The Private States of America

The Private States of America: Why We Need Public Education

by Kean Witzeman

The Middle East is not the only thing under attack by the current presidential administration and the conservative backers that put Mr. Bush into office. Other targets of the American right-wing agenda include any “excess” programs undertaken by the government that could “easily” be undertaken by privatization. In other words, anything the government has ever done, during any period in history, except for waging war, is considered an unnecessary use of funds and is stealing money from the pockets of Americans. Some hope to live in an America where our government is more inept than it was under the control of Bush et al., where the majority of control and legitimate power falls into the hands of American big business. One controversial issue that arose during the 2006 post-election debate hosted by Pi Sigma Alpha was the desire by advocates of the right to abolish the Department of Education in favor of an entirely private education system in America backed primarily by corporations and other means of private investment and donations.

Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economist and father of the privatize education movement, has influenced decades of conservative thought. Friedman strongly championed a voucher system, wherein parents could receive government monies to send their children to the private school of their choosing. In doing so, the funds would allow the private sector to grow while reducing the public sector, to the point where it was no longer needed, at which point all children would be educated in private schools without the government’s assistance. Meanwhile, for-profit industries would develop that would efficiently manage the schools and, through competition and the principles of a free market, the costs would go down while the overall quality of education would increase.

Although Freidman was certainly a brilliant man, one has to understand that economics as a pseudoscience is often based on how things should or might work in reality. There is very little empirical evidence that can be introduced into the field of study otherwise, making it heavily reliant on models and theories. It is a field that is constantly changing with new and improved theories and therefore basing a drastic overhaul of something as critical as education is a dangerous idea. After all, “trickle down economics” in the depression era was an ineffective ideology that only further hurt the nation as a whole.

The Hawley-Smoot tariff is another prime example of conservative economic and fiscal policy that had disastrous results, as it, arguably, was the primary catalyst for the Great Depression and exacerbated World War II. I do not mean to imply that conservative economic policy is more flawed than liberal policy, I simply mean to expose that drastic mistakes have been made due to faulty economic theories and practice. It’s also important to analyze the reasons behind the cries for the beheading of the department of education. Is the betterment of education as a whole really the driving force, or is there perhaps a slightly less attractive reason? Dr. Kennedy of Indiana University explains in her article, “Privatizing Education, the Politics of Vouchers” that the primary pushers of this agenda are pro-market libertarians, big business itself, and Christian fundamentalist organizations.

The first two come from a similar standpoint which holds an element of credibility. The big-business, pro-market crowd believes that education is not an issue to be left to inept governmental bureaucracies. They feel that introducing competition to education will produce a superior product to the consumer, at a cheaper cost. However, as education is often seen as a luxury good, there may be little incentive to lower the cost so everyday people can afford it. Many private schools desire an elite status and thus are not willing to lower costs in order for low income individuals with enormous potential to benefit. For example, the competition between the elite Ivy League schools as well as other top notch private and public universities has not driven costs down, but has rather done the reverse.

It seems that the American ideal of “you get what you pay for” is alive and well in the arena of educational institutes. Furthermore, if these private education companies would constantly lower costs in order to capture more of the market, then are they really providing a better service then what is currently in place, with schools operating terribly underfunded? The decreases have to come from somewhere, and as the history of American business has affirmed, that rarely comes willingly from the companies bottom line.

Also, if all schools are private, it is safe to argue that investment will be made, as it is always, in primarily affluent areas where the chance for success is greatest. It’s no secret that for-profit industries or major corporations running private schools would demand profitable returns. What major corporations are willing to invest large amounts of capital into the projects and inner city areas of America to ensure those individuals’ opportunity for education? It’s sad, but it seems that the government is one of the only remaining institutions in America that at least maintains a semblance of concern for the impoverished while being able to provide some sort of large-scale relief. A privatized education system might somewhat benefit the middle and upper classes, but would spell disaster to the disenfranchised members of society.

Ultimately, the debate rests on an individual’s viewpoint of American big business. Proponents of privatizing education rely heavily on the idea that large corporations could not only handle the daunting task of educating the youth of America, but that the companies in general have a fundamental concern with the overall wellbeing of the American people. Those opposed to privatization are not quite as easily convinced about the altruistic nature of business and business leaders, and for good reason. Our government is neck deep in corruption, scandal and incompetence (hopefully that will change with the past election), but business has not had a perfect record either.

Despite all the talk from the pro-market libertarian side about improving education throughout privatization, it’s not hard to discern the other, possibly more important issue behind their interest in education. Ultimately, private education means less governmental expenditures which means less taxes which means more money that well-to-do people have to use in worship of the Material Gods. After all, isn’t that what America’s all about? The system of government we have in place can be controlled and is meant to be reformed rather than discarded when aspects of the systems are not functioning properly.

On the other side of education privatization from the pro-market, pro-business libertarian/conservative movement is the much less rational right-wing Christian agenda, yet it makes up one of the largest blocks pushing for the drastic overhaul. The argument from such fundamentalist Christian organizations as The Christian Coalition and Citizens for Excellence in Education (CEE) is reliant solely on the desire to teach religion in school. Robert Simonds with the CEE greatly sums up the argument with the typical jargon religious zealots love to use, saying, “atheism and many perverted forms of immorality are being forced upon all public school students, not just Christian students.”

Once again, we see a small number of outspoken members of the religious right attempting to influence the government of the United States in order to press their particular religious beliefs on the country as a whole. Because private religious schools are currently available for parents to send children to if religious education is an important issue to the family, their argument and rational for privatization has little intellectual credence.

When it comes to the state of American public education, few people have delusions of grandeur. It is near impossible to overlook the numerous flaws that have become inherent in the system, but at the same time it becomes important to realize that the system can be changed. The question is not why public education is failing us, but rather why are we failing public education? The answer seems to be that our culture is becoming less conducive to producing an environment where education is seen as the most important issue. We can provide for a strong national defense through tax revenue but we have qualms with providing adequate education for future generations. We can overthrow tyrants and establish “democracies” but we cannot overthrow the ignorance plaguing our own country or establish a society where education is viewed as a fundamental human right.

We put more trust in big business that has few checks and balances, while at the same time forgetting that our elected officials are subject to such a system. We allow the ethics of competition, capitalism and higher profit margins to control our lives, while forgetting that we as humans have a responsibility to each other that sometimes falls outside of basic capitalistic market principles. Competition and high profits are great, but people living in the greatest country the world has ever seen are able to eat and are afforded the opportunity to receive a decent education. Education needs to be viewed in terms outside of the classroom as well. Instead of buying the new 600 dollar video game console, how about spending 20 bucks on a few good books? How about encouraging kids to use their imaginations and foster other creative processes that can be an important form of learning outside of the classroom?

As a country, we need to prioritize. So, before we privatize education and further disenfranchise those who are poor and have special needs, perhaps we need to take a critical look at ourselves. Possibly the blame falls squarely on us rather than blaming a faceless bureaucracy. The change needs to come from within, not from without. We have the power to change and the government has the funds to provide an efficient system. What we need is not the means or the infrastructure, but rather the collective will power to see to it that that happens.