Topic: Education and Child Policy

The Constant Bailer

Over the last couple of weeks, the nation has been understandably preoccupied with faltering financial houses and federal promises to save them. Save them, of course, for the public good, to the tune of roughly 700 billion taxpayer dollars. (Or is it 1 trillion taxpayer dollars? Oh, what’s a few hundred billion among friends?)

These happenings have inspired a lot of folks to declare truly free enterprise a failure and conclude that government must do more to “manage the economy.” But before we accept all that, let’s put the supposed failure of freedom—and magnificence of government—in a little context by considering something government has managed for a long time: public schooling.

In the 2004-05 school year (the latest with available data), the nation spent about $520 billion, adjusted for inflation, on public schooling, a figure that in two years would surpass the utterly atrocious $1 trillion some people fear taxpayers are about to eat saving investment bankers. And, of course, we’ve been paying through the nose for public schools for decades. But what do we have to show for it? Flat achievement, sinking international academic standing, and a lot more teachers and school employees living off the taxpayers.

Without question, from taxpayer and simple justice perspectives, the proposed rescue of private companies that took big chances and lost is unconscionable. It’s hardly, however, a sign that free markets don’t work. Indeed, considered alongside the perpetual bailout that is public schooling, it just highlights once again that government—the constant bailer—is the real problem, not a free market that would punish both bad bankers, and bad schools, if only it were allowed.

It Depends on Whom You Ask

Over at NCLB Act II, David Hoff wonders why the No Child Left Behind Act is treated likes it’s radioactive, while yesterday he heard “no talk of trying to slay NCLB—or even make major changes to it” at the inaugural meeting of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Technical Advisory Council.

David, I think I have an answer: The administration that championed NCLB put the commission together. There’s probably a pretty good chance they purposely brought in people who are comfortable with Washington hamfistedly imposing “accountability” on K-12 education. At the very least, that explains what happened to my invitation to join the council.

Bow Down Before the One You Serve

Last week, I wrote about the presidential candidates’ September 11 confab on state-subsidized “service.” Today, in the Wall Street Journal, Shika Dahlmia makes the case that even though both candidates hector us ceaselessly about national service, Obama has more detailed, and more troubling, plans:

Mr. Obama would create several new corps of his own: a Classroom Corps to help teachers and students in underperforming schools; a Health Corps for underserved areas; a Clean Energy Corps to weatherize homes and promote energy independence. The last is separate from his Global Energy Corps, to promote low-carbon energy solutions in developing countries.

Mr. Obama calls all this his “Plan for Universal and Voluntary Citizen Service.” It might live up to its “universal” billing, given that it would prod Americans of all age groups – from preteens to retirees – to sign up. But as to its voluntariness, the plan will make generous use of Uncle Sam’s money – and muscle.

By Mr. Obama’s account, he will make federal education aid conditional on schools requiring that high-school and even middle-school students perform 50 hours of service each year. He will also offer college students $4,000 every year for doing 100 hours of public service. That works out to $40 an hour – a deal that only the very wealthy could refuse. (The Obama campaign puts the price tag for this alone at $10 billion.) He promises to provide older Americans who perform civic service with “additional income security, including assistance with retirement and family-related costs, and continuation of health-care coverage.” But a government that links benefits to service can take away benefits for nonservice.

Neither candidate explicitly endorses mandatory national service. But of course, if you can’t graduate high school without a stint in Obama’s Power Rangers, that’s hardly voluntary.

School Choice Pioneer Rooney Dies

J. Patrick Rooney, a pioneer of the modern school choice movement, has died. Rooney, who was 80, founded a trend-setting private scholarship fund in 1991. The Educational CHOICE Charitable Trust provides financial assistance to low income families in Indianapolis who want to send their children to private schools. The year after it was created, similar programs began to crop up all over the country, from San Antonio to Milwaukee.

This model, in which donors give money to a k-12 scholarship organization, which then distributes it to the families who need it, became the framework for some of the school choice movement’s greatest successes. Today, school choice programs in six states offer tax credits to businesses or individuals who donate to such scholarship organizations (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island).

For every dollar donated, the donor’s tax bill is reduced by anywhere from 80 cents to a full dollar. Scholarship donation tax credit programs have grown faster than other kinds of private school choice programs, and have garnered more bi-partisan support. In Florida, the newly appointed director of the state’s largest scholarship program is a former public school teacher and union leader. A recent expansion of that state’s education tax credit program garnered the support of half of the black Democratic caucus. Two leading advocates of creating such a program in New Jersey are Newark Mayor Corey Booker and state senator Ray Lesniak, both Democrats.

Milton Friedman laid the theoretical groundwork for the modern school choice movement, and J. Patrick Rooney was one of the leading social entrepreneurs who helped bring that theory to life. His contribution will continue to be felt by many future generations of children.

More Education Hypocrisy from Liberal Democrats

This is not a blog post about Senator Obama sending his kids to an expensive high-quality private school while opposing school choice proposals that would offer that opportunity to poor parents, even though that would be an understandable assumption given the “education-hypocrisy” title. Instead, we’re talking about the head of the Liberal Democrat Party in the United Kingdom, who just warned his members that he is probably going to send his kids to non-state schools even though the party is wedded to a throw-more-tax-money-down-a-rat-hole approach of propping up government schools. The Daily Mail reports:

Nick Clegg yesterday admitted he might send his children to a private school - as his party vowed to end ‘educational apartheid’. He said he would not rule out ‘ dipping into his pocket’ for Antonio, six, and Alberto, four, because of the poor quality of state schools. ‘I am not holding my children’s future and education hostage to a game of political football. I am a father before a politician,’ said Mr Clegg, who attended the independent Westminster School. He said he was concerned about the state secondaries close to his home in Putney, South-West London, claiming they were ‘too big and alienating’.

The Fraudulence of Bureaucratic ‘Accountability’

Most education policy analysts, most politicians in both parties, and both presidential candidates have expressed their support for bureaucratic “accountability” in education — the belief that government-imposed testing regimes can signficantly improve the quality of American education. They persist in this belief despite the fact that U.S. academic achievement has stagnated or declined both before and after the passage of No Child Left Behind, the signature legislation of accountability gurus.

Perhaps what is needed is a visceral example of WHY government-mandated testing has proven to be of such dubious worth. For example, this Charleston, SC school’s meteoric test score gains over the past five years have all but vanished in a single year after the administration and grading of students’ tests were taken out of the hands of school officials.

True accountability is not achieved when the quality of a child’s education is measured by a single set of government tests. It is achieved when parents are free to choose from among a variety of competing, mininally regulated schools.

Teachers Union Leader Joins School Choice Group

Ron Matus of the St. Petersburg Times writes that Florida’s school choice movement has a couple of new recruits: former teachers union leader Doug Tuthill and former St. Petersburg Times editorial writer Jon East — both erstwhile critics of the state’s education tax credit program. The two have just signed on as the new president and new communications director, respectively, of the Florida School Choice Fund. The Fund accepts taxpayers’ donations and then offers tuition assistance to low income families who want to send their children to private schools. The taxpayers making the donations can then claim dollar-for-dollar credits against state taxes.

As noted twice before on this blog in just the past several months, the times they are a changin’. Support for private school choice was once a thoroughly partisan affair, and seen in some quarters as a threat to the ideals of public education. That is becoming less and less the case. Sooner or later, educational freedom will reign in this country.

For now, there are still politicians who send their own children to private schools while opposing programs that would bring that same choice within reach of lower-income families. Perhaps, in the long run, they may be forgiven by posterity. In the medium term, though, they are likely to pay a price at the ballot box.