I attended K-12 public schools, I have worked in independent schools for the past 12 years, and, given that education is in the news, I want to share why I think privatizing education would be a grievous oversight with catastrophic effects. The late Frank L. Boyden said one must “never make a decision just to get something done” (McPhee, 1966). I don’t know many people who think we’ve gotten education “right,” and there’s good reason for that conclusion. Decisions of such enormous influence, ones that will define future generations of Americans, require logical and thoughtful thinking, aligned with national–and principled–values, values with sturdy roots that grow and strengthen with changing times (just as the Constitution does). Unfortunately, all sides of the political aisle have fallen short with these decisions, for a while, and it’s clear that we remain divided on the issue of how to best educate children.
I’m not trying to put myself out of a job, but here’s my thesis: the United States should commit to the systemic reform of public schools, encouraging accountability through the electorate and granting flexibility to educators to, I don’t know, teach kids how to practice ethical skills and values with confidence and joy so that they may serve others, their communities, and this world. Historically, widespread inequality is ruinous to the success and vitality of a nation. Therefore, schools should foster personal liberty while still advocating for the public good. Poverty and inequality are the root causes of underperforming schools, and the free market promises innovation—not equality. Privatization will lead to further division. The holistic improvement of education through public schools (which serve over 80% of enrolled students) is our best bet.
Before addressing the puzzle of schooling, one must acknowledge that inequality, not schools, is the root cause of lagging education and student achievement. When it comes to the relationship between poverty and achievement, the facts are clear: “There are never any flat lines when one compares student achievement to family income; that is, as a group children of wealth always outperform students of modest means, and children of poverty perform the worst” (Onosko, 2011). This correlation is indisputable, unless you ignore the facts, so we cannot ignore wealth inequality when discussing school reforms. Some may believe that a public effort to combat inequality is too costly, but history has proven time and again that vast inequality within a nation leads to turmoil, revolution, and collapse. If America does not invest now, if it does not address the root issue by allocating federal resources “based on need, not on competition between the swift and the slow” (Ravitch, 2013), then it will pay a much higher price further down the road.
The free-market system has led to America’s development into an international superpower. No argument from me there. However, free-market forces, devoid of a collective voice and purpose, are not concerned with inequality. Steven Miller and Jack Gerson say, “Privatizing public schools inevitably leads to a massive increase in social inequality” because “private corporations have never been required to recognize civil rights” (2008). It is important to understand why their claim is not merely speculation. Milton Friedman, a supporter of privatization, confessed, “No one can predict in advance the direction that a truly free-market educational system would take,” but he had faith in “how imaginative competitive free enterprise can be” (1976). While Friedman and other hopeful privatizers have imagined, we have all experienced the mixed effects of innovation–the movement from small farms to big factories in the meat industry, the production and recall of automobiles, microplastics. To put it bluntly, the ultimate motivators of the free market are profit and consumer needs, not justice and egalitarianism. The bottom line is financial success, not the ending of human suffering.
If free-market forces define a privatized education system in America (if education is a good, subject to supply and demand, rather than a basic public right), then the public voice will take a backseat to private interests. Benjamin Barber warns, “Once profit displaces pedagogy, private interest will displace public good and corporate interests will displace pupil needs” (2004), which (as Miller and Gerson explain) “has the effect of silencing the public voice” (2008). An every-school-for-itself mentality would undermine any sense of collective responsibility for collective needs. It’s tough to have a strong and united nation without shared interests. By handing over the reins of public education to the private sector, there will be no assurance of equal educational opportunity. The private market is a race to the top. It would be bad business to level the playing field or to settle for less so that others can have more. Without meeting the collective needs of the public—which includes personal liberty and the unrestricted pursuit of one’s potential—without curbing inequality, schools will further divide the American people.
Instead of abandoning common interests and resorting to the fragmented, hands-off approach of privatization, America should focus its efforts on the systemic improvement of education through public schools. As John Tierney points out, “We cannot improve education by quick fixes” (2013), and as Michael Fullan insists, the US “has a habit of breaking things into pieces: what looks like a system is not, because the pieces are not well connected.” Though this may be an efficient way of producing goods, it is not an effective way of cultivating mindful citizens. Fullan says, “Systemic means all elements of the system are interconnected and involved, day after day. Systemic is experiential not theoretical” (2011). In order to develop lasting and effective educational reform that serves national, rather than private, interests, the focus should turn toward a public school system that can build upon a stable and advantageous foundation.
A successful public school system needs a strong and skilled community of educators who have the flexibility to innovate with technology, instruction, and insight. Fullan emphasizes how effective reforms must “change the day-to-day culture of school systems” (2011). Quality public schools can ensure that teachers are accredited and experienced (private schools can side-step this process if they wish), and they can trust their teachers to use and request evidenced-based instruction each day in the classroom. Perhaps you’ve heard complaints about the low morale and frustration of soldiers who go into battle with “their hands tied behind their backs.” Teachers often experience a sense of devaluation, and they will benefit from flexibility, optimal conditions to do their job, and an appreciation for what they do. Paying them more would be a nice gesture too. Aspiring educators must first understand education fundamentals in order to handle flexibility, which is why generating high quality teachers is paramount.
Of course, when it comes to the issues between public and private, there is a balance. If Americans decide to commit their funding and efforts to public schools, they must avoid the authoritarianism that decades of politicized educational reforms have bred. Both the public and private sector, if granted too much power, can create an education system (or any system) that, “while being an effective machine to instill what the government [or corporation] wants students to learn, is incapable of supporting individual strengths, cultivating a diversity of talents, and fostering the capacity and confidence to create” (Zhao, 2014). The public school system in America can avoid this outcome because, while schools inform the electorate, an informed electorate holds the public system accountable. An authoritarian education system that narrows learning “threatens our democracy due to students’ reduced capacity for informed decision making” (Onosko, 2011). The protection of democratic values and rights depends upon the integrity of schools, which a system of public checks and balances can uphold. Or we could just leave it to social media.
The Founding Fathers believed that government was a means to achieving liberty for all:
They were careful to design a system that guarded against democracy’s ‘turbulence and follies.’ They used the division of powers (among other things) to prevent the most common dangers of democracies: majorities oppressing minorities, minorities hijacking the government, and elected representatives putting their own interests before the people’s. (Micklethwait & Wooldridge, 2004)
No matter the political stance, one could argue that some, if not all, of these dangers—whether consciously or unconsciously—threaten America (and humanity) today. The United States of America, as far as I understand, does not officially endorse a single group of special interests as superior. Instead, it is a nation that aspires to promote shared interests for the common good. By committing to a public school system, the public declares their trust in the republic while guarding against the influence of private interests over national interests. In recognizing the common good, the informed citizen realizes that nations fail when inequality and partisanship become acceptable, costs of doing business. If Americans do not feel that they are a part of something greater than their own preferences, if they do not feel compelled to contribute to a purpose greater than themselves, to the liberty of all people, then we have a nation that is blundering toward a rude awakening.
Works Cited
Barber, B. (2004, May). Taking the public out of education. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=14096
Friedman, M. (1995, June 23). Public schools: Make them private. Retrieved January 31, 2016, from http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-023.html
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform: Overview. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from Fullan website
McPhee, J. (1966). The headmaster: Frank L. Boyden, of Deerfield. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Micklethwait, J., & Wooldridge, A. (2004). Right from the beginning: The roots of American exceptionalism. In The right nation: Conservative power in America (pp. 314-333). New York: The Penguin Press.
Miller, S., & Gerson, J. (2008, March 10). Exterminating public schools in America. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2008/03/exterminating-public-schools.html
Onosko, J. (2011). Obama's Race to the Top leaves children and future citizens behind: The devastating effects of centralization, standardization, and high stakes accountability. Democracy & Education, 19(2), 1-11. Retrieved February 8, 2016, from http://democracyeducationjournal.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=home
Ravitch, D. (2013). Chapter 3 & 4. In Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America's public schools. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Tierney, J. (2013, April 25). The coming revolution in public education. Retrieved February 3, 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-coming-revolution-in-public-education/275163/
Zhao, Y. (2014). Fatal attraction: America's suicidal quest for educational excellence. In Who's afraid of the big bad dragon?: Why China has the best (and worst) education system in the world (pp. 1-11). Jossey-Bass.
GoodMenders offers training, coaching, and keynotes for youth and adults to develop moral masculinity, principled leadership, and better culture. A minimum of 15% of profits support the most effective charities.
Comentarios