World Without Public Schools Essay Example for Free

World Without Public Schools Essay Should America have public schools, or would we do better without them? Nothing is more important to this country than the transformation of children into educated American citizens. Thats what public schools are for, and no institutions are better suited to the rolein principle. They used to fill it with distinction. But theres no reason we must have public schools. Granted, the public has a strong interest in educating Americas children, at a cost thats divided equitably among all taxpayers and not borne by the parents of school-age children alone. But these requirements dont imply any need for public schools. We need an Air Force, and the Air Force needs planes. Taxpayers pay for the force and the planes. But the pilots are supplied directly by the government, the airplanes by private companies (with government oversight and assistance). Schooling might be furnished on either model: mainly by public or mainly by private organizations. We know that private schools are perfectly capable of supplying first-class educations. So the question stands: Why have public schools? How should we decide whether to have them or not? Vouchers have been a popular and promising (and controversial) idea for years. Under voucher plans, the public pays part or all of the bill when a child attends private school. But here I am talking about the whole hog, not just the tail and a couple of trotters. If sending some children to private school at public expense is worth discussing, why not sending all children to private school? Why not liberate all the vast resources we spend on public schools to be re-channeled to private schools chosen by the nations parents? Any public school offering an education that parents will actually pay for (of their own free will) would presumably be replaced by a private school offering essentially the same thing. But a vast array of new private schools would germinate also. And a vast number of failed public schools would disappear. I n the system I am picturing, education would continue to be free and accessible to every child, and all taxpayers would continue to pay for it. Parents would be guaranteed access to reasonable schools that cost them nothing beyond what they pay in taxes. It would all be just like todayexcept that public schools would have vanished. Would private organizations be capable of providing enough new schools to replace our gigantic public schools establishment? Private enterprise is alleged to be smarter and more resourceful in America than anywhere else in the world. So lets suppose that private schools can indeed meet the needs of nearly all parents. Do we actually need and want our public schools, or do we keep them around out of fear of the teachers unionsand habit, like a broken childs toy we are too sentimental to throw away? The basic law of public schools Many sources agree that, on the whole, American public schools are rotten. In 2000, a whopping 12 percent of graduating seniors were rated proficient in science, and international surveys rank our graduating seniors 19th overall out of 21 nations. In 2002, the Washington Post summarized a different survey: Nearly six in 10 of the nations high school seniors lack even a basic knowledge of U. S. history. And so on. Our public schools are widely agreed to be in bad shape. But these are only problems of incompetence. Others cut deeper. The basic law of public schools is this: Public schools are first and foremost agents of the public. They exist to transform children into educated citizens as the public understands this termin other words, as a public consensus defines it. Of course the United States is a large country; standards have always differed from state to state. So each state has its own public schools, charged with satisfying the consensus definition of educated citizen in that state. In 1898, Nicholas Murray Butler (soon to be president of Columbia University) described universities in terms that make explicit this connection, one that is almost forgotten today. In order to become greatindeed, in order to exist at all, he wrote, a university [or public school! ] must represent the national life and minister to it. When the universities of any country cease to be in close touch with the social life and institutions of the people, and fail to yield to the efforts of those who would readjust them, their days of influence are numbered. The same is true of any system of educational organization. Public schools even more than universities must represent the national life and minister to it. They must minister to the consensus definition of an educated citizen. And what is a consensus? Unanimity or general agreement on matters of opinion, according to Websters; solid agreement by a large majority. And in states where there is no public consensus or general agreement on the meaning of educated citizen, public schools are in an impossible position. They cant act for the public if the public cant decide how they should act. This is true without regard to whether the schools are working well or badly. Today there are few states or none where a public consensus or general agreement exists on what educated citizen means. Schools exist not only to teach skills but to mold character. (Although many object to this old-fashioned language, few Americans disagree that schools must teach an approach to life, a worldview, a moral framework. ) The culture war that has been underway since the late 60s is precisely a war over approaches to life and worldviews and moral frameworks. Our politics mirror that divide. In the 2004 presidential election, Kerry and Bush differed on politics, but stood also for two different worldviews in the larger senseKerry the globalizing man-of-the-world with his European experience versus the plainspoken, ranch-living, Bible-quoting Bush. In simplest terms, Kerry stood for globalism, Bush for Americanism. As between these divergent visions, the country split down the middle. Its pretty clear that no consensus or general agreement on the nature of education is likely to exist in a country thats so divided. Which suggests in turn that, for now, the age of the American public school is over. Obviously we shouldnt make such judgments on the basis of short-term disagreements or divisions. But Americas culture war has been underway for a generation at least. You might argue that the solution is to have two varieties of public school, roughly moderate left and moderate right, each with its own curriculum, textbooks, and standards, and its own version of a worldview or moral framework to teach children. Every neighborhood or local region would vote on left versus right local schools. In many areas such elections would be extraordinarily hard-fought and bitteryet the solution might work, except that the school establishments bias is so consistently left (and not moderate left either) that it seems unlikely we could trust it to operate moderate right schoolsor even neutral schools, if there were such a thing. (The public schools bias often shows itself in exactly the form of neutrality, as Ill discuss. If you declare yourself neutral as between America and her enemies, or normal sexuality and homosexuality, your neutrality in itself is bias. ) Of course this whole analysis might be wrong. Maybe I misunderstand the point of public schools. Was there ever a consensus in this country on what an educated citizen should be? Maybe we always have been content for the schools to speak for just one section of American society, never the whole. What would the nation look like without public schools? Nearly all existing public school buildings would be leased to private schools. All the private schools in any town or district would discuss programs and fees among themselves (which would not count as illegal price-fixing), and with the public too, via local government or town meetings. Any public school whose staff believes in it would be allowed to keep its building and reorganize on a new basis. Some large public schools, especially high schools, would reorganize as confederacies of separate schools sharing one building: a science and math school, humanities school, arts school, sports school. Many students could attend more than one simultaneously. The Internets most important role might be to help coordinate such complicated arrangements. (Though its also true that a well-designed Internet school might attract students from all over the country. ) One final question: Is there any chance that Abolition will be acted on, or even discussed? Dont hold your breath. Yet it would take just one prominent (even medium-prominent) politician or public figure to get America talking. We desperately need this national discussion. And what could be healthier for Americas public schools than to learn that they might not be immortal after all?