Common Core is a rather frequent topic of conversation for potential Republican presidential candidates these days. The discussion centers more on whether or not there should be federal rather than local control of what gets taught in schools, and less on the need for measurement of the performance of the students and teachers. This focus on who is to control education is important, but many of the Republicans are missing the point. Control is less important than outcome. The goal of the American education system has to be to produce graduates who can read and write well and who have learned mathematics, science and other subjects well enough that they are ready to take their place as productive adults in the American community. That is a goal which many of our school system do not come close to achieving. In many large districts, over half of the graduates cannot read, write or do math at anything close to a high school level.
The usual discussion that results once this problem is identified is about whether or not America spends enough on education. How often have you heard it said that we shower money on the military while shortchanging the urban poor who have been all but abandoned? The problem, of course, is that the supposed lack of spending is a myth. The district that spends more per pupil than any other is New York City. Enormous resources are used each year to try to educate the children of New York, but the results are poor, to say the least. Another district with lavish levels of spending is Baltimore. Millions in cash is spent on the students there, but the district still produces functional illiterates with little hope for the future. In other words, the schools are failing.
One of the main reasons for the failure of school districts is the stranglehold that the teachers' unions have on the systems. Incompetent teachers cannot be fired. There is no accountability for poor performance. Rules prevent taking steps that would help improve education for the students (something that ought to be the goal of the system.) Because the teachers' unions are joined at the hip with the local Democrat politicians, nothing is done in city after city that might upset the unions. As a result, the students suffer.
It is time for one of the Republican candidates to propose an agenda that would give parents and students some choice in their education again. Right now, there are billions of federal dollars that are getting pumped into schools across the nation. Most of that cash goes to the states or local districts who then decide how to spend it within general guidelines set by Washington. That means that the federal cash is hostage to the demands of the teachers' unions and the moves by the local Democrats to make sure that most of that cash goes to the teachers. That result needs to be changed. The majority of federal money for education ought to go to the schools that the students choose to attend. Each student would be the basis for a government payment direct to that school of a fixed amount per pupil. If the student chose the local public school, then the cash would go to that district. If the parents chose a local Catholic school, then that school would get the cash. If a charter school were chosen, then that school would be funded. In one move, Washington could provide the means for education to be taken from the control of the teachers' unions and local Democrat pols and given instead to the people that the system ought to be benefiting: the students and their parents.
Imagine what will happen if parents control this much of the funding. Schools which fail the students will lose enrollment as parents move their kids to schools that actually work. Urban poor who now are stuck at failing (although well funded) schools will be able to move to other schools that will educate the children.
There are, of course, details that must be worked out in a final plan. For example, some children with special needs should bring higher amounts with them. The basic idea, however, is one whose time has come. America has to start focusing on educating all of its children rather than satisfying the demands of the teachers' unions.
The usual discussion that results once this problem is identified is about whether or not America spends enough on education. How often have you heard it said that we shower money on the military while shortchanging the urban poor who have been all but abandoned? The problem, of course, is that the supposed lack of spending is a myth. The district that spends more per pupil than any other is New York City. Enormous resources are used each year to try to educate the children of New York, but the results are poor, to say the least. Another district with lavish levels of spending is Baltimore. Millions in cash is spent on the students there, but the district still produces functional illiterates with little hope for the future. In other words, the schools are failing.
One of the main reasons for the failure of school districts is the stranglehold that the teachers' unions have on the systems. Incompetent teachers cannot be fired. There is no accountability for poor performance. Rules prevent taking steps that would help improve education for the students (something that ought to be the goal of the system.) Because the teachers' unions are joined at the hip with the local Democrat politicians, nothing is done in city after city that might upset the unions. As a result, the students suffer.
It is time for one of the Republican candidates to propose an agenda that would give parents and students some choice in their education again. Right now, there are billions of federal dollars that are getting pumped into schools across the nation. Most of that cash goes to the states or local districts who then decide how to spend it within general guidelines set by Washington. That means that the federal cash is hostage to the demands of the teachers' unions and the moves by the local Democrats to make sure that most of that cash goes to the teachers. That result needs to be changed. The majority of federal money for education ought to go to the schools that the students choose to attend. Each student would be the basis for a government payment direct to that school of a fixed amount per pupil. If the student chose the local public school, then the cash would go to that district. If the parents chose a local Catholic school, then that school would get the cash. If a charter school were chosen, then that school would be funded. In one move, Washington could provide the means for education to be taken from the control of the teachers' unions and local Democrat pols and given instead to the people that the system ought to be benefiting: the students and their parents.
Imagine what will happen if parents control this much of the funding. Schools which fail the students will lose enrollment as parents move their kids to schools that actually work. Urban poor who now are stuck at failing (although well funded) schools will be able to move to other schools that will educate the children.
There are, of course, details that must be worked out in a final plan. For example, some children with special needs should bring higher amounts with them. The basic idea, however, is one whose time has come. America has to start focusing on educating all of its children rather than satisfying the demands of the teachers' unions.
No comments:
Post a Comment