Public Education; R. McEwen

We know that education for youth in America is mandatory. During several decades of the mid-nineteenth century, it was decided in vari ous legislatures that compulsory education was good for the people and for the nation, perhaps to ensure an educated populace capable of dem ocratic self-government. It was thought that representative government required a level of education which could not be guaranteed with out institutions mandated and financed by taxa tion and government promotion. It was some times considered a matter of national security, that a superior knowledge might be achieved in the people, providing a higher level of produc tivity and a competitive edge in world markets. Legislators considered it a matter of law to es tablish excellence in education through a public tax-supported system. Therefore, the freedom to choose not to go to school was removed, and compulsory attendance laws were enforced.

Citizens were not free to neglect school atten dance, and they were not free to neglect tuition payments through taxation. Mr. McEwen is a teacher at East Linn Christian Academy, Lebanon, Oregon. The intentions of those promoting tax supported public education were good. Com pulsory education laws were intended to pro mote the general welfare and to ensure that parents would not neglect their children's edu cation, exploit their services at home, or man age family resources so that funds were not available for tuition payments. But the good in tentions of lawmakers have not brought suc cess. Public schools are not successful in guar anteeing student proficiency or in maintaining school attendance. Only about 75 per cent of students entering high school graduate, and many of those are considered functionally illit erate. It is estimated that 20 per cent of Ameri cans cannot write a letter or read the newspaper.

Can we say then that public schools have suc ceeded? Have literacy and educational profi ciency improved during the century or so of public schooling? Studies have shown that liter acy rates in eighteenth century America were higher than they are today. Thus, ironically, the general public was more proficient academi cally before the introduction of compulsory ed ucation and government support of schools. How can this be? Why have the public schools failed to provide educational excel lence? Vast amounts of money are being ex pended, voluminous studies have been con ducted, graduate schools promote advanced programs, and yet the results are so disappoint ing. Perhaps the reason lies in simple concepts such as individual initiative and freedom of choice. Do not most people find it profitable to be able to read and write? Do not most people 432 THE FREEMAN. NOVEMBER 1986 wish to make the most of their own lives, to compete successfully for desirable employment and higher incomes? It appears sensible that the pursuit of happiness provides sufficient incen tive for people to improve themselves educa tionally. Thus the need for schooling is in one's self-interest, although perhaps "schooling" is not the most accurate term, for maybe it is actu ally learning that people seek. When schooling is mandated by law, that sense of "opportu nity" which arises from free choice vanishes, and often a stubborn and uncooperative spirit finds its way into the classroom, causing dis ruption and hindering the learning environment for eager students. Attitude is affected by com pulsion, and poor attitudes hinder education.

Likewise, the economic compulsion attached to taxation creates additional attitudinal prob lems. There are those who do not willingly sub mit thousands of dollars to the local schools, and their attitudes find expression in the sur rounding culture. Often these taxpayers believe that they should have some freedom to choose their children's school. Perhaps they wish to se lect the teachers for their children, or the curric ulum. This is not practical or possible in our public school system. Parents are unable to ef fect change or to choose from a variety of alter natives because the system is rigid and often controlled by district administrators or policy makers far removed from the local community. When state funds are provided to local schools, strings are often attached. It is difficult for local communities to operate schools free from bu reaucratic control at state and Federal levels. It is frustrating to teachers to be manipulated and directed by restrictive policies, it is frustrating to parents to be unable to make choices of schools and teachers, and it is frustrating to stu dents to have to submit to state-mandated coursework.

Many are persuaded that abandoning compul sory education laws and tax-support for schools would result in empty classrooms and impover ished schools, but there is little historical evi dence to support this theory. If it is in the inter est of people to develop knowledge and skills in order to acquire desired employment and finan cial success, will they neglect their education? Quite the contrary, students will yearn more ea gerly for education than they do under the compulsion of current law. They will perceive edu cation not as a requirement, but as an opportunity. Administrators will not be bur dened with trying to provide discipline for unin terested students, and schools would arise to meet the demands of various student interests and abilities. The market would soon be com peting for students, and students would be com peting for the best schools and the best teachers. The entire psychological atmosphere surround ing schools and education would be improved, would be more positive, and there would be ex cellence in a variety of programs. Of course, there would be some who would choose to not attend school. But those same students are not attending under the present circumstances.

Whose Responsibility? Is it the responsibility of government to de cide that citizens should be educated? Should the state decide what is proper curriculum? I be lieve these matters are better left to parents and individuals. The enormous expense now placed upon society is not efficiently managed. Atti tudes are not right. The bureaucracy has pro moted attendance and conformity, but has failed to maintain creativity, interest, and excel lence. Money has proven to be insufficient to mend the ills. The truth is that what education requires, government cannot provide. It needs freedom. Education needs a free market without government funding, direction, interference, or assistance. What the legislators intended to im prove they diminished. One might ask "You don't think you're going to abolish public schools in America, do you?" It does seem rather incredible to pose such a possibility. It's an appealing possibility, never theless. It's sometimes just enjoyable to pipe dream. The sad fact is that public education has declined for the past twenty-five years. More and more money is tossed at the problem, but results are dismal. Achievement tests have re cently shown some improvement, but only due to a drastic lowering of difficulty in the tests. If the 1960 editions of standardized tests were ad ministered to students today the results would indicate inferior levels of achievement in all ac ademic disciplines.

Private schools would take up the task of education and provide services at a variety of loca tions, with varying costs, philosophies, and ar eas of specialization. Students and parents would select schools of their choosing, and they would examine the programs more closely than they do under current conditions. Parents would have to take more interest in their children's ed ucation because they would have to inquire into schools and teachers and curricula. The choices would promote lively debate and inquiry in the community as parents sought the best education at the lowest cost. Teachers' salaries would be determined by market competition. Good teachers would be promoted and poor ones would be weeded out. The bureaucracy would be unable to protect jobs for poor teachers entrenched in their posi tions. Teachers would sense greater support from parents and greater interest from students.