"Do legislators deserve the same apples teachers get for their efforts in education? Every Friday, "The Hoosier Mom on Politics" makes that decision, giving two legislators a good or bad apple, depending on their support of Public Education and Indiana’s children. Check back every Friday at lunchtime to see what the Hoosier Mom packs in the Legislative Lunchbox for the week!
For this post of the “Legislative Lunchbox”, I chose to pack a lunch for all the Senators based on their vote on HB1003 - the costly voucher expansion bill. The Senators on the left page with the red background are those who voted with Public Education and received a good apple. The Senators on the right page with the black background are those who voted against Public Education and received a bad apple. Do you see your Senator?
The Hoosier Mom hopes that this pervasive mentality that we as a State need to reinvent the wheel via our Education System comes to stop with this session! HB 1003 seeks to outsource even more public taxpayer funds to private business - with virtually no accountability system or evidenced based data collection system to ensure quality. All of these changes come under the guise that "we the people" are responsible for subsidizing the 'choice' of a few. Absolutely, categorically - NO we are not responsible for subsidizing choice. Additionally, I argue that Government paying for private business directly opposes a free market philosophy.
I am hoping the readers here want to know where this argument finds its roots.
Milton Friedman, an American Economist and Statistician that taught at the University of Chicago with some of the greatest political and economic minds of the last century.
Milton Friedman, the man who thinks greed should be an American value.
Milton Friedman, who in 1962 wrote the book Capitalism and Freedom which put forth his personal agenda of education vouchers and elimination of professional licenses (medical profession specifically).
Milton Friedman, who founded the The Friedman Foundation For Educational Choice (everyone, scroll to the very bottom of the website and see where the headquarters are located - yes, it says Indianapolis). Click here for their facebook page.
Now, the Hoosier Mom studied Political Science primarily, but in returning to college as a single-mom and adult learner, I found a second passion in Economics. I believe one of the greatest elements of our nation is the marriage we have between politics and economics, between democracy and capitalism. This marriage has seen many ups and downs, but for many reasons this marriage seems to be a critical element not only for freedom but also success, both personally and for nation-states.
There is a fine balance that must be achieved between the government's role in private business, and private business' role in the government. This isn't a perfect situation and continually evolves, but one thing I KNOW to be true and that I wish I had the opportunity to discuss with Milton Friedman himself, is this:
As an advocate for a Free Market System, how can you justify expanding Government's role directly into the Private Education Business through subsidies?
We must remember, the education business is NOT a monopoly. The fact of the matter is, many of these private schools were failing in the existing free market system. There are many private competitors and a robust private school industry already in existence - the Government's role is not to expand that on the backs of taxpayers. In the private business world - you either survive or you don't. Is there a need to remind our legislators how unpopular bailing out Wall Street was when Government neglected their true responsibility to the people?
Here is something I would like the readers to consider and maybe you can help others consider as well....
Are Private Schools too big to fail - is this a Private School Bail-Out?
If so, by all means - lets continue on this voucher path. But, if you think Private Schools should survive in the free market on their own laurels, then we Hoosiers should re-build and improve our existing investment. Because we KNOW it works - "for the people and by the people" - that is Public Education.
The Hoosier Mom hopes all the readers will spread the word about the Legislative Lunchbox. Feel free to email me with suggestions for next week’s lunch: for whom should I pack lunch and why?
Vouchers create a new entitlement in subsidies to private schools.
ReplyDeleteSome legislators keep pushing voucher income eligibility far beyond Hoosiers' average or poverty level income to ultimately include ALL 100,000 private school students state-wide - at a cost to taxpayers of a half BILLION dollars.
Why should all taxpayers finance the expensive choices of affluent Hoosiers who - like all Hoosiers - already have the choice to go to any excellent public or charter school in the state?
If someone chooses to build their own swimming pool rather than use the public pool at the park, we don't give them a voucher to finance their private-pool choice of expense. Likewise, private school choices should be privately financed.
The Hoosier Mom agrees and has suggested to legislators that their actions must make common sense, across the board. I have posited that they either follow the same income guidelines to qualify for vouchers as they use for food stamps or they follow the same income guidelines to qualify for food stamps as they use for vouchers. Responsible governance would require income guidelines to be the same across government programs.
ReplyDeleteRather, we subsidize private school for those already receiving an education instead of feeding the hungry. Huge problem not only in the logic, but also in the legislators spiritual/moral obligation to those who truly struggle.
I am dissapointed by the level of misinformation on this posting, particularly from someone who "found a second passion in economics." Moreover, as someone who was able to ask Dr. Friedman the exact questions you posed, I believe that I could posit his reponses.
ReplyDeleteHere goes:
Of course, government schools are a monopoly. They are compulsory, zip code assigned and free at the point of delivery. As a result, the government schools dominate the marketplace, because that is what happens when you provide soemthing of value for free. Moreover, the rise of the union in the 1970s corresponded with a rise in the amount of regulatory capture in the schooling marketplace. Additionally, the existing private sector is only really the private sector that has been able to continue under a monopoly arrangement, and not at all the kind of market that would exist if parents had greater economic power. The point is, as any economist knows, there is no true market in k-12 education delivery given the points above. Finally, i think he would agree with you that the role of government is and should be the focus of the discussion. Dr. Friedman argued that in k-12 education the appropriate role of government is to fund, not run k-12 education. His actual statement runs something like this "It is fairer and more efficient to separate the government financing of education from the government running of schools."
As for subsidizing the private sector, his answer would be that the first step to creating a vibrant market of quality options is to separate the funding of schooling from the running of schools and allow parents the freedom to choose from among all types of schools. Of course, this isn't the case currently or even with the voucher schools. Children from wealthier families, for example, get 14K per year to attend a largely homogeneous government run school where the barrier of home price keeps people out, while private schools in urban areas are only getting $4500 for K-8 low-and-middle income children.
As for me personally, I am just glad you are so confident that you "know" what works. I see a Nobel Prize for Economics in your future.
Schools are not run by the government, they are administered by the local community with funds received from the government. You obviously believe that "government is the problem." But confusing the government and the local school corporations is where your mistake is made. All the government asks is that there should be some equality and no discrimination when using government funds. Don't force taxpayers to support an agenda or belief against their will. Vouchers are wrong because that is exactly what it does. Forces taxpayers to support a private education that has an agenda they may not believe and even worse, take away resources from their public schools so that others in major metropolitan areas can have a so-called choice. Vouchers do nothing be segregate schools and create a culture of inequality.
Delete