Michele Walk, Associate Editor
Ideology: Moderate | Writing From: George Washington University

A well-educated populace is a crucial component of a sound republic, and it is essential that access to a quality education is guaranteed by the state. The public education system in the United States, however, is becoming increasingly inefficient and is not providing America’s young citizens with the educational opportunities they deserve. Alternative options to directly state-run schooling, such as charter schools and school vouchers, need to be further explored and invested in. These options could potentially increase quality while simultaneously bringing down costs and reducing inefficient government bureaucracy.

Parents – that is, taxpayers – should have greater options in deciding how their children are educated. They currently have no choice as to whether to fund the frequently inefficient and underperforming public school system. Though parents technically do currently have a choice between public and private schools, it is often difficult if not impossible for many families to financially afford private schools, and they are thus forced to send their children to lower-performing public schools. It is arguable that public schools already compete with private schools, and in certain areas, this is true. I was lucky to receive an excellent education at my suburban public high school in Massachusetts, which students and parents frequently chose over private options. My family moved into my hometown because of the high quality of the public school. However, this is more the exception than the rule, especially when compared to the inner-city and economically-struggling areas. Children in these areas are often financially forced to attend local public schools, which are frequently of low quality. Provided with an incomplete education, these children are limited to low-income jobs after leaving high school. Because they have not received a quality education, it is often much more difficult for them, compared to their suburban peers, to take advantage of the incredible opportunities in this country for upward socioeconomic advancement. Thus, the low performance of inner-city schools could be considered a poverty trap.

Compounding the issues of poverty and limited opportunities is the budgetary waste of the public school system. Taxpayers should be able to be confident that their hard-earned money is being used in the most effective, efficient way. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Furthermore, inefficient state-run approaches to education not only hurt the students and are a burden on taxpayers, but they threaten the very livelihood of our nation, for the strength of our democracy rests firmly on the foundation of an educated population.

Strengthening charter schools could alleviate the current problems associated with education. Charter schools, which are state-funded but operate independently, have a stunning record of success. Though they receive, on average, only 60% of the funding per pupil than traditional public schools, they have much higher rates of graduation, college attendance, and overall educational quality. It should be noted that charter schools can, unlike most public schools, receive outside charitable funding; however, this is a moot point, for the schools still cost taxpayers significantly less while yielding much higher results. This is especially the case in the inner cities, for approximately half of all charter school students are classified as “at-risk” – proving that the issues with public schools are not necessarily demographical but organizational. Charter schools also have much more autonomy with regards to curriculum than traditional public schools. This allows them to tailor their academic offerings to the interests of their students, which potentially explains why they have higher success rates with at-risk students.

Expanding access to private schools through vouchers would also increase the quality of education for America’s students. Vouchers, famously proposed by esteemed economist Milton Friedman in the 1950s, essentially let parents decide where their tax money is to be spent, and allocates to them a “voucher” to use either at a public or private school of their choice. This would increase competition between public and private schools, and, according to fundamental principles of economics, increase quality while driving down costs. Though private schools do technically currently compete against public schools for students, financially they are often out-of-reach for a significant percentage of the population, especially students in low-income areas, which have the worst public schools. Private schools, much like private universities, often specialize in specific areas and students would be able to greater pursue their academic interests. This would also help the public schools, for though they might have less funding, they would also have fewer students, and could afford to be more flexible with their curriculum and focus their funding into developing a specialty. Similar to charter schools, students who utilize vouchers have much higher rates of graduation than their public-school counterparts.

Not only would expanding choices for primary and secondary education help students, taxpayers (i.e., parents), potentially reduce poverty, and reduce government waste, it would also help teachers. Faced with students who are forced to attend their lessons, public school teachers face a daunting task. However, if students and their parents were given more freedom to attend schools that cater to their specific academic or vocational interests, every teacher’s job would become easier and it would create a better learning environment for all of the students involved.

It is clear that there are fundamental and significant problems with state-run education in the United States. Less than 70% of students nationally leave high school with a diploma, and in some states, such as Nevada, the rate is only 47%. While some students may be legitimately uninterested in academics, that cannot account for the staggering drop-out rates. It is crucial that a quality education be available to every child in this country, and for that reason, alternative approaches to schooling such as vouchers and charters must be further explored. Education reform that includes these approaches should be a top priority of the Obama Administration.

However, it is crucial that when education reforms are implemented, they do not succumb to the recent public policy folly of increasing government involvement. Despite his Republican affiliation, former President George W. Bush’s education reform, No Child Left Behind, not only increased government bureaucracy but has failed to improve public education and has become a burden on local school districts and teachers. Recent policy proposals regarding health care and the environment make it clear that the Obama administration also sees a strong correlation between “reform” and “increased government bureaucracy.” Any reforms – whether they are educational, health-care related, or otherwise – should not feed the government’s inefficient and ever-increasing bureaucracy, nor can they be beholden to unions or special interests; they must serve, first and only, the citizens. The best decision makers are not Washington talking heads but individual taxpayers, and giving parents and students more choices with regards to education would recognize this fact. But more simply, America’s schoolchildren deserve a better education than the one state is currently providing. For the future of our nation, sound education reforms that include vouchers and increase access to charters must be implemented.