After President Barack Obama’s recent proposal to lengthen the school year, many have argued whether this proposal will help. Some have argued the new policy would help the United States catch up with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the real problem with public education cannot be solved with these kinds of government regulations.
Just after being elected, former President George W. Bush tried public education reform with the No Child Left Behind Act. As with most terrible bills passed into law, this one has a name which nobody can disagree with (see the Patriot Act). Everyone loves children and patriotism, but these bills have nothing to do with either.
The No Child Left Behind Act just created some new standardized tests and pumped funding into the schools which didn’t meet target scores. In so many cases, the government forces money into problems, and so often, more money equals more problems (R.I.P. Biggie).
Extending the length of school days is not likely to make kids any smarter, just as an increase in the money spent on education hasn’t. Think of the things the government has tried to improve with funding that have only gotten worse: Social Security, health care, military action, etc.
The problem is not the lack of money, but rather that the state runs it in the first place. Add education to the list of the things the government apparently considers a right, along with retirement money and soon to be health care.
The problem is when the government declares something a right, they do not adequately provide for it. If education is something the government must provide, then why stop at high school? Why not socialize college education?
When the government acts, the market will always react. Private schools which specialize in certain areas are all over the place. Some specialize in math or the arts and others in sports.
The reason these exist is because education controlled by the state cannot provide people with the kind of specialization they need in education. People who go to these schools are forced to pay for education twice, once through taxation and again with the school they choose. Such generalized school is not even likely to make kids smarter. Gaining knowledge comes from a desire to do so, not from English classes in which everyone reads the SparkNotes of famous literature because they would rather spend their time elsewhere.
People see these things everyday but stick to the assumption education is something the government must provide. They think it is too crucial to be left up to the free market.
Imagine a society in which different schools are set up by entrepreneurs who provide children with a myriad of different options for education. They would be motivated by the desire to run a profitable business and provide their consumers with the most up to date educational tools on the market. Teachers would experience higher pay based on their performance, much like any other job. Scholarships would provide kids with financial assistance, and charitable actions would provide for those who otherwise could not afford it.
The government, after all, is not the only one who can provide charitable actions. Of course there would be some people who chose to go to very little school or even no school at all, and that is OK as well. Some occupations do not require formal education to provide the highest usefulness to society.
Anything the government socializes inherently will not reach its highest potential. The reason education in America is not where it should be is because the government insists on controlling it. Free market education will do far more for education than more presidential directives.
Derrick Godfrey is a junior majoring in economics. He can be contacted at [email protected].