|
The growing controversy over the privatizing of the US educational system reminded me of a particular column I wrote in 1998. The magazine was not around long enough to ever get stuff on line. I went back all the way to my windows 95 machine to recover my file...
Here it is....
Are Ohio students ready to let market forces dictate what type of education they will receive? Part time State Treasurer and full time candidate for higher office Ken Blackwell must think so. The latest in a continuing series of school finance reforms emanating from Ohio's foremost publicity seeker would convert the state funding of schools to vouchers, injecting a heavy dose of free market capitalism into an otherwise competition-free public school system.
On the surface, school competition promises accountability and choice. In that sense, vouchers do have a certain inbred American appeal. But alas, as with most modern GOP (Gimmicks on Parade) "solutions," the rest of the story is never revealed until the damage is done.
The voucher system pits the mythical superiority of a private education against the perceived inferior product of the public school system. Throw in the inherent cost advantages of an enterprise that can pick and choose whom to serve and you have a public relations bonanza. According to the conservative mantra, big government, this time in the form of public schools, is the enemy of the free market.
Those who would have us depend solely on the free market for every aspect of life, politicians like Blackwell, place all the emphasis on potential benefits. Never mentioned are the downsides. In the free market arena, we have been conditioned to except "collateral damage". Those products that fall by the wayside were somehow inferior. No one mourns the Edsel.
The relationship between supply and demand when it comes to vouchers goes something like this: a school that provides a quality education will be in demand. If other schools see students flocking to a school providing a quality education, the inferior schools face either closure or an upgrade in service. But is this the outcome? Unfortunately no. The superior school, facing physical limitations, would "ration" available space. The superior school would simply raise the price of admission to get the balance back between supply and demand. Enrollment would stay essentially the same.
Under a voucher system, each student, armed with a chit worth say, $ 4,129, would enter the educational market place. All schools accepting vouchers would then turn them back to the state for operating expenses. In order for the free market to work its magic, schools would have to be free to charge more than the $ 4,129 the governor and his experts have decreed adequate. Nothing would stop schools at the top simply to incorporate the $ 4,129 voucher into their price structure.
What happens to the schools at the bottom end of the economic scale? That $ 4,129 is the bottom line. Students at the lower ends of the economic structure would not be able to upgrade their education by adding tuition to their vouchers. Schools designed to serve this class of student would be faced with several harsh decisions in order to survive.
Once fix costs are met, the only place to consider a profit (yes Ken, private enterprise demands a profit) is by focusing on variable costs such as textbooks, teachers' salaries, supplies, repairs and maintenance. Out of date textbooks instead of up-to-date ones in use at the "better" schools. Commodore computers instead of the newest technological advances from Silicon Valley. Underpaid teachers vs. the cream of the crop. Is this a solution to the geographical caste system created by the current school funding mess? What would be different?
Think of balkanization. Think of an even more rigid class structure. Think of a perpetual underclass. Ken Blackwell and the conservative free marketeers believe it would be different. The only difference may be the tax dollars going to support wealthy students already enjoying an advantaged life.
Ken Blackwell may be right on one point. Maybe it is time to take a hard look at what could very well happen if we treat our children's education as a product in the market place. One thing always to keep in mind is the harsh reality of the market place. Statistics claim that three out of four new businesses will fail within the first three years of operation. That will undoubtedly translate into several schools a year going belly-up. What if your child attended a school that was forced to close due to a bad business decision?
And what about consolidation? Every day in the free market business are bought and sold. Why should free market schools be any different? If schools are consolidated under a free market system, does that make them any different from the current system conservatives rail against? There goes local control. Big business vs. big government. At least with a school board we can vote. (Except, of course, in Cleveland.)
Think Dollar General Schools. Think Wal-Mart Schools. Think Dillard Schools. Think Saks Fifth Avenue Schools. Remember we are talkin' profit margins here. Competition. Survival of the fittest. Darwin and the Galapagos. (Am I the only one who finds it ironic that free market Christians are willing to except social Darwinism as a fact of life but find it impossible to consider evolution as more than a theory?) The price might be right at Dollar General, but do you really want to bank your children’s future on a cut rate seconds store philosophy? Is this the future we want? Ken Blackwell seems to think so.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
