Thread: Public Schools: Make Them Private

Public Schools: Make Them Private

by Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman, a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1976.

Executive Summary

Our elementary and secondary educational system needs to be radically restructured. Such a reconstruction can be achieved only by privatizing a major segment of the educational system--i.e., by enabling a private, for-profit industry to develop that will provide a wide variety of learning opportunities and offer effective competition to public schools. The most feasible way to bring about such a transfer from government to private enterprise is to enact in each state a voucher system that enables parents to choose freely the schools their children attend. The voucher must be universal, available to all parents, and large enough to cover the costs of a high-quality education. No conditions should be attached to vouchers that interfere with the freedom of private enterprises to experiment, to explore, and to innovate.

This article appeared in the Washington Post on February 19, 1995. Reprinted by permission of the author and the Washington Post.
Introduction

Our elementary and secondary educational system needs to be radically reconstructed. That need arises in the first instance from the defects of our current system. But it has been greatly reinforced by some of the consequences of the technological and political revolutions of the past few decades. Those revolutions promise a major increase in world output, but they also threaten advanced countries with serious social conflict arising from a widening gap between the incomes of the highly skilled (cognitive elite) and the unskilled.

A radical reconstruction of the educational system has the potential of staving off social conflict while at the same time strengthening the growth in living standards made possible by the new technology and the increasingly global market. In my view, such a radical reconstruction can be achieved only by privatizing a major segment of the educational system--i.e., by enabling a private, for-profit industry to develop that will provide a wide variety of learning opportunities and offer effective competition to public schools. Such a reconstruction cannot come about overnight. It inevitably must be gradual.

The most feasible way to bring about a gradual yet substantial transfer from government to private enterprise is to enact in each state a voucher system that enables parents to choose freely the schools their children attend. I first proposed such a voucher system 40 years ago.

Many attempts have been made in the years since to adopt educational vouchers. With minor exceptions, no one has succeeded in getting a voucher system adopted, thanks primarily to the political power of the school establishment, more recently reinforced by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, together the strongest political lobbying body in the United States.

1. The Deterioration of Schooling

The quality of schooling is far worse today than it was in 1955. There is no respect in which inhabitants of a low-income neighborhood are so disadvantaged as in the kind of schooling they can get for their children. The reason is partly the deterioration of our central cities, partly the increased centralization of public schools--as evidenced by the decline in the number of school districts from 55,000 in 1955 to 15,000 in 1992. Along with centralization has come--as both cause and effect--the growing strength of teachers' unions. Whatever the reason, the fact of deterioration of elementary and secondary schools is not disputable.

The system over time has become more defective as it has become more centralized. Power has moved from the local community to the school district to the state, and to the federal government. About 90 percent of our kids now go to so-called public schools, which are really not public at all but simply private fiefs primarily of the administrators and the union officials.

We all know the dismal results: some relatively good government schools in high-income suburbs and communities; very poor government schools in our inner cities with high dropout rates, increasing violence, lower performance and demoralized students and teachers.

These changes in our educational system have clearly strengthened the need for basic reform. But they have also strengthened the obstacles to the kind of sweeping reform that could be produced by an effective voucher system. The teachers' unions are bitterly opposed to any reform that lessens their own power, and they have acquired enormous political and financial strength that they are prepared to devote to defeating any attempt to adopt a voucher system. The latest example is the defeat of Proposition 174 in California in 1993.

2. The New Industrial Revolution

A radical reconstruction of our educational system has been made more urgent by the twin revolutions that have occurred within the past few decades: a technological revolution--the development, in particular, of more effective and efficient methods of communication, transportation and transmission of data; and a political revolution that has widened the influence of the technological revolution.

The fall of the Berlin Wall was the most dramatic event of the political revolution. But it was not necessarily the most important event. For example, communism is not dead in China and has not collapsed. And yet beginning in 1976, Premier Deng initiated a revolution within China that led to its being opened up to the rest of the world. Similarly, a political revolution took place in Latin America that, over the course of the past several decades, has led to a major increase in the fraction of people there who live in countries that can properly be described as democracies rather than military dictatorships and that are striving to enter open world markets.

The technological revolution has made it possible for a company located anywhere in the world to use resources located anywhere in the world, to produce a product anywhere in the world, to be sold anywhere in the world. It's impossible to say, "this is an American car" or "this is a Japanese car," and the same goes for many other products.

The possibility for labor and capital anywhere to cooperate with labor and capital anywhere else had dramatic effects even before the political revolution took over. It meant that there was a large supply of relatively low-wage labor to cooperate with capital from the advanced countries, capital in the form of physical capital, but perhaps even more important, capital in the form of human capital--of skills, of knowledge, of techniques, of training.

Before the political revolution came along, this international linkage of labor, capital and know-how had already led to a rapid expansion in world trade, to the growth of multinational companies and to a hitherto unimaginable degree of prosperity in such formerly underdeveloped countries in East Asia as the "Four Tigers." Chile was the first to benefit from these developments in Latin America, but its example soon spread to Mexico, Argentina and other countries in the region. In Asia, the latest to embark on a program of market reform is India.

The political revolution greatly reinforced the technological revolution in two different ways. First, it added greatly to the pool of low-wage, yet not necessarily unskilled labor that could be tapped for cooperation with labor and capital from the advanced countries. The fall of the Iron Curtain added perhaps a half-billion people and China close to a billion, freed at least partly to engage in capitalist acts with people elsewhere.

Second, the political revolution discredited the idea of central planning. It led everywhere to greater confidence in market mechanisms as opposed to central control by government. And that in turn fostered international trade and international cooperation.

These two revolutions offer the opportunity for a major industrial revolution comparable to that which occurred 200 years ago--also spread by technological developments and freedom to trade. In those 200 years, world output grew more than in the preceding 2000. That record could be exceeded in the next two centuries if the peoples of the world take full advantage of their new opportunities.

3. Wage Differentials

The twin revolutions have produced higher wages and incomes for almost all classes in the underdeveloped countries. The effect has been somewhat different in the advanced countries. The greatly increased ratio of low-cost labor to capital has raised the wages of highly skilled labor and the return on physical capital but has put downward pressure on the wages of low-skilled labor. The result has been a sharp widening in the differential between the wages of highly skilled and low-skilled labor in the United States and other advanced countries.

If the widening of the wage differential is allowed to proceed unchecked, it threatens to create within our own country a social problem of major proportions. We shall not be willing to see a group of our population move into Third World conditions at the same time that another group of our population becomes increasingly well off. Such stratification is a recipe for social disaster. The pressure to avoid it by protectionist and other similar measures will be irresistible.

4. Education

So far, our educational system has been adding to the tendency to stratification. Yet it is the only major force in sight capable of offsetting that tendency. Innate intelligence undoubtedly plays a major role in determining the opportunities open to individuals. Yet it is by no means the only human quality that is important, as numerous examples demonstrate. Unfortunately, our current educational system does little to enable either low-IQ or high-IQ individuals to make the most of other qualities. Yet that is the way to offset the tendencies to stratification. A greatly improved educational system can do more than anything else to limit the harm to our social stability from a permanent and large underclass.

There is enormous room for improvement in our educational system. Hardly any activity in the United States is technically more backward. We essentially teach children in the same way that we did 200 years ago: one teacher in front of a bunch of kids in a closed room. The availability of computers has changed the situation, but not fundamentally. Computers are being added to public schools, but they are typically not being used in an imaginative and innovative way.

I believe that the only way to make a major improvement in our educational system is through privatization to the point at which a substantial fraction of all educational services is rendered to individuals by private enterprises. Nothing else will destroy or even greatly weaken the power of the current educational establishment--a necessary pre-condition for radical improvement in our educational system. And nothing else will provide the public schools with the competition that will force them to improve in order to hold their clientele.

No one can predict in advance the direction that a truly free-market educational system would take. We know from the experience of every other industry how imaginative competitive free enterprise can be, what new products and services can be introduced, how driven it is to satisfy the customers--that is what we need in education. We know how the telephone industry has been revolutionized by opening it to competition; how fax has begun to undermine the postal monopoly in first-class mail; how UPS, Federal Express and many other private enterprises have transformed package and message delivery and, on the strictly private level, how competition from Japan has transformed the domestic automobile industry.

The private schools that 10 percent of children now attend consist of a few elite schools serving at high cost a tiny fraction of the population, and many mostly parochial nonprofit schools able to compete with government schools by charging low fees made possible by the dedicated services of many of the teachers and subsidies from the sponsoring institutions. These private schools do provide a superior education for a small fraction of the children, but they are not in a position to make innovative changes. For that, we need a much larger and more vigorous private enterprise system.

The problem is how to get from here to there. Vouchers are not an end in themselves; they are a means to make a transition from a government to a market system. The deterioration of our school system and the stratification arising out of the new industrial revolution have made privatization of education far more urgent and important than it was 40 years ago.

Vouchers can promote rapid privatization only if they create a large demand for private schools to constitute a real incentive for entrepreneurs to enter the industry. That requires first that the voucher be universal, available to all who are now entitled to send their children to government schools, and second that the voucher, though less than the government now spends per pupil on education, be large enough to cover the costs of a private profit-making school offering a high-quality education. If that is achieved there will in addition be a substantial number of families that will be willing and able to supplement the voucher in order to get an even higher quality of education. As in all cases, the innovations in the "luxury" product will soon spread to the basic product.

For this image to be realized, it is essential that no conditions be attached to the acceptance of vouchers that interfere with the freedom of private enterprises to experiment, to explore and to innovate. If this image is realized, everybody, except a small group of vested interests, will win: parents, students, dedicated teachers, taxpayers-- for whom the cost of the educational system will decline-- and especially the residents of central cities, who will have a real alternative to the wretched schools so many of their children are now forced to attend.

The business community has a major interest in expanding the pool of well-schooled potential employees and in maintaining a free society with open trade and expanding markets around the world. Both objectives would be promoted by the right kind of voucher system.

Finally, as in every other area in which there has been extensive privatization, the privatization of schooling would produce a new, highly active and profitable private industry that would provide a real opportunity for many talented people who are currently deterred from entering the teaching profession by the dreadful state of so many of our schools.

This is not a federal issue. Schooling is and should remain primarily a local responsibility. Support for free choice of schools has been growing rapidly and cannot be held back indefinitely by the vested interests of the unions and educational bureaucracy. I sense that we are on the verge of a breakthrough in one state or another, which willthen sweep like a wildfire through the rest of the country as it demonstrates its effectiveness.

To get a majority of the public to support a general and substantial voucher, we must structure the proposal so that it (1) is simple and straightforward so as to be comprehensible to the voter, and (2) guarantees that the proposal will not add to the tax burden in any way but will rather reduce net government spending on education. A group of us in California has produced a tentative proposition that meets these conditions. The prospects for getting sufficient backing to have a real chance of passing such a proposition in 1996 are bright.

© 1995 The Cato Institute
Please send comments to webmaster

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-023.html

related

Become A Teacher? 10 Examples That Show Why Becoming A Teacher Is A Dead End In This Economy
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-229441-0-da ... rasc-.html

Actually, the quality of education has left the American child at such a low world standard of learning and literacy that closing public schools might actually be the best thing that ever happened to them.

Provided their own (illiterate) parents were willing to teach them.

How far is it to Mars again?

End the Fed. Dept. of Ed. This would bring ALL of the responsibility back to the local district. No excuses to look off to a far away entity and try and place blame. Keep the blame and the triumphs locally. Where the responsibility should be.

I believe this would be of great help to teachers, force parents to participate in their children's education, demand fiscal responsibility, and bring pride back into the local community. Who the heck looks off towards Washington D.C. with pride? Local values would show in the education as opposed to universal communistic values as dictated by one source.

Are we trying to educate individuals or program robots?

Hiring teachers and expecting them to instill and teach what they are good at, acting on their individual strengths, more elbow room, as opposed to teaching according to dictates that may not fit the individual personalities and individual talents of the teachers must be frustrating and seems to have lousy results as well.

Keep the schools public and bring the responsibility back to the local level. If a person wishes to send their kids to private schools or home school, have at it.

Is privatization the way to go or are we falling right in tho Obama's (The New World Order) agenda?

Union-busting, school-privatizing, school-militarizing Arne Duncan is Obama’s pick for Education Secretary

By Betsy Schonitzer

President-elect Obama has appointed Chicago Public School CEO (yes, his title was CEO), Arne Duncan, to the position of Education Secretary in the next White House. Does this represent “hopeâ€

True or not true. Information is easily found if you dig. For instance why is it so many states did not get stimulus money that was supposedly to keep teachers from being laid off?

Arne Duncan the Secretary of Education in 2009 made threats to withhold education stimulus money from states and school districts nationwide who do not sign on to the Chicago, New York, and New Orleans style policies of mass school closings and firings, and the adoption of private “partnersâ€

I like the idea of to a degree privatizing the education system. I'd rather support a private business in educating my kids who know they have to answer for my dollars. Yet government is 100x worse as I can't really hold them accountable and force a proper non indoctrined education. The public system now is more like Hitlers system indoctrining children into the liberal globalism ideology in public schools.

However there needs to be some serious thought into it. To get a voucher a parent should have to show their child is worth the investment. The private school should also be able to test the student before admitance along with being able to expel the student out for bad behavior or even lack of caring about an education and poor grades because of. Sort of like college scholarships to continue getting many you need to keep a high GPA (however NO sports scholarships lol!).

But then I don't think education is a blanket "right". This who "right" thing in the US has gone to far. I believe in giving someone the oppurtunity but if they blow it thats on them. With that I believe all US Citizen and legal residents should have the ability for their children to go to school but if the child blows it and the parent doesn't care.... we do need legal lettuce pickers.

Its all about not rewarding bad behavior. If your a bad child, bad parent, bad Union, bad lobbist, bad government, bad country.... don't reward bad behavior. Noone can succeed if noone is allowed to fail.

Originally Posted by bigtex

In Chicago schools under Duncan's rule new teachers are hired and there is no effort to hire minority teachers. The new teachers are also non-union and young. Older teachers in the Chicago public school system tend to lose their jobs - they have higher salaries because of the length of time they have been teaching. So much for equal opportunity hiring and age discrimination, huh? Hey, let's not be reminded of Hitler's Youth Movement where kids were indoctrinated into Hitler's agenda at a young age.

Whats wrong with hiring younger teachers? Honestly for me while I had a couple of decent older teachers the worst also were hands down older teachers. They simply acted like they had no time left for students and just wanted to get the kids shoved out the door. I also see NO reason why one should feel pressured into hiring "minority" teachers. If they qualify for the job great, if they don't.... get lost. Stop putting extra points in because of being a minority. Kids shouldn't care if its a white person, black person, asian person, or latino person teaching them as long as its a good education.... or the parents are teaching racism.

ReformUSA2012 wrote,

I like the idea of to a degree privatizing the education system. I'd rather support a private business in educating my kids who know they have to answer for my dollars.

If you are writing the check, then they will be accountable to you. If the feds or government is writing the check........... who are they accountable to then? When the government and private business team up in back rooms, who ya gonna call? You'll have the same boondoggle you have now. Cozy relationships among those you can't get your hands on.

Public schools should be run locally. If you want to send your kid to a private school, or home school, more power to ya. Send a check in the mail, long distance and how much service do you get? Hand the cashier some money across the counter........got their attention?

The closer the better. JMO

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

But then I don't think education is a blanket "right". This who "right" thing in the US has gone to far. I believe in giving someone the oppurtunity but if they blow it thats on them. With that I believe all US Citizen and legal residents should have the ability for their children to go to school but if the child blows it and the parent doesn't care.... we do need legal lettuce pickers.

Its all about not rewarding bad behavior. If your a bad child, bad parent, bad Union, bad lobbist, bad government, bad country.... don't reward bad behavior. Noone can succeed if noone is allowed to fail.

I have said this for a long time......at one oint in time the State of Colorado said, EDUCATION IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT." That being said, let's pay for everyone's education. But lets treat it more like they do in college. If a kids ends a school year with a "D" average that kid is now on academic probation. Make a "D" average again and no you pay to get your education. Get sent to the office for disrupting class, assaulting or verbally abusing teachers and you now pay for your education. If that doesn't change things then you are out of school. We have plenty of street corners for people to panhandle and plenty of prisons. Get rid of the illegals and we have plenty of yards to mow. Let's start teaching accountability at a young age. Accountability starts at home.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Whats wrong with hiring younger teachers? Honestly for me while I had a couple of decent older teachers the worst also were hands down older teachers. They simply acted like they had no time left for students and just wanted to get the kids shoved out the door. I also see NO reason why one should feel pressured into hiring "minority" teachers. If they qualify for the job great, if they don't.... get lost. Stop putting extra points in because of being a minority. Kids shouldn't care if its a white person, black person, asian person, or latino person teaching them as long as its a good education.... or the parents are teaching racism.

Nothing wrong with young teachers.....some are good. However, when you are doing it only because a young teacher is cheaper that is wrong, it called discrimination. How about if this practice was accepted in the corporate world as a whole? Now the retirement age is about 30 year old. What do we do with all of these old people now? Welfare? Social handouts? In the USA age discrimination is against the law for a reason. As have being in upper level management before being a teacher, I will take experience over youth any day.

Originally Posted by bigtex

Nothing wrong with young teachers.....some are good. However, when you are doing it only because a young teacher is cheaper that is wrong, it called discrimination. How about if this practice was accepted in the corporate world as a whole? Now the retirement age is about 30 year old. What do we do with all of these old people now? Welfare? Social handouts? In the USA age discrimination is against the law for a reason. As have being in upper level management before being a teacher, I will take experience over youth any day.

I agree with that. But think at times it goes a bit to far. I can understand from a business's perspective why not to hire someone who only has 5-10 years max left but we do need limits. Certain things need to be taken into consideration on both sides.

My comment was simply about younger teachers aren't so bad that some of the older ones want to make them out to be. I personally think if layoffs need to happen it should first go by a set standard of who has a certain level of bad marks on their record or bad results. After that other things to consider such as teachers specialities and teaching interests.... after all a teacher who hates science won't make a good science teacher. But lastly when its a fair playing field for the most part tenure.

I love your above comment on education being a privledge! I agree with that fully.

We needa stop all the feel good crap. Accept that we need people in all wage sectors from the poor, lower class, middle class, upper class, and rich. Accept that people need to succeed on their own and all we should do is have the tools available for one to try. If one fails that shouldn't be anyone else's problem and through complete rock bottom failure theres only one way to go but if your not forced to move why should you?