John Stossel's 20/20 special report: "Stupid in America: How we cheat our kids" aired on Jan. 13, at 10 p.m. The short video preview for the show that aired two weeks ago reminded me of the engraving on the
Statue of Liberty by Emma Lazarus:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
The gentleman (in the video preview), who is a school Principal, was much like how Emma Lazarus described America. He challenged all the notions of demographic inequalities (income, location, race, sex) and said that he could teach any child and get better results.
After watching the special, I thought that he is only capable of attaining what he has done because of privatized education. And he will continue to do better because in private education (a semi-free market) teachers, students, and administrators have the proper incentive structure for measurable advancements in educational attainment. In a free market for education, schools would want to help children learn and lower costs simultaneously. They would be responsible to the children and parents and would have to measure up or the parent would take their money elsewhere. Under the current system, you're stuck (by location, lack of choice, and child attendance). It is not that I am trying to sell a Utopia, or anything like that, but if competition has worked to bring us so many good things why do we settle for ineffectiveness and wastefulness in educational services?
For a better understanding of why things are the way they are, it is essential to look at the incentive structures. Here's a brief look at the current public education model:
- Since it is "free to me", parents don't have an incentive to check and see if they are getting their money's worth. Your return on investment is less tangible. It is the 'third-party-payer' problem, much like your insurance and health services.
- Teachers and Administrators do not serve their "customers" and many times don't even pretend to. There is no merit-based reward system for proficiency or excellence, no motivation for growth or accountability. They are not accountable for the grades of the child or whether they learn anything at all. It has turned into nothing more than an extended day-care for many. Since they are responsible to the government for testing and performance measures, rather than to the child or parent, they can not help each child with their individual needs. One-size never fits all.
- Children do not have incentives to learn. Being forced to be in attendance, mandated through age 16, generally does not have the most positive of outcomes. There appears to be a sort of 'race to the bottom' since there is little incentive to excel, with little or no reward or praise for excellence or 'good' behavior in the classroom. Psychologically, we tend to resent what we are forced to do, giving children little incentive for further learning or even a positive attitude for aptitude. Compulsory education, although implemented with the best of intentions, has many unintended consequences.
And although I am a fan of John Stossel and all the work he is doing to point out the current education fallacies, school vouchers won't cut it. A shift from monopolies to subsidies will not free the markets. The governments will still be coercing people out of their money and will still maintain a monopoly on the money for schools or mandate regulatory actions on all schools because of the subsidy. It's not enough, but the show was entertaining nonetheless. Watch 20/20 Friday nights on ABC.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
My knee jerk reaction to the idea that private education is superior to public education is "poppycock". My wife and I and virtually everyone I know came through the public education system, and the last thing in the world my parents worried about was getting their "money's worth." I'm just not sure that this is how parents evaluate education.
I think the entire premise of the article rests on the notion that the education system would benefit if it were run as a private company or entity, or in a more business like fashion. More on this in a minute.
The second thing I note here is the notion that teachers and administrators don't serve their customers. This analogy suffers from the idea of education being compared to business. Remember, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, most businesses don't "serve" their customers well either. The reason why? Because they really work for the shareholders. I actually think that most educators are extraordinarily devoted to the near impossible task of education, and likely would be deeply offended by your assertions.
Further, in the experiments I've heard of where public school systems were privatized and handed over to "experts", the results were dismal failures. And, I don't believe the free-market-enterprise system is a good example to the education system (e.g., Enron, Halliburton, Tyco, etc. etc.)
Finally, the notion that the education system is somehow guilty of either failing to provide incentives or failing to motivate student is a bit silly. No kid under the age of 18 wants to be in school if they don't have to -- public or private.
Net net: the only group you didn't call out was parents. Ultimately, it is the parents who make or break successful education. Allowing parents to have unreasonable expectations that schools will be babysitters, disciplinarians, motivators, counselors, truant officers and faux parental units AND educate their children has likely caused the failure of education (if there is one).
The primary difference I can see between success private school students and unsucessful public school students is that in the former case, the parents are likely extremely involved in their children's lives and education, and in the latter, the parents are probably not.
But the same could be said about successful public school students. Likely their parents were involved.
Yikes! Sorry for the rant! Great job provoking thoughts on a topic I didn't think I had an opinion on!
Economics is about incentives. Most economists would say that governmental programs could be improved by fixing the incentive structures. I feel it would be best improved by allowing more choice, freedom of mobility, and allowing private competition.
I did mention the parents (although not by name) early on, when I said that they tend not to be as involved because they don't pay the real price for education (third-party payer).
Consumers are much better decision makers when they have all the information like quality of schools, child's friends, teachers, and the price tag. Based on that information they would be able to make a decision (who knows if it is ever the best for the child- but that is another discussion).
The problem with the current system is that all of that information is behind a veil and there is little competition between schools (except private schools). The parents are the consumers, and yes they should get involved. Would you continue to shop at a store if they were rude to you, stole from you or anything like that? Education is just like any other good and service and the parents (consumers) should become more aware of the return on the money they are paying in. It is just hard to see what you are actually paying though. That is why the disincentive exists.
For one thing, I think public education is an open book. I can look up schools and find out State Test scores over the years, what they offer for courses, what they use as standards, how they did on state and federal "reviews" and "assessments" of their practices and their curriculum, etc., etc.
Many states now use high-stakes testing in Grades 4, 7, 8, and 10, where it's required for graduation. This has the unfortunate effect of teachers "teaching to the test" and of rewarding certain kinds of learners over others (learning style-wise, I mean). Competition? The major papers print town-by-town results. The results impact real estate sales in the town. Teachers are sometimes "tracked" by the scores of their students, and that leads to competition (and discord) as well.
Also public information are salaries of administrators and teachers, their educational backgrounds and degrees. If that's a veil, it's a bit peek-a-boo see-through, I think.
Public education really defies generalizations. It's a protean beast of many colors, sizes, and shapes, peopled with dedicated heroes, selfish villains, and the whole gamut in between.
There are probably more hard-working, dedicated "Romantics" in this profession than in any other. Trouble is, politicians and pundits can't gauge subtleties or complexities. They simply want numbers to crunch. And crunch they do (as well as pontificate). Oddly, many of THEM would flunk the same high-stakes tests that high school kids must take to graduate. Well, some of them, anyway. ;-)
I'm not sure education is the best fit for business models. It would be nice (as well as convenient, as well as easy) to think so, but it's a whole lot deeper than Adam Smith and all.
Interesting theories, anyway.
PS. With my own children, I've found that the best incentive is free and more than deserved. Most children want more attention, affection, and time. Please, in addition to knowledge, give your children these.
Nice!
If I understand your meaning, you are saying that the growth of for profit services is an indication that private or for profit models of education would be better.
I don't understand the logic. Sylvan and the other "supplemental" services are not replacements for the public education system. They merely provide a service to parents 1) of children who are having difficulty in specific subjects, or 2) who want their children to be better students than they are (competitive reasons).
This analogy is like saying an aftermarket parts and service center is a replacement for Ford as an automobile manufacturer. Sylvan doesn't provide most of the functions of the school system, just like Ricky's Speed Shop doesn't design and build the Ford Mustang.
I think a better analogy be between the US Postal Service and UPS or Fed Ex.
Sure, a 41 cent stamp will get your letter delivered eventually, but if it has to be tomorrow, you can pay $15 to Fex Ex for that privilege. And, that's "better" if speed is the only criterion you use. If it's cost, I don't think that Fed Ex wins in that comparison.
So, again, I'm not certain that incenting private companies to provide education works.
I think that the Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind is perfect example of the flaw here. School systems nationwide are "graded" based upon performance, and a great deal of Federal funding goes to the "winners".
So, all that does is incent public school officials to switch the criteria from "what's best for the child" to "winning the Federal Funding Lottery".
The effect being, that many ciricula nationwide are now merely ways to pass the test, and not broader measures of success. This system has already see it's first instances of cheating as well, as entire schools are removed from calculations to make the overall scores better.
Like many other free market examples, there are incentives to cheat, and not to play fairly.
If the goal is to improve the schools, don't you actually want to pour that funding into the lower performing schools to improve their facilities, supplies and to attract better talent?
That would be a complete economic disincentive, but in my opinion, that would be the right thing to do.
Again, terrific topic!
My point was that whether it was a tutoring session, sylvan, education assistance, mentoring, or whatever else, these are generally considered better approaches to sitting in a classroom all day, according to the traditional style, still in place in our public education system. These are preferred because they are directly focused on the needs, wants, and goals of the student. Mainly these services are for-profit industries, although they do not have to be. The idea is that these services generally have a better incentive structure (although they might not be perfect), one that is directly tied to the performance of the child, not national or statewide standardized tests. So they achieve real learning, rather than learning the end of year exam.
Additionally, although Sylvan might not be a direct substitute for the current education model, there is no reason to think that it couldn't be. What I mean is that, home-schooling has grown considerably over the years and there are many styles of this parent-initiated approach to teaching. The fact of the matter is that home-schooling kids outperform nearly everybody. This could be because of attention, parental involvement, more individual-directed learning, but I am of the opinion that it is the style of teaching.
There are kids that only do the home-school thing a couple of hours in the morning, because that is the best time for them. Other parents fit it around work, teach at night, or get the kids involved with lectures online. The key is knowing what works for the child, not trying to fit the square block into a round hole, with the 'one-size fits all' approach by public education administrators.
So, it doesn't have to be about for-profit, capitalism, or even the free-market. It is about customized educational services by any means necessary to advance the livelihood of all peoples everywhere. Let's figure out what's best for the kids and try to deliver it and I think the best way to do that is by allowing more competition.
What I meant in the previous commentary was that there are usually better incentive structures for private companies. Since the business model dictates that they must provide goods or services at lower prices (or differentiated qualities) to their customers, if they can not do this well, they don't last long. If they can provide these goods or services successfully, then everybody wins. My point is that education is simply another good and/or service that can be provided in a competitive market.
Off the point a bit, but in response to your comments Eric L.:
If there was truly a free-market, incentives to cheat would likely not exist (in the long-run). The reason there is cheating now, is because there are favors to give, since it is government funded, rather than customer funded. In a freer market (since a free-market likely doesn't exist) the accountability is directly tied to the customer's money, which can't be said for public education (although we have tried), and if a customer is displeased they take their child elsewhere. The business has a direct incentive to improve the service or it looses its money, its reputation, and quite possibly its best educators, who are lured away by better offers elsewhere.
Why the freer market is feared is because people will loose their jobs, the worst (on the margin) teachers will be fired, school buildings will close down, obscure extra-curricular activities will likely get shot-down, and it would be inconvenient for many. This is the short-run effect. In the long-run however, there would be schools for everyone and everything. If you liked horses, you would go to an equestrian school, if you wanted to play professional sports, you would go to a sports education facility, or if you wanted to just focus on academics and the classics, you would go to a brainiac academy. This is specialized education for individuals, who in the future will partake in specialized labor. Perhaps we like to think of the education system as a safety-net so that everyone is covered, but since it hasn't done a very good job for the individuals at the low end, perhaps it is time to look at something better. Who is to say that there won't be Wal-Mart schools with everyday low prices. But, if you are worried about it the State could always subsidize education (since it is believed to be a positive externality), rather than continue the monopoly. Just focus on those who fall through the cracks, rather than everyone – since like I said before a one-size fits all, really doesn't fit anyone.
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/
Consider the education "possibilities" as a range from home schooling (not available to all students) through private school (available to some students) through public school available to all students.
Here's some information I dug up from ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education (US Department of Education) (no relation to me!)
ARE HOMESCHOOLERS PREPARED FOR COLLEGE?
Toch (as quoted in Galloway, 1995), estimates that 50% of homeschooled children attend college, the same percentage as children educated in public schools. But are
these students skilled enough to compete successfully with conventionally-schooled students in the college setting? Galloway (1995) concludes that homeschoolers and traditionally educated students demonstrate similar academic preparedness for college and academic achievement. And according to Rudner (1999), achievement test scores of homeschooled students are high. The students' average scores were typicality in the 70th to 80th percentile, with 25% of homeschool students enrolled one or more grades above their age-level peers in public and private schools. Christopher Klicka, Senior Counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, reports that homeschoolers tend to score above the national average on both the SAT and ACT, the primary tests used by colleges in evaluating college applicants. A study of 2219 students who reported their homeschooled status on the SAT in 1999 showed that these students scored an average of 1083--67 points above the national average of 1016; similarly, the 3616 homeschooled students who took the ACT scored an average of 22.7--1.7 points above the national average of 21 (Klicka, 2002).
And this:
HOW DO HOMESCHOOLERS FARE IN COLLEGE?
Current evidence indicates that homeschoolers' college academic performance is comparable to that of traditionally educated students. Oliveira's study (as cited in Galloway, 1995) found no significant differences in critical thinking skills among college freshmen who had graduated from different types of high schools, including home schools, public schools, conventional Christian schools, and accelerated Christian education schools (Galloway, 1995). Sutton and Galloway (2000) also investigated the undergraduate success of college graduates from home schools, private schools, and public schools nationwide. They used 40 indicators of college success that reflected five domains of learning outcomes-achievement, leadership, professional aptitude, physical activity, and social behavior. They concluded that, overall the students from all settings received equivalent educations.
Cause for some thought, I think.
Given the relatively high "cost" of providing a homeschooled education (in parental time, lost wages, or whatever opportunity cost you'd like to apply), not much indication that this provides a signficantly superior student. Homeschooled students perform slightly higher on entrance exams and then rapidly replicate their public and private school counterparts in college.
I appreciate all the comments too.
Yeah, I am not sure why home-schooling has grown so much in popularity, especially because of its extensive costs to the individual. I suppose they just gain a lot of utility from "running the show" themselves. Obviously, it wouldn't be the best option for many people, but apparently it makes a lot of parents out there happy and the kids seem to do pretty well (at least matching in higher-ed). It seems like it works for some, and that is the great thing about compeition because it allows for the parents to figure out what is best for them and hopefully their child as well.
First off, I wonder what your basis is for "not available to all students." Homeschooling is legal in all 50 states, with varying degrees of reporting required.
Secondly, I also find your scope limited as far as homeschooling success is concerned. I have previously stated that parents are the first and most important teachers. Also, I believe that education lies in more than test scores. Research the positive bonding, character education, bible studies, and family values among homeschooling families.
These are important factors to consider when making a judgement, let alone a comment.
Homeschooling is very much more than test score, as is all education. The greatest achievement is educational attainment, usually measured through college success, college ranking, or SAT score.
The best thing about homeschooling is the choice. You have a choice to be an active participant in the education of your child and I am all for it. Judgement is on the individual and their child and since it doesn't work for all it shouldn't be imposed on all, just like current public education shouldn't be forced upon all children.