Education Matters US

While reviewing articles for the 132^nd Carnival of Education, I found the DeHavilland Blog asking “Can you think of anything that would do more to ensure the viability and vibrancy of public education in the future?”. Brett asked this question at the end of his argument the upside of less education funding. Here are a few excerpts [Emphasis mine] followed by how I would answer his question:

I believe strongly that public schools are the public’s schools, to quote David Mathews of the Kettering Foundation. What that means is that our schools are intended to be a means to an end which is determined, and paid for, by the public. Simply put, schools are service providers, and we – all of us – are the customers.

But that’s not the current dynamic. Schools and districts generally do not consider themselves in service to the public, and that’s clear from the hue and cry over any sort of independent accountability (which at heart seeks to demonstrate a return on the billions of dollars in federal grants – something the public has a right to see) to the lack of simple courtesy one would show to any customer (see here).

The reason for this disconnect, I believe, is the funding model. If schools and districts were funded directly by the public, I expect they’d be extremely responsive to the public’s interests, involvement, and oversight. However, since the government serves as an intermediary – the public gives money to the government, and the government gives it to the schools – there’s no direct link between the public and the money they provide to the public education system. Schools are not responsive to the public; they’re responsive to the bureaucracy that authorizes their funding.

In light of that, think about what would happen if government funding was cut back. I assume that schools and districts wouldn’t just accept the reduced funding – more likely, they’d reach out to the public to make up the difference. They’d ask parents, PTA/PTO groups, community organizations, businesses and business coalitions, higher education institutions, and everyone else to make up the difference. And that support would come in the form of not only cash but also volunteers and mentors of all stripes, free goods and services, and expertise in all areas – both instructional and operational.

Brett is heading in the right direction. He believes that the government run schools will simply ask the public for money with fund raisers and other generally supportive and friendly methods. The problem is the majority of schools won’t ask nicely. They will run local referendums, threaten cuts that directly affect the children of the district unless you agree to raise your and everyone elses taxes. You have to go no further than Illinois to see this practice already in action. The schools claim they are running deficits and the State does not provide enough money to properly educate the children. Instead of having fundraisers and asking for help, the schools cut art, music, PE and lunch breaks. At the same time, they are handing out exhorbitant raises to the teachers and administration; building lavish schools; installing synthetic turf on high school football fields and using the highest bidder; using bond schemes to circumvent debt limits and taxpayer approval; using loopholes to overtax; and using no bid contracts for energy and other commodities.

Brett is absolutely correct that the funding model is the problem. He just has the wrong solution. The solution that Brett is really looking for is one that empowers parents by funding the child instead of funding the bureaucracy. This forces immediate accountability and customer service. If the schools don’t treat parents with the respect they deserve, the parent can move their child and money elsewhere. This funding model puts the parents in charge of the money. They then fund the schools and thus will have the ultimate in local control. We will be headed back toward truly public schools instead of government schools.