What the education industry needs more than anything is free market competition. Â The only people schools should have to answer to are the customers they serve (parents and students), and the local school boards their customers elect to represent them. Â Private schools have been able to not only educate with such a system, but do the job better than their bureaucrat-heavy public counterparts, and for a fraction of the cost.
Michael Espersen writes at PJ Media that “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem“:
In 2009, when President Barack Obama began his pitch to sell an overhaul of the nationâ€™s health care system to the American public, conservatives of good conscience rallied together in opposition. We donâ€™t need government to provide people with health care because it would raise costs, lower efficiency, and put unnecessary obstacles in between patients and their doctors, conservatives rightly said.
Conservatives understand the limitations of government, and that a proxy takeover of a private industry can only result in a disservice to the consumer. Conservatives know that government has no place in making demands of patients, their doctors, or their insurance providers. But why would government ever have a place in making demands of children? For decades, governmentÂ has drasticallyÂ increased its influence in the education of children in the K-12 setting, and for what?Â SAT scores are hitting all-time lows.Â The reality is that every single weekday in the United States, tens of millions of children sit in classrooms they donâ€™t want to be in simply because the law demands it of them, and conservatives ought to begin the conversation of what is to be done about it.
The American model of education in modern times stands on the basis of an assortment of premises. Education is something all children deserve, so it should be free and accessible to everyone, the politicians say. It would be wrong to subject children to the risky ups and downs of the marketplace, they continue, so schools need to be protected and run by people who will run them in the interests of children and not for their own profit. Naturally, they go on, children arenâ€™t sure of what they want to do when they grow up, so we should have them study a diverse array of topics and subjects to give them an idea of where they might want to direct their lives. Politicians want us to believe that an institution created on these premises is a model for success. There are few things further from the truth.
Problems are inherent in every single one of the premises listed above. However, before one can understand the problems that exist within the public school system, one must understand the nature of the market itself. In a free market there is a distinct relationship between two private parties, the consumer and the provider. The consumer enters the marketplace expecting to exit with something that he wants. Meanwhile, there are providers that have what he wants, and they engage in a peaceful war with one another for the honor of being deemed the superior provider of service by the consumer who pays whom he wills. The providers know that the consumer will only pay the provider whom he believes best serves his interests, so the providers increase quality, decrease prices, among other strategies to offer the consumer a better deal.
They do this not because they necessarily care about the consumer as a person, but because they want his business and know that if they donâ€™t get it, someone else will. Soon, the consumer in need pays a provider in exchange for the service that he deems best serves his needs. The favored provider gets what he wants, and the consumer is equally satisfied. The only people harmed by the exchange are the providers who did not do a good enough job of helping the consumer. Voluntary cooperation between people looking to satisfy each otherâ€™s needs makes society better.
Sounds great, right? Sometimes government tells us things arenâ€™t so great; it tells us it must intervene on behalf of the consumer, using euphemisms like â€œregulationâ€ and â€œconsumer protectionâ€ to make demands of providers. Without the governmentâ€™s intrusion, providers will naturally seek to serve consumers in order to be patrons of their business, but when politicians tell them what to do the natural arrangement of the marketplace is no more. Providers can no longer use the fullness of their capacities in service of the consumer, they must now divert a part of those capacities in order to meet the arbitrary demands of statesmen. Providers now must serve two masters, the consumers, whom they would be serving anyway in order to receive payment, and the politicians, who pay them in nothing but demands. The end result is necessarily a loss for the consumer, who is now not as well off as he could have been.
Sometimes, government intrudes into the marketplace in an unprecedented way. Throughout history, government has completely taken over areas of service that would otherwise be private and turned them into a certain kind of public institution called aÂ monopoly.Â A monopoly in this sense is an institution controlled by the government that is the sole provider, protected from competition, in a certain area of service.
The American K-12 public school system is a monopoly, since it is the primary forum by which children obtain an education.
Public schools are paid for by taxes and children attend them for free, not because school managers make them free but because government demands they be free. The price system is the mechanism by which providers keep each other in service to the consumer; providers lower prices in order to draw the attention of consumers to themselves and away from other providers. But when there are no prices, what empowers the consumer to choose what he thinks is best for himself, and thus employ providers that efficiently and easily supply it for him, is eradicated. When people no longer buy things on account of how much good it does them, but instead are simply handed something, they are made poorer, not richer. The public school monopoly is completely insulated from the needs of the consumers, them being the children and their parents. It has no reason to cater to anyoneâ€™s wants; it simply does what it does and whether or not people are satisfied is not even part of the equation. Whether they like it or not, they have to live with it. In this way, the monopoly will always, necessarily, be inferior to private enterprise.
Read more at PJ Media
Public Schools: Make Them Private
Children Pay The Price For Compulsory Education
If Only Government Schools Would Go Extinct
Vouchers ARE Government Money, and Thatâ€™s the Problem
Free the Children, Cut the Budget: States have no business running schools
Keep government out of the schools
Katrinaâ€™s Silver Lining: The School Choice Revolution in New Orleans
Learn more aboutÂ Freedom of Education
Learn more about theÂ Separation of School and State