OCR Text |
Show An Explanation of the Organization through an Examination of Education Policy John hyman have the cultural "know-how" to navigate this new system. Many worry that it is the economically disadvantaged children who would be left in subpar public schools. In Milwaukee and Cleveland school choice programs have been implemented to help economically disadvantaged students in the form of targeted scholarships. In Milwaukee, as a trial program, 15 percent of underprivileged students have been allowed to use their share of state public funds (approximately $3,800 per pupil) to pay tuition in private schools. Eligible students are chosen at random by lottery. In Cleveland, a similar trial gives scholarships worth 90 percent of tuition to be used at selected private schools. Other variations of this program exist in Maine and Vermont. While preliminary results seem encouraging, the programs are being used in a very small sample and more study needs to be done to determine just how effective they are (Bolick 1997, 3). Perhaps the most comprehensive approach to education reform is the child-centered education funding plan. The idea is to join public and private school choice with a system in which the state would provide an equal amount of funds that follow the educational choices of each student. Money would no longer be sent to fund schools or school districts, but would instead follow individual students. Funds going to public schools would be placed under the direct control of the particular school. Ideally the system would foster decentralization, autonomy, and competition among schools, and would be completely neutral between religious and secular options (Bolick 1997, 3). Currently the idea of child-centered education funding is only in use in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, but if it fares well there it will most likely find its way to the mainland. School privatization and the use of public funds for private schools, no matter what package it comes in, is the most far reaching of any of the educational reforms on the table today. It would completely revolutionize the way public education funds are spent and, in turn, would fundamentally change the way American students learn. In addition to being the most comprehensive plan, it is without a doubt the most controversial. Many view privatization as a sign that America has given up on the educational ideals that this country was built upon. Liberals argue that a move toward the private sector would create a rigid class stratification that would be socially damaging, and that school choice attacks the idea that quality education is a public good (Hechinger 1983, 168). Conservatives argue that privatization simply offers too many advantages to be ignored. They dismiss the liberal argument that education is underfunded and point out that Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah are consistently among the top ten states in NEAP, ACT, and SAT test performance but are all in the bottom half of education funding ("School Reform Sweeps across Nation," 1993, 5). In addition, by almost all accounts and measures, Washington, DC has the worst schools in the country yet has the highest per-capita spending. Later in this paper the funding argument and its counter argument are examined, but let us for a moment assume that conservatives are correct when they say the answer to education problems is not more spending, nor even better allocation of the current funds. Is the answer privatization? Proponents argue that the system allows good teachers to be rewarded (often in the form of higher salaries) and bad teachers to be fired. They also point out that studies show that poor children do better when taken out of their neighborhood schools and placed in private ones, in terms of grades, test scores, behavior, and success after school. In addition private schools are safer and - because they must compete in the market - generally cut costs where they can. Conservatives argue that private schools will not concentrate their funds on administration positions simply because they cannot afford to. In many cases the call for school choice comes from a segment of the population that has traditionally been a liberal bastion: inner-city African-Americans. Tired of the way their children have been educated in the last thirty years, they have joined forces with white conservatives to try to change the state of education in America today. However, many critics question a school system that because it competes in an open market is able to "cut costs." The importance of test scores leads some to wonder what will happen to the art, music, and athletic programs. In today's world there is an increasing push to privatize government functions and make government respond to market forces, but privatization is certainly not a panacea for all of America's problems. Liberals argue that if we want to produce a generation of children who have the ability to compete in a global economy there must be some government regulation to make sure things are going according to plan. The Brookevgs Institution Let us now turn our attention to the education reform ideas held by many liberals. They have led the education debate for the last thirty years and they are taking most of the heat for the state of education today. Recently, President Clinton proposed a budget in which funds were included to hire 100,000 new teachers. This budget was subsequently passed by Congress to the delight of many observers on the left and to the dismay of many on the right. George Will, a conservative columnist for Newsweek, went so far as to say that education in America today would actually improve more if 100,000 poor teachers were fired than if 100,000 potentially unqualified teachers were hired (Will 1997). President Clinton also announced plans in his 1997 State of the Union address to create national academic standards. Again he was glorified by the left for improving education while at the same time vilified by the right for taking power away from the states. He has proposed tax credits and increased federal aid to reduce the cost of higher education, ideas Congress has gone along with. Whatever the results, President Clinton's plans for education have the decided backing of the liberal establishment, evidenced by the 50 |