A 21st Century Education System
By Robert Maynard

In earlier articles entitled “Perhaps our high schools should learn from our nursery schools“ and “Putting Parents Back In Charge”  I suggested that it is our K-12 education system that needs to be reformed, rather than our Pre-K system.  I also noted a 2001 Child Care Fund of Vermont study, which pointed out that Vermont parents are feeling less control over the values that their children are taught.  I also cited recent research in the field of child development which suggest that the parent- child bonding process and the values passed on from parent to child are critical to the healthy development of children.  I would like to now suggest that if Vermonters are to prosper and thrive in the next century, it is imperative that an education system is created which will address these concerns.  Any such education system would rest on three principles, Quality, Affordability and Parental Control. Indeed, I believe that, as numerous studies have shown, Parental Control is the key to a quality education.  The central premise that the notion of Parental Control is rooted in is the vital recognition of the fact that the primary responsibility for the education of children lies with the parents.  This is so because education is a crucial part of the raising of children.

It is my contention that the present education system has failed on all three counts. The main reason for this failure is that the present system is based on the invalid premise that it is the primary responsibility of the state to educate children, rather than the parents.  This faulty premise has led to a system that constitutes a near total government monopoly over education.  America’s early education system was largely in the hands of individuals, families and churches.  The purpose of education was to help develop mature, self-reliant individuals.  Academic excellence and strong moral character were key educational goals.  This system produced the best-educated society on the planet.  Around the middle of the 19th Century, the function of education was gradually turned over to the state.  In addition, with the rise of the “Progressive Education” movement surrounding John Dewey, the purpose of education was seen as the “socialization” of individuals to fit into a collectivist “Social Democracy”.   The result of turning away from our original approach to education has been a complete disaster. For the above reasons, those who are concerned with the future of our education system should seek a gradual, but complete Separation of School and State.

Fortunately for those of us interested in educational reform, there is a model of an education system that meets the above-mentioned principles already in place. I refer to the Home Schooling movement. A study by Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute, performed for the 1994-95 and 1995-96 school years dispels many of the popular myths surrounding Home Schooling. The study collected data on 5,402 home school students from 1,657 homes across the country. It discovered that the average scores of home school students far exceed that of public school students for a vastly reduced per pupil cost. It was also discovered that the longer a student was home schooled, the better the results were.  In addition there was no correlation between the parent’s education or income level and the results obtained by home schooling.

In addition to the Home Schooling movement, we would like to cite private schools as another model as well. It is well known that private schools out perform public schools at about half of the per pupil cost.   Finally, it should be pointed out that, while America lags behind the rest of the world in most academic subjects, we lead the world in computer literacy.  The reason for this is that computer literacy is picked up in an informal, free wheeling manner reminiscent of the way many of our founders were educated.  In other words, rather than coming from our public schooling bureaucracies, computer literacy is a largely self-taught phenomenon which is aided by informal tutoring and a large body self instruction literature.

The education of our children is too important to be made into a political football in the hands of politicians who wish to score points with the voters and the education establishment that wishes to indoctrinate our children in the latest "Politically Correct" fad. Our proposal is to develop a new education system for the 21st century that will combine the strengths of Home Schoolers, Private Schools and the rest of the society as well.

The first step is to eliminate all government mandates or requirements as to what should be taught and who should do the teaching. Home Schoolers and Private Schools clearly out perform the government run public schools so it makes no sense for the government to be telling these groups how to educate children. When you reduce the role of government regulations, it opens up a number of possibilities. Parents who are successful at home schooling taking in more children to school for a modest tuition. Teachers freed from the shackles of the public school system, starting their own mini schools. Professionals who are experts in some subjects starting their own classes. Partnerships could be developed between Home Schoolers and Private Schools, between both of them and local businesses, churches and community centers. A private voucher fund could be set up for those of less income, as well as a private scholarship fund to encourage educational excellence.

Consider the fact that new information technology is making communication easier and less expensive. Private companies are using this phenomenon to increase productivity and decrease cost. This situation is well suited for increasing the quality of education while at the same time lowering the price. One of the biggest costs of education is buildings. We spend too much money maintaining buildings that serve only as schools. This is wasteful; we should be using communication technology to allow buildings that already serve as a community center, church, etc. to be used as learning centers. Of course this would include homes as well. The savings that could be made by using buildings, which are already being maintained, would be considerable. The elimination of government educational administrative bureaucracies would save a lot of money as well.  Parents and teachers teach children not administrative bureaucracies. Their function is mostly to administer regulations and funnel funds. The regulations do much harm, and very little good as they stifle real creativity. As for the funds, they need not be funneled through bureaucracies but should go directly from parents to schools. Again, privately funded accounts could be set up where individuals, churches, businesses, etc. could contribute. Out of these funds vouchers could be distributed to the parents with lower income.

The second step would be to repeal mandatory attendance laws.  These laws are predicated on the notion that the education of children is primarily the function of the state and that parents are accountable to the state for sending their children to state run institutions.  This rational dissolves when it is accepted that the primary responsibility for the education of children lies with the parents.  

In addition to government-regulated curriculums and mandatory attendance, the main pillar that the government monopoly over education rests is taxpayer funding. We propose that taxpayer funding of education be gradually replaced by a tuition system. A small tuition fee could be introduced the first year and incrementally increased each year thereafter. As the tuition fee increased, the school tax would decrease by that amount. Such a system would force public schools to compete on a level playing field with private schools. Private schools have to operate on a tuition funding system so it is only fair that the public schools do as well.  Any scheme to provide choice to the public would be illusionary if we do not create such a level playing field. Those who advocate school choice sometimes point out that it would create more competition by bringing market principles to our education system.  I do not believe that real market competition can come about as long as some schools have automatic access to taxpayer funding, while others must compete for students who pay tuition.  As long as the automatic access to taxpayer funding is available, there is no incentive to be competitive.   Another benefit of this approach is that it brings the parents directly into the funding of education. Greater parental involvement, in any way, with the school system is bound to reduce the price and increase the quality of education.

Finally I would like to stress that the end product of such a system, can not be wholly foreseen in advance.  I merely would like to lay out the principles that such a system would be based on and to suggest a general direction. The process itself would be evolutionary as all creative endeavors are.

Robert Maynard is the Editor of TrueNorthRadio.com