Can Private Schools Survive "Privatization?" S. Rhoads

of terms that many conservatives and clerics mainstaysof private education-are now improb able allies with the providers of government schoolingin a whole new debate on "choice" in education. An HistoricalPerspective Dialogue is dependent upon communication. Everyone is talking,yet the free flow of ideas has been curtailed by doublespeak. "Privatization" and "choice" take on whole new meanings from one context to another. The resultant confusion dividesthe proponents of private education, set tingthe nation adrift in uncharted waters. To appreciate the current dilemma we must look at word origins and their meanings. "Free enterprise means that the governmentleavesindi vidualsfree to own businessesand make a living dependent on their own enterprise (initiative)."4 Such a succinctdefinitiondeservesamplification. Private enterprise is privately owned, privately administered,privatelyregulated. With the intro duction of publicfunds (ownership),publiclycer tifiedworkers(administration),and governmental rules (regulation),private enterprise ceases to be private. "Privatization" of "public" education is, by definition,the couplingof two mutuallyexclu siveterms.The bestexampleoflossofprivatecon trol through governmental infusion of public funds is in education.

Government schools are but one facet of the largest bureaucracyin the nation today.The gov ernment is the largestproviderof educationin the country.It sets the standards for certification of 395 396 THE FREEMAN • OCTOBER 1992 teachers, regulates teacher education, its think tanks and programs and agencies influence text book production, and each generation graduates as creatures of public educational philosophy. The process is accelerated by the influence of the National Education Association in politicizing teachers and maintaining a national legislative agenda. At first the NEA exerted influence, but now the policy-setting potential opens a whole new realm of control. Horace Greeley and later James Coleman established a direct correlation between the results obtained when the educational services were pri vately provided as opposed to public education. Reduced class size, intensive emphasis on values, and "bright flight" notwithstanding, all private school students outs cored their public school counterparts on standard achievement tests.5 In contrast, as Federal outlays for elementary, sec ondary, and vocational education increased by $20 billion from 1966-1975, SAT scores dropped approximately 70 points.6 In 1959-60public educa tion consumed $375per pupil: in 1967it consumed $3,977.7 Despite extensive efforts to improve public education and rapidly increasing expenditures, the downward trend continues. A Washington Post editorialist indicted experts, parents, and students alike when 1989 SATs dropped yet again: "What jolted me about the scores is the dis mal fact that they are averages. It's bracing to bear in mind that many of the kids scored higher than 476 or 424, but it's stupefying to realize that many scored lower-down in the semiliterate 300s."8 Each year brings notice of a further decline. Indeed, 1990 SAT scores averaged fifty points below scores of college-bound seniors twenty years earlier. President Bush, in speaking to students and faculty at the Lewiston Compre hensive High School on September 3, 1991, remarked, "Every day brings new evidence of cri sis. Last week, we learned that SAT scores have fallen again. Scores on the verbal SAT have tum bled to the lowest level ever. And these numbers tell us: our schools are in trouble." 9 UnderstandingAmerica2000 The President's comprehensive package to remedy our nation's educational woes includes six vital points: "1. All children in America will start school ready to learn.

"2. The high school graduation rate willincrease to at least 90 percent. "3. American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competen cy in challenging subject matter .... "4. U.S. students will be first in the world in sci ence and mathematics achievement. "5. Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy .... "6. Every school in America willbe free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environ ment conducive to learning." Federal involvement will include a 15-point accountability package, Congressional scholar ships, state and local incentives to programs of "choice," Federal seed money for establishment of Governors' Academies for School Leaders and Teachers, and grants for development of alterna tive teacher certification programs. Development of a new (voluntary) nationwide examination sys tem in conjunction with the National Education Goals Panel, with incentives to encourage colleges and employers to consider test results in accepting applicants is one large part of the overall package.

More than 535 schools are targeted for lavish out lays of Federal grants and electronic networks to coordinate programs nationally. Some may be schools designated for change within a particular district, others may be private schools applying for Federal seed money, already qualifying for Feder al assistance through maintenance of current reg ulatory standards. As of March 1992, almost 700 teams nationwide have applied for existing funds, representing school districts, businesses, associa tions, colleges, and think tanks. iO Initial projec tions estimated costs of $690million, not counting programs administered under the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. ll The President's Fiscal Year 1993 budget request includes an additional half billion dollars for grants to states and commu nities developing "opportunity scholarships." Dis turbingly absent from the discussionis the concept of equity,as outlays of Federal funds are channeled into a small number of model schools, leaving extensive portions of the population with no sub stantial help at all. How much money will actually be funneled into education? No one knows.

CAN PRIVATE SCHOOLS SURVIVE "PRIVATIZATION"? 397 The injection of more Federal monies into gov ernment schools is widely accepted, but none of these costly programs, even with private money injected, will make public schools private. The same red tape, the same teachers, the same school boards still control outcomes. Each will still be a public school. Less widely accepted has been the concept of publicizingthe private sector, though now it is pre sented more attractively by calling it "privatizing the public sector." Yet the result is the same. Instead of making public schools private, all pri vate schools become public. Lamar Alexander, Secretary of Education, asserted, "The definition of 'public school' should be broadened to include any school that serves the public and is held accountable by a public authority."12 Public educa tion may be minimally improved through innova tive programs, but private education will be dras tically downgraded to equalize opportunities. A broad range of proposals is being suggested to remedy the disparity between public and private education, but basic to each type of funding is the direct or indirect infusion of government money into private education, with the result of making all schools public schools.

Efforts to ameliorate the dismal state of public education have created a loose coalition of strange bedfellows. Proponents of change call it "privati zation of public education" or "choice in educa tion." The multiplicity of proposals and terms employed, however, blur distinctions between public education and private enterprise. Four types of options exist. Two "choice" pro grams target government schools only, but critics advocating social change predict their impact alone insufficient to produce any real improve ment,13The other two types of programs serve to "publicize" the private sector. A description of all four illustrates the difference between restructur ing public schools versus publicizing the private sector. Intra-district options introduced in Mas sachusetts, Idaho, and Michigan allowed open enrollments among public schools within a single district. These represent public school "choice"

programs. Inter-district options have proliferated in metropolitan areas across the nation. Typical are magnet programs in which youngsters from vari ous districts have the option of transferring to a specialty school in another district, the shift of 398 THE FREEMAN • OCTOBER 1992 funding handled through the administrative shuf fle of paperwork. Broader in scope, this is the sec ond type of public school "choice" program. Voucheroptions seem clear cut, but in 1991 27 different voucher proposals were introduced in 14 states. In Milwaukee the plan excluded religious schools, offering $2,500to the private non-sectari an school chosen by parents with a low-income sta tus. In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, $900 vouchers were available to religious schools as well. With vouchers, taxes are directly funneled to the schools. Negativetax creditswere instituted in Epson, New Hampshire, where parents paid for a child's tuition at the school of choice, and then received tax credit for sending the child to a school outside his residential district.

Each instance of government funds supporting private education illustrates a clear case of polit ical intrusion into the free enterprise system. Ownership transfers out of private hands into the government's broad grasp. No matter how broadly or narrowly conceived the program, whether government money extends into sectar ian or non-sectarian schools, whether home schools are included or not, each opens the door to governmental control of the private sector. Ini tial provisions may safeguard curriculum, school administration, and specify governmental non interference, yet Federal anti-discrimination requirements resulting in civil rights litigation and First Amendment challenges Illustrate the fallacy of misplaced trust-there are no guaran tees, no safeguards. 14 Statutory requirements for providing transportation, establishing racial bal ance, providing school-performance data and audit data led one author to conclude: "An edu cation system organized as a public utility might better serve all these interests."15 Well-inten tioned efforts to introduce competition and open doors of choice spell the demise of free enterprise in private education with the introduction of gov ernment ownership, and thus the inevitable control of the private sector.

Controllingthe PurseStrings The Department of Education (employing 4,737 workers) currently comprises four main agencies, eight offices with assistant secretaries and ten regional offices (staffed by an additional 4,655).16 It requires the oversight of nine Congres sional committees and is audited by the GAO)? The additional numbers employed in administer ing programs and grants nationwide are unknown. Its budgetary allocations are enmeshed in a web of interrelated categories administered through the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Feder al Emergency Management Agency, Disaster Relief Account. Analysis of the many accounts resembles a juggling routine as slotted funds are sprinkled into the various sub-categories. For example, $632 million is allocated for the estab lishment of drug-free schools. The School Im provement Program is but one of 14 sub-headings under elementary and secondary education. It specificallylists drug-free schools, yet its line-item expenditures account for only one one-thousandth of that total. More than $631 million remains unspecified in other programs or summary bud gets, therefore without accountability.18 Elementary and secondary education is target ed for various other program allotments: the pro posed Educational Excellence Act, $690 million; Certificate Support Fund, $200 million; Compen satory Education, $6.2 billion; Educational Block Grants, $449 million; Math and Science State Grants,$242 million;Drug Free Schools,$632mil lion; Disabilities, $2.7billion; and Vocational Edu cation, $1 billion. Additional Federal capital out laysfor education and training total $35.1billion.19 Bearing in mind that current Federal funding for education represents only seven percent of all edu cation expenditures,20 one can only surmise the extent to which this chain of bureaucratic employ ment could expand if the broad-reaching reforms proposed are actually realized and placed within the purview of Federal regulation. As funds trickle down to state and local programs, what percentage actually benefits the individual child, even indi rectly?

Byvirtue of the fact that all government funding is regulated, its recipients accountable to 435 rep resentatives, 100 senators, and millions of taxpay ers, private, autonomous control of government subsidies is a misnomer. Not only is all public mon ey subject to intense scrutiny, its expenditure is subject to the whim of men and women who reside on Capitol Hill, who have interests in satisfying constituents and special interests (not the least of which is the NEA), each crying for expanded serCAN PRIVATE SCHOOLS SURVIVE "PRIVATIZATION"? 399 vices. Control of the purse strings limits freedom. The very underpinnings of successful private edu cation are incompatible with the required account ability (control) of government funding. The DeathKnellof AU Education Four steps, in relatively short order, will make all education-public and private-extinct once government funding becomes a widespread reali ty. First, private schools willbecome dependent on this new source of money, and in time, unable to exist without it. Expanded services, payments for renovations and building additions, accommoda tion to government regulations, and the free flow of cash makes it inevitable. Second, private schools electing to safeguard their freedoms, not taking advantage of "free" government money, will not be able to compete. Higher rates of tuition will ultimately close their doors. Third, when the only schools left are government schools, is there any assurance that the quality of public schooling will not precipitously decline as it has before? The resultant government monopoly will preclude any form of competitive standards. Finally, costs will skyrocket as offices are set up nationwide to mon itor the expenditure of government funds, protect students from exploitation, and expand services as further "needs" arise. Eventually the aim will be the maintenance of programs, not the education of children. Compliance with government policy and maintenance of the status quo will assume greater and greater importance as more workers become dependent on government-subsidized salaries.

Nowhere will this be felt more deeply than in the private sector. Mollified consumers of public education will know no difference. Their watered down education has satisfied them for years; but there will be a remnant, perhaps educated in pri vate institutions or home schools themselves, who will faintly remember a time when education meant a search for truth. A remnant willfind dusty books packed in the attic, brush off the cobwebs, and rediscover the principles of private enterprise upon which our nation was established. Then will begin the second American revolution, as our chil dren's children again fight for the freedom we once ~dd~L D 1. John Taylor Gatto, "The 7-Lesson Schoolteacher," The New Society Publishers, 1992. 2. David Woodruff, "Using Flash Cards and Grit to Defeat a Secret Shame," Business Week, July 16, 1990, p. 22D. 3. Beatrice & Ronald Gross, ed., The Great School Debate (New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1985), p. 23.

4. Laurel Hicks, George T. Thompson, Michael R. Lowman, and George C. Cochran, American Government and Economics (Pen sacola, Florida: A Beka Book Publications, 1984), p. 4. 5. Allan C. Ornstein, "The Growing Popularity of Private Schools," The Clearing House, January, 1990, p. 210. 6. Onalee McGraw, Family Choice in Education: The New Imperative (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 1978), p. 2. 7. Carol Foster, Patricia Von Brook, and Mark Siegel, ed., Edu cation: Reflecting Our Society (Wylie, Tex.: Information Plus, 1990), pp.15-18. 8. Richard Cohen, "Johnny's Miserable SATs," Wash ington Post, Sept. 4, 1990, p. A19. 9. George Bush, Administration of George Bush, 1991 (Washing ton, D.C.), p.1215. 10. Lynn Olson, "Nearly 700 Teams Submit School-Design Over hauls," Education Week, March 11, 1992, p. 3. 11. America 2000: An Education Strategy (Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Education, 1991), pp.I-29.

12. America 2000, p. 31. 13. David L. Kirp, "School Choice Is a Panacea, These Authors Say," The American School Board Journal, Sept. 1990, pp. 40-41. 14. Clint Bolick, "Providing a Choice in Education: Perils & Opportunities," USA Today, December, 1991, p. 66. 15. Philip C. Schlechty, "Parential Choice of Schools OR Educa tion Services as a Regulated Monopoly?", The Education Digest, December, 1991, p. 31. 16. Ronald L. Krannich and Caryl R. Krannich, The Almanac of American Government Jobs and Careers (Woodbridge, Va.: Impact Publications, 1991), pp. 7, 90. 17. Ann Davies, ed., Washington Information Directory Washington, D.C., Congressional Quarterly Press, 1991), pp.119-121. 18. Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1992, pp. 4-567. 19. Ibid., 2-9, 6-18. 20. Foster, Von Brook, and Siegel, p. 17. Educational Vouchers: The Double Tax T HOSE WHO truly want independent schools and are willing to pay for them must not seek after vouchers, for vouchers are the very seal of doom for the independent school system. Pseudo-market schemes generally lead to anti-market results.

-GARY NORTH IDEAS ON LIBERTY 400 BOOKS THE RIGHTSRETAINEDBY THE PEOPLE:THE HISTORYAND MEANING OF THE NINTHAMENDMENT edited by Randy E. Barnett George Mason University Press, Fairfax, Virginia • 416 pages • $39.95cloth, $16.95paper Reviewedby James A. Woehlke T his book should open the door to a serious, intellectually sound approach to the Con stitutional protection of human rights including property rights. The book contains his torical background and analysis by legal scholars concerning the Ninth Amendment to the Consti tution. The advancement of human rights in the legal arena has been inconsistent under the u.s.Consti tution. Political rights fare well. Other rights list ed-or enumerated-in the Constitution also are relatively well protected. With the notable excep tion of the right to privacy, however, courts have proven less interested in unenumerated human rights. These include economic rights such as the right to work for a wage less than the statutory minimum, the right to work if younger than a cer tain minimum age, and property rights.