by Dane Roberts
Daily Lobo columnist
In my last column, I argued that education is so laden with personal values that the state shouldn't assume the task of defining how or what each kid should learn.
The issue of evolution versus creationism in the science curriculum perfectly illustrates the impossibility of standardizing our public schools. Some people will never accept public schools that promote ideas that contradict their religious beliefs. Others will never allow religion to influence the curriculum.
If you don't quite feel comfortable lining up on one side or the other, if you don't think your personal views on the matter should be foisted on the whole population, then maybe you, like me, will see a simple solution in adopting a voucher system.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Vouchers are like coupons for parents to send their children to the school of their choice. The government spends a certain average dollar amount per student on education. If a full voucher system were in place, this dollar amount would be given to parents of school-age children, who would then spend it at whatever school they think best for their child, whether it be a private, parochial, charter or public school.
Giving parents the freedom to choose where to send their children from a wide variety of options would put an end to the acrimonious and intractable debates over what should be taught in schools.
There are also other advantages offered by a full-choice, voucher-based school system.
The most important reason to support vouchers is the possibility it offers to change the culture of public education.
The current education system is based on "mandate and threaten" management.
Well-intentioned politicians pass tougher standards for schools to meet and threaten to take over the schools that don't meet them. Courts and school districts require endless paperwork on how the needs of special education students are being met and parents threaten lawsuits if they're still not satisfied. Teachers' unions demand certain protections from administrators and threaten lawsuits if they feel mistreated.
The result of all this, as you can probably imagine, is an education system with serious morale problems.
Schools are given challenging mandates, but are weighed down by excessive rules and regulations. Principals, for instance, are supposed to ensure that their schools make impressive gains on standardized tests each year, but have virtually no authority to fire teachers and limited or no choices in hiring. Are managers in any other industry expected to succeed without being given control over their employees?
In effect, our schools are told they will be held accountable for reaching certain goals, and then told they aren't competent enough to make most decisions without excessive bureaucratic oversight. If that sounds like a recipe for failure, that's because it is.
There is one simple reason schools are suffocating under this bureaucratic weight: A new rule or legal requirement is perceived as the only available means of changing schools. Under the current system, education jobs are secure and enrollment is guaranteed, so why should the schools make any extraordinary effort to change?
That's where vouchers come in. If schools had to compete for students - and therefore, funding - rules and regulations wouldn't be needed to change schools. The schools themselves would have enough incentive to change. Bureaucracies would no longer have to tell schools what to do, because the market could instead.
If the parents of a special education student didn't feel their child had been appropriately served, they wouldn't have to sue the district and create a new level of pointless paperwork for special education teachers to fill out. Instead, they would simply switch schools. Problem solved.
Although I believe a voucher system would ultimately serve students better, it would also be better for teachers and administrators.
Under a liberalized educational market, schools would be free to define their own unique programs. Principals could choose teachers who match their educational beliefs. And teachers, freed from the demands of bureaucracy and trusted by the administrators and parents who chose them, would have the liberty to focus on what is too often forgotten: teaching kids.
There are many valid concerns about voucher systems, and they would have to be implemented conscientiously. But, at bottom, they represent freedom, instead of coercion, for administrators, teachers and parents - and freedom, lest we forget, is a good thing.
