The Case for Competition in the Schooling Opportunities of
Children
Edward J. Dodson
[Revised in 2013 from a version appearing in The
Progress Report, 6 October 1997]
For some time now in the United States a great debate has raged over
whether society ought to provide parents with a voucher that would
subsidize the ability of parents to send their children to any school
of their choice. Already in many communities around the country some
30% of all children of school age attend private or parochial schools,
without direct subsidy provided in the form of vouchers. And, in fact,
administrators within the public (i.e., government-funded
institutions) admit that they would not have the resources to provide
schooling for these children if, for some reason, the private and
parochial schools disappeared. Yet, there is enormous resistance on
the part of the educationist establishment to the dismantling of the
existing system in favor of a competitive market for schools. A
favorite argument is that vouchers will permit parents of moderate
means to pull the better students out of the publicly-funded schools,
leaving these schools as the repository for the poor and learning
disabled. This position is, even on the surface, foolish. That said, I
argue against the mere introduction of vouchers into a system that is
from top to bottom in need to substantive improvement.
The central problem with schools as they now exist is that they are
virtually all hierarchically-directed institutions. There are almost
no examples of teachers who share a common philosophy of education
coming together to form a school, who advertise their services and who
succeed or fail on the basis of how good a job they do in preparing
children (and older students) for citizenship, for scholarship and for
the challenges of life. What is wrong with our schools is that they
are not associations of professionals, with teachers deciding on
policy and on curriculum and hiring administrators to work for them.
Whether one looks at the publicly-organized schools, the private
academies or the parochial system, the structures are the same: a
board of trustees, directors or an elected school board set policy;
they hire administrators, who hire teachers in the same way they hire
janitors or maintenance personnel. What is extraordinary, in my
opinion, is that under such a structure students manage to learn as
much as they do. This is clear evidence of the ability of human beings
to somehow thrive in spite of the absence of common sense nurturing.
If government is to play a role in the process of education, then
using publicly-collected revenue to distribute vouchers to parents is
the common sense approach to public policy. I would go further,
however.
Many of us realize that the amount confiscated from us in the form of
taxes is an unjust "taking" of our legitimately earned
wealth. I, for one, am absolutely certain that the amount I pay in
taxes far exceeds the rental value of the piece of land I hold title
to underneath my home. If we had a truly just system of law, I would,
therefore, have far more disposable income with which to pay tuition
at any school of my choice. Given that the citizens of our country
have as yet not come to our senses and overturned the existing tax
system, an interim measure would be to make vouchers means tested.
Conventional wisdom is that because society has an obligation to
educate the young, all adults who work and own property ought to pay
taxes to support the publicly-organized schools. Under this approach,
people who have no children in the publicly-organized schools pay the
same "school tax" as those who have one or two or five
children enrolled. Parents of children enrolled in the parochial
schools are paying tuition plus paying a school tax based on the
assessed value of whatever real estate they own. Thus, parents are
penalized for choosing to send their children to a school not
sponsored by the State. A more rational approach is for the community
to appoint a commission to establish minimum standards for schools to
be eligible for voucher support. If these standards are not deemed
reasonable, the courts are available to pursue remedy.
The existing method of raising revenue for publicly-organized schools
is also highly regressive, as the tax has little direct association to
"ability to pay" -- unless by ability to pay one accepts the
obligation to borrow funds from a bank using the equity in one's
residential property (ie., the value of a house and the land
thereunder) as collateral. Should people who are no longer working and
living on a reduced income be forced to contribute a far higher
proportion of their disposable income to school taxes than, for
example, a two-income family with much higher annual income?
In practical terms, what I believe is a much more equitable
transitional approach is to establish the level of public subsidy for
schooling based on levels of household income and the number of
school-age children. Assume, for example, that the annual cost of
schooling for a child is calculated to be $15,000. Households with
incomes above some amount would not be eligible for tuition vouchers.
Others would apply for tuition-voucher assistance and receive
assistance based on a formula that factors in basic living expenses
and determines the level of disposable income potentially available to
absorb schooling costs for their children.
In summary, much of what is wrong with our schools is directly
related to what is wrong in our society as a whole. We talk about
liberty and about the individual, about cooperation and markets, but
in practice we continue to fear these things and fall bac k on
hierarchy, privilege, government-control and mandate and coercion as
the basis for public policy -- in education and many other areas of
societal concern.
As the saying goes, we get what we pay for!
|