|
4401-A
Connecticut Avenue, Box 294, Washington, DC
20008
Tel: (202) 244-7535, Fax: (202) 244-7584
|
Education Exchange
Volume 3, Issue 8 -- August
1999
|
Focusing on
Education Reforms at Your School, in Your State
Legislature, and in Congress
|
Candidates
Missing the Point on Education in Campaign 2000
Political campaigns have been growing longer and costlier
for many years, but campaign 2000 for the presidency
promises to break all previous highs. With the Iowa Straw
Poll just past, and media coverage heating up by the day,
candidates of both major parties are being pushed to lay out
detailed policy platforms not only so voters can be
informed, but also as a means for the media to find new
angles for coverage.
On the issue of education, an area that has received more
publicity than perhaps any other in the last election cycle,
we are hearing nothing new from Democrats or Republicans.
Al Gore wants to spend more tax money on new programs
expanding preschool opportunities nationwide, pushing for
teacher licensing by the teacher-union-dominated National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and providing
teacher technology preparation and Internet wiring for
schools and libraries. He adamantly opposes all proposals
for the federal government to relinquish education funding
or oversight to state and local institutions, and like his
friends in the NEA and AFT, he supports "public" school
choice, but is opposed to any other kind of educational
choice.
The other serious Democratic contender, Bill Bradley, has
said little on education so far. Like others in both
parties, he emphasizes the need to hold teachers and
principals accountable, which will require better teacher
training. He also promotes increased use of technology in
classrooms, and says we must have national standards.
Republican front-runner George W. Bush supports block
grants, charter schools, and school choice. He proposes
reforming Head Start to make it more of a reading/early
learning program, and diverges slightly from some of his
Republican counterparts with his "English 'Plus'" programs
for teaching immigrant children English. The
"accountability" buzzword crops up time and again in the
Bush campaign in relation to education.
Neither John McCain nor Elizabeth Dole has provided much
input on his/her education policy preferences to date. Steve
Forbes supports tuition tax credits; K-12 education savings
accounts; school choice pilot programs; and protections from
government intervention for homeschool families.
Some lower tier Republican candidates promote more of
what might be deemed conservative cultural issues such as
abolishing the Department of Education, passing a
constitutional amendment allowing school prayer, and
opposing national testing and standards.
What we have noticed is that not one of the serious
candidates for the presidency has offered any new education
policy proposals. Everything we are hearing has been heated,
cooled, and heated again before the public. We would like to
see the candidates demonstrate their understanding of, and
support for, a competitive education industry.
Perhaps the candidates need to be reminded that a
competitive education industry would eliminate the need for
government agencies, such as school boards, to resolve many
of the individual education issues currently under
discussion. For our education system to become competitive,
several things need to happen.
- First, parents must be free to choose the best school
for their children.
- There must be minimal obstacles to entry of new
schools, profit and nonprofit.
- Public schools would grow or fail insofar as they
could compete successfully with other schools.
- Faith-based and for profit schools must not be
discriminated against in eligibility for government
funding.
- Home schooling must be allowed to expand.
If schools became competitive, a wide variety of schools
would be easily accessible to parents and children.
To be easily accessible, the state, and in a much more
limited way the federal government, must not mandate
unnecessary obstacles to private schools. For example, laws
that require schools to accept pupils by lot or to accept
any students who apply inhibit the kind of specialization
that would better meet the needs of parents and pupils. In
fact, it would be desirable if governments enacted tax
credits which follow the student, and for companies starting
new schools.
With sufficient options, parents could expect the best
educational results for their children. If parents and
students were not satisfied, they could take their
customer-children elsewhere -- to the competition!
Excellence in education for our children should not be a
partisan concern. The Education Policy Institute encourages
Republican and Democrat candidates alike to foster a
competitive education industry. Such an industry would solve
many issues that are currently resolved by governments in a
haphazard way.
When you have an opportunity to question candidates --
presidential, congressional, state legislative, county,
municipal, school board -- demand that they address these
issues.
Simple Answer:
Competition Works
In answer to a recent question about whether there is
really any proof that competition works, EPI offers this
seemingly simplistic answer. Often, we ignore the evidence
that is right in front of our eyes.
In fact, we have thousands of examples that competition
works. Each time you as a consumer decide to eat out with
your family, you have almost innumerable options: a place
specializing in American cuisine, Chinese, Japanese,
Ethiopian, KoreanŠwhatever. Some restaurants offer many
varieties within each of these, and more.
Food service providers operate in a true competitive
environment; many sole proprietor (family run) cafes compete
with chain franchises (McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken)
that compete with corporate sponsored restaurants such as
Applebees.
By specializing, some restaurants believe they have a
competitive edge. Likewise, quality assurance is critical to
repeat business, as is the constant development of new items
to attract new customers and keep current customers. As a
consumer you are free to choose the price range, the menu,
the atmosphere, the location, the quality, the quantity, and
a host of other considerations as you make your choice. You
will give your repeat business to the restaurant that most
closely meets your needs -- often characterized as the best
quality for the least price.
None of this is true in education. Education service
providers operate in a monopolistic environment because the
government provides education service to almost 90% of all
students. Only 10% of education providers come from the
private sector; and the majority of these are nonprofit
schools which are in many ways similar to government
provided education.
There are many reasons why this monopoly exists and
continues to exist. First, in most jurisdictions, the
government assigns the schools that children must attend.
Again, schools are filled because of government regulations,
not because customer-parents have chosen the educational
opportunity that is appropriate for their child's needs,
interests, or learning style.
Second, any change in this monopoly situation is met with
furious objections from the education establishment,
especially the teacher unions that spend enormous amounts of
money to influence the political process to keep the status
quo.
Third, the education establishment is doing its utmost to
prevent anything remotely resembling an experiment with a
competitive education system. At the same time, the
education establishment is quick to emphasize the absence of
"evidence" that competition in education works.
A solution to many of the problems with the government
delivery of education services is competition, as outlined
in the article on page one. For additional resources, please
read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman,
Market Education by Andrew J. Coulson, and
Public Education: An Autopsy by Myron
Lieberman. To learn more about the power and influence of
the teacher unions in this matter, read The Teacher
Unions by Myron Lieberman.
As to what the presidential candidates are promising to
doŠsimply put, more of the same will not result in a
competitive education industry.
Education
International Concerned
About Privatization in Global Market
When we think of the National Education Association (NEA)
and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), we tend to
put most other public education organizations somewhere
under them on the organizational chart. Did you know,
however, that both the NEA and AFT, as well as the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP) are among the
294 members of Education International (EI), headquartered
in Brussels, Belgium?
Education International is the world's largest
International Trade Secretariat, with roughly 23 million
members. It is one of sixteen organizations worldwide
holding NGO (non-governmental organization) consultant
status with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Currently, EI's president is
former NEA President Mary Hatwood Futrell. AFT President
Sandra Feldman serves as one of four vice presidents, and
NEA President Robert Chase holds a North American regional
seat on EI's Board.
In a recent "Questions for Debate" publication, EI asks
the World Trade Organization (WTO) what is at stake for
public education during the millennium round of
negotiations. In 1994, the WTO adopted rules concerning
international trade in services.
In EI's words:
"On the threshold of the twenty-first century, global
public spending on education tops one trillion
dollars. This figure represents the costs of over 50
million teachers, one billion pupils and students, and
hundreds of thousands of educational establishments
throughout the world. Some observers are already describing
this huge sector as a colossal 'market'. Shaken by the
combined effects of galloping globalization and exacerbated
neoliberalism, and with free trade being put forward as a
cure-all by the champions of economic laissez-faire,
education is now 'in the sights of entrepreneurs...
"...In the wake of other major public services which have
been subject to extensive privatization and deregulation,
public education is increasingly being targeted by predatory
and powerful entrepreneurial interests. The latter are
aiming at nothing less than its dismantling by subjecting it
to international competition."
Sound familiar? Big labor fighting feverishly against
privatization? One might think this is just an international
replica of the NEA's and AFT's public rhetoric here at home.
EI's document reads, "International trade in education
services is an important area of activity, currently
undergoing rapid expansion... With the GATS [General
Agreement on Trade and Services], the WTO has instituted a
general framework and an agenda intended to progressively
liberalize international trade in services, and this
includes education services."
Education International believes "there is a major risk
that the WTO's initiatives will clash head-on with the
principles upheld by all those who value a quality public
education system." They ask, "Given the existence of huge
disparities between countries, is the idea of placing
national education systems in a competitive situation not
tantamount to selling out the education systems in the
weakest countries to a handful of large transnational
corporations?" They add, "The danger of ending up with a
'mechanized' [computerized], uniform education system should
not be underestimated."
Paradoxically, EI is arguing against the possibility of a
monopolistic, standardized system coming into existence on
the international front -- just the opposite of what the NEA
and AFT argue for on the American front.
EI concludes, "By leaving private operators a clear field
and endorsing the transfer of arbitration procedures to an
organization such as the WTO, governments have already
effectively created a social deficit through the complete
surrender of public responsibilities and powers which
directly concern social development. This applies as much to
education as to other programs and measures which fall
within the competence of public authorities. At the same
time, there is every reason to be seriously concerned about
the democratic deficit which is progressively deepening as
what effectively amounts to a covert world government is
built step by step on the basis of the economic, financial
and business interests of a handful of large corporations."
Whereas one country cannot force its government systems
on another (short of war), Education International has
raised an important question about the efficacy of lowering
trade barriers in terms of the provision of educational
services across national borders.
* European spellings were Americanized in
the quotes provided above.
EPI's
Education Quick Facts
- The total e-rate funding for schools and libraries so
far this year is $270 million, with 10,491 commitment
letters sent to e-rate applicants. A total of $2.25
billion is available for the 1999-2000 funding year.
(Source: School Board News, August 3, 1999)
- In fall 1999, the Edison Project expects its total
number of schools will increase to 77, up from 51 in the
1998-99 school year. Schools are expected to open in ten
new cities, five new states, and in many of Edison's
existing locations. Following the expected openings,
Edison will operate in 36 communities, in 16 states and
in the District of Columbia. (Source: The Edison
Project News, July 29, 1999)
- Delaware, Maryland, and New Mexico were the only
states to receive a B- or higher grade in the National
Program for Playground Safety's recent report card (which
surveyed 27 states) on school, park and child care center
playground supervision, designed-in safety and equipment
maintenance. (Source: Governing, August
1999)
- Between 1999 and 2009, the total number of public and
private high school teachers is expected to rise by
75,000 -- a 6 percent increase; a total of 2.2 million
public elementary and secondary school teachers will be
needed over the period to accommodate the new students
and replace those teachers who retire or leave the
profession for other reasons. (Source: "Baby Boom Echo:
No End in Sight," U.S. Department of Education, August
19, 1999)
- Michael Sandler, Chairman of Boston-based
EduVentures, says, "The amount of money raised [in the
publicly traded education industry], according to
securities data from 1993, is $3.6 billion. The number we
are going to produce [in a report this fall], which will
only be private equity investment, is going to be
substantially bigger than that $3.6 billion." Todd
Parchman, Partner at Baltimore-based Parchman-Vaughn,
shares the view that education is experiencing fast
growth on the private side. (Source: The Education
Industry Report, August 1999)
Copyright 1999
Education Policy Institute, PMB 294, 4401-A Connecticut
Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20008-2322 202/244-7535, Fax
202/244-7584 http://www.educationpolicy.org
|
