June 27, 2005

WRTA

Brown Shoes Diary

Some Thoughts on Government Schools

The main topic of the Open Mike Too program the past two Tuesdays, which I co-host with Doug Herendeen, has been government schooling. I think it should be abolished, but not for the reasons you may think.

You may think as Superindendent Dennis Murray does (see the Altoona Mirror, 5/14/04 for a summary of his thoughts spoken at a public forum) that the school day is crammed with non-academic burdens and the system is confused. It lacks leaders of credibility (really, he said this). It has no constancy of purpose. His prescription to cure the problems are deregulation, less state and federal control, decredentialization, and decentralization. Sounds like he favors privatizing schools to me. But their problems is not the main reason to privatize them.

Sure, the failure rate of our schools is atrocious. According to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (see http://www.heartland.org/article.cfm?artID=16671) 29% of students drop out of school and only 34% graduate ready for college. The ACT (see http://www.act.org/path/policy/reports/crisis.html) claims that only 22% of high school graduates are academically prepared for college. That our government schools are failures, and expensive failures at that, cannot be doubted by any objective person. One caller suggested that the government schools do just as well as private schools. If so then they are both monumental failures, but at least the taxpayer is off the hook for the failures of private schools.

Several callers blamed parents for the poor performance of our schools. Why don't parents do a better job at directing their children's studies? My guess is that to the extent that parents don't own up to their responsibility in this area it is for three reasons. One, the marginal cost of sending their kids to government schools is zero and economics teaches us that people care less about things that cost less. Two, most government school administrators and teachers really don't want parental involvement--the parent is always the easy excuse for their own poor performance. Three, the parents are likely graduates of government schools themselves and have never learned some fundamental lessons such as the principle of paying for what you get.

But are parents really that big of a problem? The schools get the students for 6 hours a day, 180 days a year, at a cost of nearly $10,000 per student. With all that time and money shouldn't the schools be able to at least get the students to read, write, and compute at grade level proficiency? In Governor Rendell's Job Ready Pennsylvania report (available at the website for Pennsylvania government) it lists the following fundamental problems with Pennsylvania's government schools: More than half our high school students are below proficient in math and more than 25% are below standard in reading; only half the school districts require Algebra I to graduate and 80% do not require Algebra II; only 12% require physics. Parents are certainly not to blame for this.

And there is the matter of contentiousness in government schools. No God allowed. Seems a bit extreme, but okay, the religious can do their worship and study elsewhere. But what is to be taught and how is it to be taught? Every issue now becomes a political fight. Evolution versus Intelligent Design. Abstinence versus Condums. Sight learning versus phonics. Computation versus actual mathematics. Pledge of Allegiance, anyone? Let's fight it out. And what is to be taught in social studies? Well, whatever is "politically correct" at the moment. For the most part, private schools don't have such problems because students wouldn't come if they didn't like the curriculum or how it is implemented. And when there are problems in private schools, they are isolated and involve just one school and will be resolved without resort to political activity and the wasteful expenditures that such activity requires.

Except in rare circumstances, we trust parents to provide their children with food, clothing, shelter, and moral and religious education. If we trust parents with those vital and essential things, why do we not trust them to provide their children with something less important (but still very important to be sure) such as an academic education?

And this gets to my main point. I don't care if government schools are great and parents are actively involved and the schools even provide efficient use of resources. Their very existence is a moral failure and an abuse of citizens. If Mr. and Mrs. Jones engage in conduct that leads to them having a child, the responsibility for that child is entirely theirs. They are certainly free to ask anyone they want for help, financial or otherwise, but they have no right to demand such help. Government schools do demand that each of us, whether we have any use for them or not, contribute to them. Think of it--government's sole purpose is to protect our property, yet it is being used to steal money from some to benefit others. It's not just a moral abomination; it's an undermining of the true function of limited government.

Curiously, my argument in the preceding paragraph often gets me accused of being selfish. Let's see, I want to keep the money I earn and spend it as I see fit. You want to take the money I earn and spend it for your own purpose. Which of us is the selfish one?

Here's a thought experiment to make my point one final way. Suppose there was an alcoholic living down the street from you who had a job and spent every dollar he could from that job on alcohol. In other words, he used his discretionary income to engage in self-destructive behavior. Next door to the drunk lived a high school senior who in addition to being a straight A student and who scored 1550 on his SAT exam was working 40 hours a week to help support his infirmed mother and his sibings, since his father had long ago deserted the family. Now I ask you the following question: Since you know the drunk is going to spend his earnings on self-destruction, would it be moral to take his money by force and give it to the deserving kid next door who will use it for improving himself and society? 99 people out of 100, answer this question the way I do. It would NOT be moral to take what someone else earns without their permission. The ends do not justify the means. Mr. Alcoholic ought to be free to spend the money he earns as he sees fit. But here is the strange part. Although 99 people out of 100 agree with me on this question, almost everyone supports government schools. What's the difference? Government schools take money from people who earn it and give it to people who didn't earn it. It doesn't matter if it's a good purpose or not; ends do not justify means.