A Critical Thinking Approach to Public Education Reform

A Critical Thinking Approach to Public Education Reform
There is no doubting the fact that this country’s educational system is in desperate need of reform. Low rates of graduation, poor student performance, fiscal instability, shortages of classes, gross disparity between the rich and poorer districts, and an over-abundance bureaucratic red-tape are a sad testament to the inadequacy of our schooling system. The reason for this is simple: macroeconomics. Without competition or the risk of failure, there is virtually no incentive to find more effective ways of satisfying customers. If the techniques of critical thinking are applied to the issue of education reform, one would find that the best course would be to privatize the bulk of our public institutions, permit individuals the freedom to choose where they want go to school, and implement a student voucher program for those with limited income.
Many people shudder at the thought of no free education but this is just a reactionary response.
Society as a whole would be better served if the educational complex was restructured in a way that optimizes free-market conditions.

Evidence of the failure of public education is all around us, from the glaring negligence seen in underprivileged districts throughout the nation to the crippling budget problems of local
California schools. The subpar quality of education that the majority of students receive is alarming. According to a recent study by the non-profit testing organization, ACT, “only 22 percent of U.S. students exiting high school met ‘college ready’ standards in all of their core subjects.” (Crotty 1). It has also been found that, despite the fact that the United States spends more per capita on K-12 education than many first-world countries, “U.S. students remain poorly prepared to compete with global peers, [ranking] fourteenth in reading, twenty-fifth in math, and seventeenth in science compared to students in other developed countries. Our idea of
"advanced" is clearly below international standards. There appears to be a consistent weakness in our teaching performance in the sciences that it may even be seen as widespread academic failure in this department. (…) Under 25% of Americans obtain a bachelor’s degree.” (Crotty 1).
The history of the educational establishment in this country gives many clues as to the explanation of why this is.

The decline of the educational system can be linked directly to its increased centralization and the strengthening of its ties to the federal government over the years. “[Public education] over time has become more defective as it has become more centralized. Power has moved from the local community to the school district to the state, and to the federal government, as evidenced by the drop in the number of school districts from 55,000 in 1955 to 15,000 in 1992.
About 90 percent of our kids now go to so-called public schools, which are really not public at all but simply private fiefs primarily of the administrators and the union officials.” (Friedman 1).
The unintended consequences of this are dismal: financial troubles across the board, often in the form of billion-dollar deficits; and a sharp contrast between the relatively good educational opportunities offered in wealthy communities and the disadvantaged, inner-city schools where
“high drop-out rates, increasing violence, lower performance and demoralized students and teachers” are commonplace.

It is a wonder why people refuse to abandon a system that yields such abysmal results.
There seems to be a prevailing belief in the fallacy that public education is ideal because it takes into account the plight of poor children. Though, in reality, such a system serves only to exacerbate the situation of the disadvantaged and education is not even really “free” because everyone pays for it through taxes. Via the modern educational structure, artificial circumstances have caused the demand curve for education to become inelastic, meaning that no matter how the quality and price of education may change for the worse, the demand for it remains unaffected. Taxpayer money goes straight to public schools, guaranteeing them revenue regardless of whether they merit it or not- and students often have no other choice to attend whichever school is in their locality. The only means that families have of selecting their children’s school is by moving to richer areas with better school districts. This phenomenon leads to the creation of ghettos, particularly in the inner cities, because low income families cannot afford to do the same. The schools in these areas are notorious for being of substandard quality, which results in an “achievement gap” between the economic classes. (Garrett 1). The unfairness inherent in our schooling structure is something that should not be tolerated.

When faced with a botched system, the only rational thing to do is to demand sweeping reform. If public education is to improve, the consolidated power of the schooling establishhment has to be broken. The laws of macroeconomics must also be taken into account, for, after all, education is an industry, and it is affected by these laws the same as any other.
Schools must be made to compete with each other- to improve classroom conditions, teaching techniques, and student accomplishment so that they keep and expand their clientele. This can be achieved through the means of a universal voucher program to aid low income students as well as ease the transitioning of public schools into profit-driven enterprises. Such a program would cut out the bureaucrat middleman and be much less expensive than what the government now spends per pupil. The vouchers must go directly to the students and have no conditions attached, allowing families the freedom to send their children to a school of their choosing. This would create a market for high-quality private schools that would attract entrepreneurs into the industry and facilitate the steady privatization of a substantial portion of public schools.
According to the laws of macroeconomics, the competitive nature of the market would plunge costs down and drive educational standards up, as firms try to make them-selves as appealing as possible in order to gain more profit. Soon, a first-rate education, once only accessible to the privileged few, will become available to the vast majority. “The innovations in the ‘luxury’ product will always spread to the basic product when there is completion for profit. If this vision is realized, everybody, except a small group of those with vested interests, will win: parents, students, dedicated teachers, taxpayers- for whom the cost of the educational system will decline- and especially the residents of central cities, who will have a real alternative to the wretched schools so many of their children are now forced to attend.” (Orozco 1).

The benefits of the shift from public to private education would be immeasurable. Not only would a dramatic rise in student performance and lower tuition costs be seen, but new methods of teaching and technological progress in these areas would also be likely to surface.
Worthy teachers would obtain higher salaries as schools compete to engage the best ones, especially now that funds would cease going to the pensions of bureaucrats. Taxpayers would no longer be burdened with paying for bloated government administration in schools. Class stratification would be greatly reduced by the advent of vouchers and the widespread availability of inexpensive, high-quality educational prospects. In fact, such reforms might go a long way in expanding the upward mobility of the disadvantaged and lessening the rigidity of the present social order.

When the academic system in the United Sates is analyzed from a critical thinking perspective, it becomes obvious that the major problem is that it’s structured in a way that stifles the market forces. This is the underlying cause of most of its issues with incompetence and mismanagement. A far-reaching voucher plan coupled with the privatization of a considerable number of public schools would introduce competition to the industry, paving the way for a free- enterprise system of education that would be much more innovative and cost-effective than its public-sector counterpart. If this ground plan was to be put into practice, more people would have access to a better quality education than ever thought possible.

Sources:
Garrett, Rose. “Factoring in the Achievement Gap.” Education.com. Web. 6 July 2012.

Orozco, Graciala L. “Understanding the Culture of Low-Income Parents: Key to Involvement.” School Community Journal 18.1 (2008): 21-37. ERIC. Web. 6 July 2012.

Friedman, Milton. “Public Schools: Make Them Private.” June 23, 1995. The Hoover Institute. WEB. Cato.org.

Crotty, James Marshall. “7 Signs that U.S. Educational Decline is Jeopardizing its National Security.” March 26, 2012. Forbes publications. WEB. Forbes.com.

Devins, Neal. “Centralization in Education: Why Johnny Can’t Spell Bureaucracy.” 1987. Facutly Publications. WEB. Law.wm.edu.