- A
North Star for School Choice
by Quentin L. Quade
The Practical Uses of A North Star
Americans are often said to be non-theoretical, if not anti-theoretical. "Pragmatic," "action-oriented," "just do it" are the kinds of expressions regularly used to describe the "American way," as contrasted with more "theoretical" approaches to life. Such contrasts are not terribly useful.
No person, and no community, can avoid theory, for, at its essence, theory just means the end or good or objective our action seeks. If we do not act for something, then we are acting crazily, and when we admit we are acting for something rather than nothing then we admit we are acting "theoretically," as we pursue something we want but do not have.
So, what distinguishes persons and their communities is not whether they are theoretical or not. Just as we all "speak prose," we are all theoreticians and cannot avoid it. What distinguishes people is whether the theories they pursue are well-constructed or haphazard; well-articulated, or implicit; objectively defensible or smoke screens hiding deeper subjective motivations which, though understandable, cannot stand objective analysis once exposed.
It appears to be true that much of the effort to achieve school choice in the United States suffers from failure to articulate clearly and simply an ideal approach to educational funding. Without a simply-stated ideal to serve as a North Star, school choice advocates can and do get too easily sidetracked by this or that smoke screen, this or that inefficacious 'reform' within a destructive system rather than reform of that system. The destructive system is clear enough, as readers of Blum Center publications know well: educational finance monopoly (EFM). From it derive the many educational disadvantages, for all schools, summarized in "The Automatic Benefits of School Choice" (The Blum Center, 1994).
Can we similarly
describe a model educational funding policy?
A Blum Center Model
If we were in a "state of nature," with clear vision and without powerful
vested interests working to sustain an already-existing structure, we might
create and adopt a funding model no more complicated than this:
- 1. The state legislature
is to decide how much money society will spend to provide education, aiming
at whatever standards society wants to attain, with whatever are judged
to be acceptable quality assurances, such as voluntary accreditation;
- 2. It will then count
the number of children to be educated;
- 3. Next, it will divide
#1 by #2, and place the resultant sum, along with any special education
or low-income supplements, in the hands of parents or guardians, at the
same time telling them:
- 4. "As the persons
most dedicated to the welfare of the children, please use the purchasing
power here provided to secure for them the very best education you can
find, in the kind of educational environment most compelling to you and
most harmonious with your family's values."
Those who are striving to replace EFM with educational choice do themselves a disservice if they do not have before their eyes at all times a clear, summary model of where they want finally to get. In every American jurisdiction we start not from a state of nature but from a long-entrenched, very self-protective status quo, EFM. The defenders of that status quo have won their battles through attrition, not argument, as they have thrown up one smoke screen after another, one intra-system "reform" after another. Such tactics can be successful if the proponents of school choice are poorly organized — or if, even when well-organized, they do not have an evident, compelling ideal to guide them. Without it they will be vulnerable to a never-ending series of detours and, over time, will tend to tire out.
But if they have a powerful, sharply-etched ultimate model, such as the
four-step example above or a better one, they will never get lost.
They can evaluate every reform step to see if it is bringing them closer
to the goal or is, in fact, just a status quo-preserving sidetrack.
Various actual school choice systems around the world are essentially like
the four-step model described above, lest readers think it is a wildly
utopian vision. Denmark is an example. There is no objective
reason why American states cannot do as well. But in the U.S., in
every state, sensitivity to students caught in the status quo suggests
a several-step process, reflecting the particularities of each state, to
arrive at full school choice. That is alright — as long as each step
is in the direction of our North Star: parental rights equal to parental
responsibilities, comprehensive school choice without financial penalty.
|
The Blum Center grants full permission for all of its documents to be copied, in part or in whole, to extend the reach of the Center's messages and information. We appreciate it when our readers keep us apprised of state and national developments in the area of school choice, particularly legislative developments. Any Blum Center documents not available on our web page may be obtained by contacting us by telephone, fax, or mail. Virgil C. Blum Center for Parental Freedom in Education |
 |