Over the years, I have been writing about misconceptions regarding the schooling process. The purpose of these posts is to explain why I disagree with various comments that I have heard people make about schooling. These are meant as personal thoughts rather than conclusive proof, and I will admit that I'm not always the best at explaining my thoughts. Regardless, I have decided that I should be willing to share these posts when I encounter someone online who makes an argument that I have already discussed.
It seems like we are always pushing the same solution to our nation's educational crisis. We need to throw more money at the status quo. Each time we have tried this solution, it has failed.
The idea behind school choice is that funding goes towards the school chosen for a child by the family rather than a school assigned to a child by the government. Although most schools are unfortunately modeled after the government approach, this can provide much needed options for children whose needs aren't being met by government-controlled schools.
The reality behind government-controlled schools is that there is absolutely no incentive to meet the needs of students. If needs aren't met, we insist on increasing funding. This has led to an incredibly expensive model that's doing a lousy job of meeting the educational needs of the students.
School choice does not make education any more expensive. Instead, it provides a better distribution of existing funds. Funds that would normally go to schools that are doing a lousy job are diverted to more fiscally responsible schools that are performing better. At least, that's what happens in properly implemented school choice programs. I can't deny that if children remain in government-controlled schools that don't meet their needs, some funding would instead be diverted to students who are already attending alternatives.
A lot of people have countered that instead of choice, increased funding could turn all government-controlled schools into excellent schools. We have already tried this. Even the most expensive government-controlled schools are failing to meet the needs of their students. Even if more of the same produced the opposite results, that wouldn't make these schools best for 100% of the population. Should children be punished for having different needs? Should they be forced to choose between paying for two schools (public by force and private by choice) or accept that their needs won't be met?
More funding will not shift government-controlled schools from harming 100% of all children to doing a good job of serving the needs of 100% of all children. No single model will ever be good for everyone. This is why we need choice. If a child's needs aren't being met by the government, they should not be trapped in the government's control. Better yet, if a child does not learn best in a restrictive schooling environment, we could allow funding to be used elsewhere. There are reasons that I prefer educational choice over school choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment