--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--- Begin Message ---
Education in Seven Questions
Friday, July 29, 2011
by Aaron
Smith
America's system of education is plagued by problems. The natural
tendency for politicians and technocrats in search of solutions is to
devise grandiose plans that involve more testing, regulation, and
spending. However, these schemes do nothing to alleviate the root cause
of problems, and indeed only serve to perpetuate them. What our system of
education needs is simple: a recognition that children, parents, and
educators are diverse and should be treated as individuals.
Below I've highlighted seven key questions that should be asked of our
education system. Interestingly, all of the problems they touch on have
one common culprit: mass standardization. While left-liberals love to
espouse the virtues of diversity, their actions do not follow their
words. Real diversity is achieved by respecting the liberties of
individuals, not by forcing conformity on them. Real educational
diversity requires the freedom to define and pursue education according
to one's values, interests, and aptitude. Education will be
revolutionized once these liberties are afforded.
Do We Need High-Stakes Accountability
Tests?
States spend millions of dollars designing,
implementing, and evaluating high-stakes accountability tests. Last year
the Texas Education Agency signed a five-year deal with testing
contractor Pearson worth an astounding $468.4 million. Such elaborate
testing systems are supposed to give administrators objective data to
assess performance but in practice these systems do little more than
incentivize teachers to focus on rigid state standards, encourage
cheating, and disrupt valuable class time. Still, the naysayer objects,
how else would we know how schools are performing without them?
It's actually quite simple (and free to the taxpayer): prices.
Market prices are the cornerstone of any healthy economic system. It's
easy to take them for granted -- everything we buy has a price as does
the labor we sell. In actuality, however, prices are enormously intricate
and important without market prices our standard of living would become
virtually unrecognizable (e.g., like that of the Soviet Union).
Friedrich A. Hayek explains,
- I gradually found that the basic function of economics was to explain
the process of how human activity adapted itself to data about which it
had no information. Thus the whole economic order rested on the fact that
by using prices as a guide, or as signals, we were led to serve the
demands and enlist the powers and capacities of people of whom we knew
nothing.
Essentially, market prices are the culmination of seemingly infinite
data points that provide both consumer and producer with a wealth of
information. Without these "signals" entrepreneurs would be
oblivious to the demands of the market and consumers would be similarly
confused as to the nature of the product or service they're
purchasing.
In a market system of education where parents have school choice, prices
serve the same purpose. Market-based tuition is driven by factors such as
teacher quality, parental satisfaction, and operational efficiency (among
countless others). If a school underperforms in any aspect of its
service, parents can simply choose to enroll their children elsewhere --
thereby signaling administrators that immediate improvement is needed.
This is precisely the reason you rarely hear about underperforming
private schools -- they either improve or close; they rarely linger in a
purgatorial state of "needing improvement" (absent of state
meddling, of course).
Signals are virtually nonexistent in our current system of education. In
the absence of prices, school administrators are clueless to the types of
education that are demanded and whether or not parents are satisfied with
their services. This matters little to statists, however, who use the
power of monopoly to force consumers to accept only one type of
education. Their prohibition of school choice all but ensures that
parental opinion is eschewed in favor of some other (arbitrary) system of
accountability such as standardized tests. It's only logical to
conclude that states have more faith in test results than parental
opinion.
Most private schools aren't subjected to state testing, but parents still
choose to enroll their children in these institutions even in the absence
of "accountability" results. Are these parents making
uninformed decisions? Are these school administrators not held
accountable for results (real results, not state-test results)? In fact,
it's quite the opposite parental decisions are better informed and
school administrators are subjected to higher standards in such a
system.
State testing is an ineffective and expensive substitute for prices,
especially when accounting for their unintended consequences. A
market-based system that includes both school choice and prices would
provide parents and educators with the signals needed to make effective
decisions.
Why Do Kids Hate School?
Parents rarely give thought as to why their
children hate school -- after all, aren't kids supposed to? This faulty
reasoning relies on the assumption that children are genetically
predisposed to detest learning. More likely, however, is that kids
dislike the system of schooling they're forced into rather than education
per se. What they're subjected to daily, characterized by
mass-standardization and conformity, is antithetical to the human spirit,
and is likely the source of their utter disdain for school.
Children are cleverer than they're given credit for. They recognize bad
teaching just as well as adults can. They know the pace at which they're
learning is always too fast or too slow never just right. They realize
that much of the material they're learning will be of little value
outside the walls that surround them. They're also aware that in the eyes
of the state they are (literally) just a number.
This is not to say that in a market system of education every child would
enjoy learning equally. They wouldn't. Children are no different than
adults -- they will always have to do things that are beneficial to their
well-being but not necessarily enjoyable. It is, however, reasonable to
expect that if provided with education that is effective (i.e.,
differentiated instructional methods) and meaningful (i.e.,
differentiated curriculum) most kids would enjoy their
schooling.
Along these lines, a simple rule of thumb should be used when evaluating
education: if millions of kids need to be prescribed medication for a
system to work, then it's not working.
Why Do Home-Schooled Kids in Pennsylvania Have to
Learn about Fire Safety?
Contrary to popular belief, private educators are
not completely free of state oversight. Since all states have
compulsory-education laws, it is necessary for them to define
"education." If private institutions fail to live up to the
arbitrary standards imposed on them, their students will not be given
credit for attendance and thus will be labeled
"truant."
Some states, such as Texas, have less restrictive regulations on private
schooling and allow educators to operate relatively freely
(not free from
harassment, though). Others aren't so fortunate. Pennsylvania has
notoriously burdensome home-schooling regulations that dictate laborious
reporting requirements and arbitrary curriculum
standards.
![Download PDF]()
At the secondary level, the preponderance of students (including
most homeschoolers) must pursue
a course of study that includes the subjects below.
- English, to include language, literature, speech and
composition; science; geography; social studies, to include civics, world
history, history of the United States and Pennsylvania; mathematics, to
include general mathematics, algebra and geometry; art; music; physical
education; health; and safety education, including regular and continuous
instruction in the dangers and prevention of fires. High school credit
requirements: 4 credits of English, 3 credits of math, 3 credits of
science, 3 credits of social studies, and 2 credits of arts and
humanities.
Clearly, such rigid curriculum requirements do grave injustice to a
student by arrogantly ignoring his interests and aptitude. Perhaps, for
instance, his time is better spent focusing on an area at which he
excels, such as economics. Instead, he must continuously learn about fire
safety as if he's completely numb to the lessons of common
sense.
Market-based reforms cannot begin to occur unless states are stripped of
their monopoly on defining "education." Until then, government
will be free to impose its bureaucracy and arbitrary standards on
everyone. The fundamental question that must be asked is, Who should
determine how a child is educated: government or parents? Naturally, the
statist who wishes to use his superior intellect and insight to instruct
society on how to live will select the former and, in his mind, rescue
citizens from ignorance and ineptitude.
Why Are Gym Teachers Teaching Math?
According to myriad
news reports there exists a shortage of math and science teachers.
While the applicant pool might appear shallow, it has little to do with a
lack of qualified minds.
Since the 1960s, state-supported teachers' unions have grown
exponentially in power and have been a significant force behind
pay
compression. In other words, teachers are compensated uniformly with
little regard for subject-related aptitude. The result is an abundant
supply of applicants with general training (e.g., education majors) and a
scarce supply of applicants with specialized training (e.g., math and
science majors).
To remedy these "shortages," teacher-compensation systems
should differentiate among subject-related skillsets. By responding to
the demands of the market, hiring managers will find that the shortage of
math and science teachers will gradually dissipate and the oversupply of
less qualified applicants will diminish.
There is no reason for gym teachers (or any other unqualified teacher) to
be teaching technical subjects, because an obvious economic solution
exists to the problem. However, teachers' unions, including the National
Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT), make this politically infeasible in the realm of public
education.
Why Does No Child Left Behind Have 300,000 words
-- Almost 293,000 More than the Constitution?
Neil P. McCluskey
astutely
observed that the 650-plus page No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is
shamefully larger than the Constitution and imposes exceptionally
burdensome regulations on states, districts, and schools. So why is NCLB
approximately 43 times larger than the supreme law of the US?
The Constitution, which espouses liberty and seeks to protect citizens
from government intrusion, did not seek to grant privilege to special
interests and create far-reaching regulations. Freedom is simple and
doesn't require legalese. By contrast, central plans must be lengthy and
convoluted so government can seize power stealthily which is exactly
what NCLB aimed to accomplish.
According to McCluskey, NCLB demonstrated that
- The political calculus of Washington almost always produces results
in education that end up helping the special interests who make their
livelihoods off the system, not the parents and children public schooling
is supposed to serve.
In other words, the further that decisions are removed from parents
and local educators, the more politicized and wasteful the system
becomes. Federal involvement only proliferates state problems.
So what has resulted from NCLB? Even education secretary
Arne Duncan is at a loss for kind words, saying,
- By mandating and prescribing one-size-fits-all
solutions, No Child Left Behind took away the ability of local and state
educators to tailor solutions to the unique needs of their students.
While Duncan correctly recognizes the drawbacks of mass
standardization in education, he naïvely advocates for a revamped version
of NCLB as if continued federal meddling will empower parents and local
educators. Quite simply, a system of differentiated education requires
less government involvement, not cosmetic changes to a toxic dose of
regulation and bureaucracy.
NCLB has given us nothing but weaker standards, impotent
accountability systems, and -- of course -- plenty of wasteful spending.
Any effort to reform this failed legislation will be futile. Ron Paul
summarized
NCLB beautifully: "Everybody passes -- no single child is left
behind. Instead, they are all left behind in large groups."
Why Do Parents Fight So Much?
Our system of public education destroys diversity
and fosters a hostile environment plagued by forced intolerance.
Textbooks, curriculum, and religious _expression_ (to name a few) often
incite heated debate about what's permitted inside the walls of schools.
On any issue there are always as many opinions as there are parents --
and since they should have the power to determine how their children are
educated, the parents are all in a sense "correct."
According to McCluskey, political conflict is inherent in public
education because "all taxpayers must support the public schools,
but only those able to summon sufficient political power can determine
what the schools will teach and how they'll be run." In his
paper, he cites
nearly 150 inflammatory conflicts that occurred nationwide during the
2005–06 school year, ranging from debates over homosexuality to
book-banning controversies.
Such uproars should not be surprising. If one father's child is educated
according to the father's personal values, he might be quite tolerant of
his neighbor's views on, for example, intelligent design. However, if one
common curriculum is forced on both of their children, this tolerance
will evaporate rather quickly (and vice versa). As a compromise, both of
their opinions might be allotted instructional time in the curriculum. In
this instance, the natural bias of the teacher will ultimately decide
whose side is given preferential treatment. Even robots programmed by
humans could not teach matters of history, economics, and government
without invoking their programmers' personal beliefs, however subtly.
Ultimately, the neighbors will be engaged in a perpetual state of
conflict and forced intolerance.
Mass standardization in education destroys diversity of opinion and
forces unnatural conflict on parents. If allowed to spend their education
dollars freely (instead of paying "twice" for private
education) parents would be able to choose the course of education that
best suits their values without the need to politicize every issue ad
nauseam. The issue du jour has only one real solution: school choice.
Diversity and tolerance would thrive in a system that reflects every
parent's opinion, not just the opinions of those who are politically
connected.
What Has the Department of Education Done for
Elementary and Secondary Education?
When Jimmy Carter signed the Department of
Education Organization Act in 1979, he gave his bedfellows at the
teachers' unions exactly what they desired: easy access to federal
largesse. The Department of Education (DOE) has grown exponentially in
its brief history, with inflation-adjusted discretionary spending
increasing by 53 percent between 1993 and 2001. In 2010 it spent nearly
$62
billion in taxpayer money on elementary and secondary education
alone. What do they have to show for this? Not much.
Big-government enthusiasts love to espouse the relatively modest
increases in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores
for 4th and 8th graders between the 1970s and today. However,
as Andrew J. Coulson points out, this matters little as scores for
12th graders are a more appropriate barometer of outcomes.
- Anyone who points to the slightly higher scores in the
early grades as cause for celebration is missing the point. What parents
care about is that their children are well prepared for higher education
and future careers at the end of their secondary education. The fact that
scores have risen somewhat in the early grades means little since those
gains evaporate for the vast majority of students by the time they
graduate.
The DOE has produced nothing but unconstitutional government
meddling, and its power will only continue to expand unless it's
abolished. Abolishing the DOE would free states of burdensome
regulations, deprive special interests of their much-beloved cash cow,
and save taxpayers about $107 billion annually.
Aaron Smith is director of knowledge management for YES Prep
Charter Schools in Houston, Texas. He has an MBA from Texas A&M
University and a BS in business administration from the University of
Maine. The opinions expressed in his articles do not necessarily reflect
those of his employer.
http://mises.org/daily/5482/Education-in-Seven-Questions
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--- End Message ---
