Building a Competitive Education Industry
A Weekly Column by Myron Lieberman

As a non-Catholic, I do not ordinarily track the activities of Catholic organizations very closely The major exceptions are in the field of education where my interests in school choice, teacher unions and employment relations underlie a longtime interest in how Catholic schools and organizations relate to these topics. In this connection, I propose to offer a few comments, perhaps more in puzzlement than in an effort to persuade anyone to follow my advice.

It seems to me that if we had a competitive education industry, Catholic schools would fare very well. To achieve a competitive education industry, however, we need a sys-tem of school choice that includes some level of government funding for private schooling, denominational and for profit, as well as other nonprofit. The level could be much lower than the actual per pupil costs of public education, which are substantially understated in the government statistics on the matter. Obviously, the higher the level of support, the more competitive the industry would be; but the level need be only a third or a quarter of the per pupil costs of public schools to trigger a competitive education industry. Apart from other considerations, I am opposed to full government funding of schooling: my conviction is that if parents had to pay some of the costs directly from their own pockets, they would not tolerate the lackadaisical attitude toward education that characterizes so many public school students. Wasting the family's money is quite different from wasting the government's.

Be that as it may, the sizable minority of non-Catholics and non-religious Catholics in Catholic schools suggests that Catholic schools would enjoy a strong competitive position under a comprehensive school choice plan. Nevertheless, the strategy of the National Association of Catholic School Teachers is not geared to school choice, instead it emphasizes pressure on diocesan authorities to pay Catholic teachers more, in accordance with Catholic doctrines of social justice. This strategy is apparently based on the idea that the Catholic hierarchy can be embarrassed into paying higher salaries by the appeal to Catholic doctrines on social justice and a living wage. In my view, however the strategy is bound to fail for several reasons. Let me cite just one.

I assume that a bishop must allocate all the funds at his disposal in ways that enhance the church's mission. The allocation is not a choice between adhering to Catholic doctrine or not adhering to it. It reflects decisions on a multitude of activities, all of which support the church's mission. To treat the allocations as doctrinal issues, as the N.A.C.S.T. does, may be a good tactic, but it cannot be effective over a long period of time.

Interestingly enough, the same problem emerges in the public school context. The teacher unions argue for higher teacher salaries, as if their demands can be met without regard to other school board responsibilities. Unfortunately, the tactic is sometimes effective, so that teacher salaries go up while school buildings deteriorate, debt service increases, and other employees are paid less because they are not supported by an aggressive pressure group. The church's mission requires it to support a number of groups and causes that would otherwise lack effective representation; union strategy would only exacerbate a problem that has gotten out of hand in public education.

For these and other reasons, N.A.C.S.T. strategy to achieve its economic objectives should empha-size comprehensive school choice. Here we encounter a paradox. The major opponents of school choice are the National Education Association (N.E.A.) and American Fed-eration of Teachers (A.F.T.) and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. These unions are well aware of the fact that private-sector union membership has declined from 36 percent of the private-sector labor force in the 1950's to only 11 percent today-and that the declines are most evident in competitive industries where union-sponsored inefficiencies threaten the jobs of union members. It is common knowledge that almost half of A.F.L.-C.I.O. member-ship is in the public sector and that it will soon be more than half. To say the least, it is para-doxical that N.A.C.S.T. should take its guidance from declining organizations that more than any other stand in the way of better compensation for teachers in Catholic schools.

Undoubtedly, one reason for this is that N.A.C.S.T. leaders exaggerate the union role in teacher welfare. Public school teacher unions emerged in the 1960's and 1970's, when inflation was rampant. The N.E.A./A.F.T. negotiated raises that were due more to inflation than to unionization, but the unions naturally ignored this in trumpeting their achievements. There is much more to be said on this, but N.A.C.S.T. publications illustrate its naivete on the economic issues. The September 1997 issue of Newsworthy, the N.A.C.S.T.'s newsletter asserts: "From a pocketbook perspective, workers are absolutely better off joining a union. Economists across the political spectrum agree: Turning a nonunion job into a union job very likely will have a bigger effect on lifetime finances than all the advice employees will ever read about investing their 401(k) plans, buying a home or otherwise making more of what they hear [sic]." "Over all, union workers are paid about 20 percent more than nonunion workers, and their fringe benefits are typically worth two to four times as much, economists with a wide array of views have found."

As I have pointed out elsewhere. these statements are factually incorrect; some highly respected economists have even argued that the overall impact of unionization has been- has been to depress, not raise wages. The statement that union workers are paid 20 percent more than nonunion illustrates a lack of sophistication on the issue. Unionized teachers in Connecticut are paid much more than non-unionized teachers in Mississippi and would continue to be paid more if teacher unions were abolished in Connecticut and mandated in Mississippi.

One of the overriding facts of contemporary economic life is that the threat to most employees does not come from their employers; it comes from their competitors. Nowhere is this more true than in the field of education. The public school monopoly is the biggest single obstacle to improving the economic status of Catholic school teachers. This monopoly is what stands in the way of a quantum increase in Catholic teacher welfare, but one would never suspect it from the strategy of Catholic teacher unions.

Interestingly enough, in 1947 the N.E.A., A.F.T., and A.F.L.-C.I.O. supported Federal aid for denominational schools. The word "schools" is important. The issue of whether aid to parents was really aid to denominational schools was irrelevant; the unions accepted aid to denominational schools as such. They did so by supporting legislation that allowed each state to decide whether its share of Federal funds would be shared with denominational schools, a provision that ensured that it would be. The Catholic hierarchy supported the bill because most Catholic schools were sure to receive assistance if the issue were resolved by the states.

Thus far, I have said nothing about the N.E.A /A.F.T. social agenda, which is about as anti-Catholic and anti-free enterprise as it gets. In their efforts to organize school support personnel, the teacher unions are engaged in a massive effort to demonize "privatization" in any way, shape or form. Religious instruction is a nefarious plot of the "religious right"; "profits" are associated with child labor, sweatshops and employer greed. Although adamantly opposed to government funding for private schooling, the N.E.A./A.F.T. ardently support government-funding for abortions. The gay/lesbian caucuses in both unions exert a strong influence on union policies on curriculum and civil rights; the N.E.A. endorsed materials even urging teachers to discuss gay/lesbian issues in the kindergarten, lest impressionable five-year-olds grow up to be homophobes. The N.A.C.S.T. sees the N.E.A/A.F.T., and the labor movement generally, through rose-colored glasses that obscure the basic conflicts between the mission and welfare of Catholic teachers and the public school lobby.

The single most critical obstacle to comprehensive school choice legislation is the failure of denominational supporters, especially those who sponsor denominational schools, to develop a united front win the forces that support school choice for reasons of efficiency. The importance of this point cannot be overemphasized. The denominational supporters of school choice could win the decisive support of the business community if the former insisted that schools for profit deserve the same opportunity to compete as nonprofit or government schools. After all, it does not make sense to argue that parents can choose schools wisely-but not if schools for profit are among the choices. "private schools," not one speaker addressed the role of for-profit schools.

THE FOREGOING comments do not deny the legitimacy of Catholic teacher organizations or assume that the Catholic hierarchy is always right in controversies with Catholic teacher unions. The puzzle, however, is why N.A.C.S.T. and the Catholic school authorities do not fight their common opponents instead of each other.

This article appeared in America magazine, February 28, 1998.