedom" that is guaranteed to you.
I disagree. You have the right to enroll your child in a public school that is available to every child. If you don’t want to do that, you can send them to a parochial or a private school. That’s your right.
Where we disagree is your assumption that you should have the “right” to send your child to any public school you want.
Asserting that right, however, is damaging to the system as a whole. So while YOU may be temporarily better off, you are either making someone else simultaneously worse off, or you are damaging the system as a whole.
Thus the coordination problem.
PART II
I believe that a good school is one that has a core set of standards of a rigorous curriculum that is shared both regionally and nationally. It provides adequate teacher training and professional development. It provides services to all children, regardless of background or proficiency. And it serves as a function of its community, reflecting the diversity of its residents and promoting social connections.
School choice decimates this vision. It decapitates the notion of a shared curriculum, allowing some schools to succeed while others dip lower. Its driving engine, “accountability and results,” forces schools to narrow their curricula, strangling important subjects like the arts or physical education. It pits teacher against teacher, alienating them and decentralizing professional development to a degree of uselessness. It allows wealthy and/or motivated parents to seek better options for their children while the kids of poorer, overworked parents (or, to no fault of the kids, just plain bad parents) to fall behind. And it destroys any notion of the school as a community hub, distancing teachers from any context of their student's home life and their parents.
I think my version of public education would serve the most kids the best. Now, and this is important, it may not, I repeat, it may not, be what YOU want for your kids.
Well tough.
You may think another system works better. But that’s not how public services work. If you don’t think that’s what you want for your kids, take them elsewhere. That’s your right. But government’s role is to provide the optimal system that is open and best for all kids.
Finally, and this is important: government has an interest in an educated society. In fact, YOU have an interest in an educated society. One that leads to greater prosperity. One that is competitive in science, math, language, and yes, the arts as well. We have an interest in providing a public education that best serves these goals and moves the country forward. That’s why education is compulsory in this country. It is both a right AND a requirement that you get some kind of adequate education. Parents don’t have the “freedom” to choose whatever they want. They can’t just pull their kids out of school and send them to till the fields if they think that’s the better education for their kids. Why? Because that’s stupid. And because that’s not the best thing for that child or for the country.
As a citizen, you have agreed to abdicate many of your freedoms to gain protections and assurances. You don’t have the right to do whatever you want. And I’m thankful for that. While I’m confident you would make the right decisions for your child, we know that far too many constantly make terrible decisions. While many of those decisions are within their rights to make, some simply are not. The best government can often do is make a public service available to all and improve it to the best it possibly can. Don’t want to send your kid to school? Well, either make me some butter and whip out your Amish hat or get the hell out of here. Every time you exercise any of your “freedoms,” you are simultaneously recognizing government’s prerogative to make all kinds of other decisions for you. And this is one of them. So deal with it.
PART II
I believe that a good school is one that has a core set of standards of a rigorous curriculum that is shared both regionally and nationally. It provides adequate teacher training and professional development. It provides services to all children, regardless of background or proficiency. And it serves as a function of its community, reflecting the diversity of its residents and promoting social connections.
School choice decimates this vision. It decapitates the notion of a shared curriculum, allowing some schools to succeed while others dip lower. Its driving engine, “accountability and results,” forces schools to narrow their curricula, strangling important subjects like the arts or physical education. It pits teacher against teacher, alienating them and decentralizing professional development to a degree of uselessness. It allows wealthy and/or motivated parents to seek better options for their children while the kids of poorer, overworked parents (or, to no fault of the kids, just plain bad parents) to fall behind. And it destroys any notion of the school as a community hub, distancing teachers from any context of their student's home life and their parents.
I think my version of public education would serve the most kids the best. Now, and this is important, it may not, I repeat, it may not, be what YOU want for your kids.
Well tough.
You may think another system works better. But that’s not how public services work. If you don’t think that’s what you want for your kids, take them elsewhere. That’s your right. But government’s role is to provide the optimal system that is open and best for all kids.
Finally, and this is important: government has an interest in an educated society. In fact, YOU have an interest in an educated society. One that leads to greater prosperity. One that is competitive in science, math, language, and yes, the arts as well. We have an interest in providing a public education that best serves these goals and moves the country forward. That’s why education is compulsory in this country. It is both a right AND a requirement that you get some kind of adequate education. Parents don’t have the “freedom” to choose whatever they want. They can’t just pull their kids out of school and send them to till the fields if they think that’s the better education for their kids. Why? Because that’s stupid. And because that’s not the best thing for that child or for the country.
As a citizen, you have agreed to abdicate many of your freedoms to gain protections and assurances. You don’t have the right to do whatever you want. And I’m thankful for that. While I’m confident you would make the right decisions for your child, we know that far too many constantly make terrible decisions. While many of those decisions are within their rights to make, some simply are not. The best government can often do is make a public service available to all and improve it to the best it possibly can. Don’t want to send your kid to school? Well, either make me some butter and whip out your Amish hat or get the hell out of here. Every time you exercise any of your “freedoms,” you are simultaneously recognizing government’s prerogative to make all kinds of other decisions for you. And this is one of them. So deal with it.
PART I
If I am understanding your overall point correctly, you are saying that since the system would be better overall by denying choice to families, then this justifies denying that choice.
First, let me point out that you haven't shown that choice has or would lead to worse outcomes. What you have shown, which I will concede at least for now, is that children do not see improved test scores by attending private schools. But as far as I can tell, they do not see decreased test scores. Instead you use logic to show why it could, or in your mind definitely would, lead to worse overall outcomes. I am not at all convinced by your reasoning.
I also want to add that test scores need not be the most important metric. What if the students actually do slightly worse academically, but are better emotionally because the environment is safer? The family might make the rational decision that the private school option is better.
This leads me to a very important point: it is impossible for government to weigh all the factors correctly to determine the best course for the public at large; in the end, there are too many things to be considered. This is why government policy-makers should feel humble and restrained and air on the side of letting individuals weigh those options and make the decision themselves. Your assumption that government knows best overestimates government’s ability and underestimates people’s ability to make their own decisions (you noted in a previous comment about your communist past and I do wonder how far you have actually moved).
I anticipate you noting some of the times when government is this arrogant, and I am happy to take those up as you present them (or maybe for another post?).
PART II
Your argument also rests on the theory of a social contract, which allows for collective action that can trump individual freedoms. I agree that this exists and is the best counterargument to libertarian claims about a freedom to choose whether or not to participate in government or certain parts of government.
However, I don't think it should be used as blithely as you think it should. But more importantly, the rest of the country does not either. The logic of your argument is that any child that leaves the local public school damages the education system. If that is the case and the government is as empowered to restrict choice as you think it is, then all children should be required to attend public schools – no exceptions.
Fortunately for me, that is not the case. In fact, while I was busy getting angry reading your rant about how I have given up so many of my rights to tyrant Jan and the liberal elite, I was forgetting that I actually have the rights that I was advocating for. When it comes time for me to make education choices for my family, I will have just that. And so do a large majority of families in this country; those of us with even limited means have the ability to choose whether to send our children to the local community school. If we don’t like the local school, we have the ability to home school, send our kids to private or parochial schools, or vote with our feet and move to a better school district.
The only group of people who are trapped by your social contract to stay in the option that is supposedly the best for the system as a whole (no matter how dangerous or abhorrent the local conditions) are the poor. They are the only ones who cannot afford to move to another neighborhood with better schools, to send their kids to private or parochial schools, and cannot afford – or may lack the ability – to stay home and educate their children themselves.
You see, very few families would willingly give up their ability to make such an important decision. We have decided as a society that we will set some basic minimum standards for education for all children while allowing most families to choose what is best for them. Unfortunately, since so many families have the rights they desire – as well as decent public schools that they are happy to choose to send their children to – we have allowed a group that is traditionally politically weaker to be denied this ability to choose.
You can leave aside everything else I said, but this one fact is the biggest reason I support vouchers. It is fundamentally unfair that one class of people lacks the ability to make education decisions for themselves. It is so clear to me that everyone wants this ability and is unwilling to turn that choice over to you, tyrant Jan. We just lack the vision to see that one group is caught in your delusions of grandeur.
Before I close, I anticipate you going back to your argument about public money versus private money and how you don’t want your money going to private schools.
First, I think the public versus private is an arbitrary distinction here. Government money regularly goes to private groups through contracts to carry out public functions and could do so here also.
Second, you shouldn’t be concerned about where your money goes as long as it is going to educate children. Government money is for education generally, and should not be restricted to certain education facilities that liberals absurdly deem to be the only ones pure and noble.
PART I
I'll try to be brief here. But will probably fail.
I won't rehash the piles and piles of evidence clearly demonstrating vouchers don't work. But I will just reiterate the point for emphasis: vouchers don’t work. If they did, our disagreement might be a tad bit more interesting, but they don’t. And the argument really should end there.
That said, I take issue with your assertion that my position is in any way tyrannical. Many things indeed are; but this? Hardly. And you do an injustice to those actual victims of dictators and tyrants when you label it as such.
Especially since my position is far more socially democratic than the radical position of uninhibited "school choice."
We've long recognized that every parent has a right and a responsibility to educate their child.
I don’t think either of us are in dispute of the latter, where we in fact disagree, is on what characterizes the “right” to an education.
I think a Berlinian distinction might be particularly apt here. What you seem to think is that when the State says you have the choice between sending your child to a particular public school or sending your child elsewhere (private, parochial, etc.), it is somehow tyrannical or an encroachment of State onto your individual rights. You feel you have the “right” to send your child to whatever public school you desire.
But you’re misusing the word “right,” and Mr. Berlin will help us find the distinction. You are using it in the sense of negative liberty, in the same vein as freedoms of speech, or religion, or assembly.
But the “right” to a public education is not in this category. The right to a public education is a form of positive liberty, a right guaranteed by government through your participation in society. Public education is not a right that demands a government hands-off approach. It, in fact, demands quite the opposite. It requires Government provide you with the option of a quality, public education.
PART II
We never guaranteed you the right to choose whatever school you wanted. Long ago, we rightfully decided that society would be better off if everyone had a proper education instead of just the wealthy. And we recognized, given the existing structure of private and parochial education, if a family wished to send their child to those schools instead, they would be permitted to do so. But the right was never in the negative formation, it was never a liberty granted to restrict Government intervention, but rather a liberty intended to allow you to pursue a right that only government could guarantee.
Perhaps that clarifies things, perhaps it doesn’t. But my point is that if we recognized that a public education system in which each family could choose whatever public school they wanted for their child would be the best for the whole, then that might be worth pursuing. But you have never been guaranteed the right to do so. It is a recent development in educational theory that a market approach to education would strengthen the sector.
I decidedly oppose such a theory, because I think it has been demonstrated to be an abject failure and that it destroys the notion of strong, neighborhood, quality schools for everyone, which I think should be the goal. We can debate this point, and indeed I am sure we will. But firstly, and most importantly, I object to any notion that we have granted you the “right” to seek whatever public school you want. Because that was never in the cards. You have conflated a recent approach to improving public education with some sort of government-granted liberty. That, I think, is a conflation made in error.
To try to close the loop a bit, I think we ought to care about the education of our neighbor’s child nearly as much, if not as much, as we do about our own. Public education should be one of those provisions of Government which reflects our sense of shared purpose and shared goals, that we are better together than on our own. It was Margaret Thatcher who suggested that “there is no such thing as society, there are only individuals and families.” And it is out of that womb of sad, cold Thatcherianism that vouchers were born: that it is not the shared purpose of society that matters, but merely the goals and aspirations of individuals and what they view as right for them and their immediate families. And I cannot disagree more.
We are not islands, scattered in an archipelago. We are members of a collective body, interdependent and codependent on one another. And each of our decisions affects those around us, as do theirs upon ourselves. And public education, an institution that is decidedly drenched in this notion of shared purpose, ought to reflect this reality.
PART II
We never guaranteed you the right to choose whatever school you wanted. Long ago, we rightfully decided that society would be better off if everyone had a proper education instead of just the wealthy. And we recognized, given the existing structure of private and parochial education, if a family wished to send their child to those schools instead, they would be permitted to do so. But the right was never in the negative formation, it was never a liberty granted to restrict Government intervention, but rather a liberty intended to allow you to pursue a right that only government could guarantee.
Perhaps that clarifies things, perhaps it doesn’t. But my point is that if we recognized that a public education system in which each family could choose whatever public school they wanted for their child would be the best for the whole, then that might be worth pursuing. But you have never been guaranteed the right to do so. It is a recent development in educational theory that a market approach to education would strengthen the sector.
I decidedly oppose such a theory, because I think it has been demonstrated to be an abject failure and that it destroys the notion of strong, neighborhood, quality schools for everyone, which I think should be the goal. We can debate this point, and indeed I am sure we will. But firstly, and most importantly, I object to any notion that we have granted you the “right” to seek whatever public school you want. Because that was never in the cards. You have conflated a recent approach to improving public education with some sort of government-granted liberty. That, I think, is a conflation made in error.
To try to close the loop a bit, I think we ought to care about the education of our neighbor’s child nearly as much, if not as much, as we do about our own. Public education should be one of those provisions of Government which reflects our sense of shared purpose and shared goals, that we are better together than on our own. It was Margaret Thatcher who suggested that “there is no such thing as society, there are only individuals and families.” And it is out of that womb of sad, cold Thatcherianism that vouchers were born: that it is not the shared purpose of society that matters, but merely the goals and aspirations of individuals and what they view as right for them and their immediate families. And I cannot disagree more.
We are not islands, scattered in an archipelago. We are members of a collective body, interdependent and codependent on one another. And each of our decisions affects those around us, as do theirs upon ourselves. And public education, an institution that is decidedly drenched in this notion of shared purpose, ought to reflect this reality.
I am not sure how we ended up on a discussion about rights and Isiah Berlin. In my original post and subsequent comments, I used the term "ability". You somehow decided that I actually meant "right". I did not, and I should not have let you lead us down a path of debating some obscure philosopher. So let's end that and go back to a discussion about "ability" and whether parents and students should have the ability to make education decisions.
I am also unsure how, in reading my comments, you thought you could claim the moral high ground and assert that you care about everyone else and I care only about myself.
If I only cared about my own liberty, I wouldn't be arguing about vouchers. After all, I already have the ability to make education choices for me and my family. I can chose to send my future children the local community school, move to a different community, sent them to private school, or home school them.
My desire is for everyone to have that same ability. Unfortunately, one group does not have that ability right now. Instead, they are forced to stay in substandard community schools.
As I said in my original post, I want public schools to get a lot better and to get a lot more money (things cost money after all). But I will not force kids to stay in bad schools until the schools finally get the money and support they need. That isn't fair to the kids, the families, or the community.
I'll excuse your snide insult of one of the most important political and philosophical writers of the 20th century as "obscure."
And I won't rehash all my other points in any long-winded way. Other than, perhaps, to attempt to summarize them:
(1) Vouchers don't work.
(2) The reason they don't work is that there's no evidence that private schools are, on the whole, significantly better for low-income/low-performing students than public schools.
(3) Private schools are not accountable to public oversight and are not regulated as strictly.
(4) Vouchers drain money from an already underfunded public school system.
(5) Private schools can easily creamskim, leaving the public school system with an even more costly and worse-off student population.
(6) If you want to override all of these points, and say that none of it matters, and anyone should be able to send their child to a private school if they want to, you'll have to argue that they have a government bestowed right to do so, but you conceded that point.
(7) Conclusion: Vouchers=bad idea.
Part I
I feel that I have failed. After 15 comments back and forth (now 16), I have not been able to get you to do anything other than parrot the liberal line on vouchers. That is sad and I blame myself.
Or should I take a different approach - the aggressive instead of the passive-aggressive? Let's see how that goes.
While I appreciate your ability to summarize your points, I am appalled that you didn't even respond to my argument at all.
Let me make my point again. I am angry that we deny certain families (poor families) the ability to make education choices.
You say I need to prove they have a right to do so. I disagree. I think since everyone else has that ability (they would argue that it is a right), fairness dictates that we give it to the one group that is excluded. Either that or we should deny everyone.
There is clearly a major difference between our philosophies in general, and I think we have been dancing around it. You seem perfectly willing to tell people what to do. In this case, you think that public schools are better (or are at risk of falling apart if too many poor families choose to leave), and therefore you want to require poor families to stay there. This liberal desire to tell people what to do is our least flattering trait.
You say vouchers don't show better outcomes. Even if I were to concede that (which I am not - more on that in a second) I would still prefer to give families the choice to attend a private school if their public school was failing.
You see, we cannot design studies that show everything. A school that may have worse academic outcomes may be safer and a better environment emotionally. Because the government is limited in its abilities and fallible, we must be humble and whenever possible allow people the ability to make choices for themselves.
Part II
I want to touch, one last time, on each of your point. First, you say vouchers do not work. I disagree with how you make that conclusion. Now, as I understand the data, it shows that students that receive vouchers do no better – but also no worse – than those that stay in public schools. All that means is that they are not a net improvement. If they lead to no increase, but expand choice, I would say that is a success.
Also, your point about lacking oversight or private schools suggests to me that you don’t actually know what oversight we currently have on private schools. If you can describe the process to me and how it is ineffective and unable to be remedied, maybe I could be convinced (check the NYS Board of Regents and NYSAIS for background). However, my understanding of oversight of public schools, and my experience seeing how government can increase oversight when it wants to demonstrates to me that this is not an issue.
As a former budget analyst (3 years) overseeing all instructional funding for the 191 schools in the Montgomery County Public Schools system, I have a healthy respect and knowledge of all the different – direct and indirect – influences on the budget. One of the things I have realized after that work is that any student that leaves a local school and / or the public school district decreases the funds for those schools.
Local school budgets are all based on the number of students, and districts face such strong pressures to decrease funding that decreases in students does lead to budget cuts. For example, when demographic shifts lead to less students in the school system, the district will make budget cuts. Although the voucher policy has a more direct impact, the indirect impacts of a student leaving are just as real.
I don't know if it needs a lengthy explanation, but cream-skimming is obviously a problem with any students that leave a public school system.
Since some of the problems you outline arise whenever someone leaves the district, than those using those points to argue against vouchers should take the next step and say everyone should have to go to public schools. Maybe you will say you would do that if you could. Unfortunately, that would never be approved.
The general public wants the ability to make educational choices. I think everyone should have it or no one. And I think it is wholly unfair for you to latch onto the one group that is not powerful enough to demand that ability like the other groups have.
I will say one last thing. I don’t think public schools as such are sacrosanct, except in how they deliver on our goal of educating all of our children. I think public schools should be well funded and a good option for everyone. However, when they are not working, I think we need to give families the option to send their children somewhere else. The goal is to educate children. Protecting public schools while preventing children from being educated is a huge mistake.
Post a Comment