This week we heard two talks on education, each with a different perspective, but both sharing the same conclusion.
Peter Flannigan spoke about the overall weakness of public schools, and specifically public schools in the inner city. He criticized the quality of education both in terms of academic excellence and behavioral training. Peter also noted the poor efficiency of the system – twice as much money is spent per student in a public school than in a private Catholic school. Overall, the Catholic schools provide a much better education to the same demographic with much higher cost-effectiveness.
Ashley Berner criticized American education from another angle. She specifically contrasted religious education in England and the United States. England has a defined policy of pluralism, where the government funds schools of all different religions and also has instituted religious education courses. American education instead aims to be secular. It operates under the assumption that we must create a neutral classroom, free of all religious influence. But Ashley pointed out that “neutrality” and “secularism” are in fact worldviews themselves, and that the cost of removing all traces of religion is a flattened-out view of history and human nature, and ultimately an incomplete understanding of others.
Both Peter and Ashley saw a potential solution in a voucher system, where the government would give parents money to send children to the school of their choice, including private schools. Peter acknowledged that the charter schools are often excellent, but only a fraction of students can get in under the lottery system. The Catholic schools are a viable alternative, but they still have a cost to the parent. A voucher system would overcome this cost barrier so that children of all income levels could have access to the private schools. Similarly for Ashley, vouchers would allow all families the choice of which worldview their children are educated under.
But would a voucher system be good for the education system as a whole? It can be argued that vouchers would turn education into a free market. The competition would force all schools, including the public schools, to significantly improve or die out. Thus the overall quality of education would be enhanced. But it also seems like in the short run, things will get worse before they get better. Under the voucher system, everyone will try to get into the better charter and private schools, but a lack of capacity will mean that the unlucky (or more likely, the poor who do not have the same access to transportation and inside information) will be stuck in the bad schools as they slowly die out with ever decreasing funding (or, more hopefully, are slowly improved and transformed into something much better). And so a choice must be made: is the current situation so bad that it is worth allowing it to get worse in the short-term in hope long-term improvement?
0 comments