In her book, The War Against Excellence (Praeger, 2003), Cheri Pierson Yecke, exposes the deplorable truth about government schools. According to the author, five beliefs that “progressive” education theorists embrace have infiltrated the schools. The five beliefs are:

• Belief in the equality of educational outcomes.
• Belief in questioning the value of individualism.
• Belief in the supremacy of the group over the individual.
• Belief that advanced students have a duty to help others at the expense of their own needs.
• Belief that competition is negative and must be eliminated.

The combination of democracy and free private enterprise has contributed greatly to making the United States a world leader. If the forces of free enterprise are allowed to take over K-12 education and operate freely, as in other aspects of our lives, our nation will benefit from an explosion of learning opportunities for young people. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris has enhanced the possibility of such a prospect. Just as the breakup of the ATT monopoly decades ago spawned a large portion of the dizzying improvements in communications we enjoy today, so will the breakup of the government education monopoly, through choice, spawn unimaginable learning opportunities for future generations of children.

Unfortunately, to date, there have been no serious threats to the government school monopoly. Although charter schools, vouchers, open enrollments, magnet schools, tuition scholarships, on-line learning, and home schooling have provided limited choice for some students, the vast majority of students are trapped in anachronistic government schools that have not changed in decades. This intransigence is fostered by large and powerful special interest groups that benefit from the K-12 status quo. These special interests are teacher unions, colleges of education, union-controlled state and federal legislators, local school board members, and bureaucratic minions at all levels of government. All of these groups owe their existence to the monopoly of public education.

With monopolies, the worst place to seek help for needed change is within the monopoly itself. If the public schools need to be changed, seeking advice and direction from teacher unions, administrators, school board members, state officials, and politicians is pointless. The Education Establishment has proven it will not and cannot change left to its own devices. Meaningful change will come only from the outside – from the power of parents free to choose education programs from a free and competitive education market.

Today, once a student withdraws from school, the practical choices for continued education are limited. Very few school districts operate an “alternative” high school, i.e., one that is open only to students who either dropped out of school or who were expelled from school. Even where such alternative high school programs are available, they are not popular, for a variety of reasons, among those who have left the regular school program. Another choice for dropouts is to enroll in a public school adult education program that offers courses leading to a regular high school diploma. However, these programs, too, are either not conveniently available or follow schedules not compatible with the needs of adults. A third choice is to enter a General Education Development program (GED), usually offered at a public school adult education center or at a local community college. However, completion of a GED program, contrary to popular belief, is not the full equivalent of earning a bona fide high school diploma. A fourth option for dropouts is to obtain a high school diploma through correspondence or via the Internet. Unfortunately, many such programs are of questionable quality and often lack official recognition.

All of the current options for continued education for dropouts involve varying degrees of expense and incompatibility with adult learning. These obstacles could be avoided through the use of lifetime education vouchers that are redeemable nationally. Such vouchers would not only provide usable assistance, but would also convey to dropouts the assurance that society still has faith in them. As the past director of a large adult education program, I had the repeated pleasure of welcoming dropouts into the adult education high school. All of those students were there of their own choice, and all of them were well-intentioned and highly motivated. A basic and indisputable principle of learning states: “Learning takes place best when the learner is ready.” Tuition vouchers would help dropouts continue their education when they are ready in ways and places useful to adults. The parents of these dropouts pay taxes just like parents of high school graduates. These dropouts are just as entitled to financial support as the students who stay in school. It should be kept in mind, also, that many adult dropouts are employed and pay taxes, too.

Under this plan, each state would provide lifetime tuition vouchers to each dropout. This voucher would be redeemable nationally under a reciprocal agreement among the states. Each voucher could be applied to any education program approved by the state, whether it leads to a high school diploma or not. Keeping track of vouchers should not be a serious or expensive challenge. If the government can keep track of Social Security benefits, collect taxes from all workers, issue Medicare payments, keep fingerprints on all citizens, issue license plates to over 200 million vehicles, and track simultaneously 3,000 airplanes in the sky, surely, a small agency could keep track of education vouchers.

In her book, The War Against Excellence (Praeger, 2003), Cheri Pierson Yecke exposes the deplorable truth about government schools. According to the author, five beliefs that “progressive” education theorists embrace have infiltrated the schools. The five beliefs are:

1. Belief in the equality of educational outcomes.
2. Belief in questioning the value of individualism.
3. Belief in the supremacy of the group over the individual.
4. Belief that advanced students have a duty to help others at the expense of their own needs.
5. Belief that competition is negative and must be eliminated.

The combination of democracy and free enterprise has contributed greatly to making the United States a model for other nations. If the forces of free enterprise were allowed to enter elementary and secondary education and operate freely as they do in other aspects of our lives, our nation would see an explosion of learning opportunities for children. Just as the breakup of the ATT telephone monopoly decades ago spawned the dizzying improvements in communications we enjoy today, so will the breakup of the government school monopoly, through choice, spawn unimaginable learning opportunities for future generations of children. This change, however, will not come from The Education Establishment. Significant changes in organizations seldom come from within. Usually, such changes come from outside of the organization. Monopolies, like public education, are especially prone to this phenomenon since they are extremely resistant to change due to lack of competition.

The inevitable transition to fair choice in education is a slow and frustrating struggle. Any attempt to change the status quo is met by the furious resistance of The Education Establishment. As a result, complete freedom of choice still does not exist when it comes to K-12 education. Even the much-publicized programs of charter schools, magnet schools, open enrollments, student scholarships, etc., have not given real choice a chance to prove its success. In his must-read book on school choice, John D. Merrifield (School Choices: True or False, The Independent Institute, 2002), conducts a serious examination of vouchers, setting some tough standards to test their success. According to the author, “The greatest threats to progress are low expectations and misleading alleged experiments. We need to achieve real competition in only one reasonably populous area to assure that eventually it will exist virtually everywhere, and … it can happen quickly, much like the sudden collapse in 1989 of the socialist regimes in Europe.”

With monopolies, the worst place to seek help for change is within the monopoly itself. If the public schools are to be changed, seeking advice and direction from unionized teachers, administrators, school board members, state officials, and politicians is pointless. The Education Establishment will not change because it is incapable of changing if left to its own devices. Change will come only when the forces of competition are unleashed and education customers are free to choose.

Unfortunately, however, government has de facto taken ownership of the education of K-12 students. This ownership is executed through compulsory school attendance laws that require students to enroll in school by a certain age and stay in school until a certain age. There is a definite trend to increase the number of years that students must attend school, with a dozen states requiring compulsory attendance until 18 years of age. Incredibly, this extension of required years in school is being carried out despite the absence of any evidence that it actually increases attendance or enhances learning.

The state does have a right and obligation to require that all children master a basic education, whether in a public or private school, to meet the state’s needs for unity based on shared language, principles, and knowledge. However, when the student has fulfilled that obligation, regardless of his or her age, the state has no right to require further education of such children against the will of their parents. The term “compulsory” education is not only an oxymoron, it is an anathema to natural human curiosity and the desire to find answers to all things. The desire to learn is one of the most instinctive and driving traits of children, and there is no need to force them into government training programs. When education is mandatory, under threat of punishment, its effectiveness is diminished. Forced education becomes a form of brainwashing. In fact, forced education is not education at all – it is indoctrination by fear. Forced education is nothing less than mind control.

Learning is in nature. Learning is fun. Learning is inescapable. Learning is everywhere. To assume that children and their parents are so uncaring about education that they must be driven by force into government schools, and to assume that these government schools are appropriate for real learning, is to insult the human spirit. When education is administered by mental and physical incarceration, quality education is diminished in many ways:

First, compulsory attendance creates an adversary relationship between the student and the teacher. In the view of some students, teachers appear to be enforcers and guards, and many pupils feel more like inmates than students. And the two are stuck together until compulsory attendance expires. Fortunately, this relationship between teacher and student is not universal – thanks to many sensitive teachers and many good parents who teach their children to behave and respect their teachers. However, for many the imposition of coercion into the educational process retards learning by restraining the power of individual curiosity. When learning is voluntary between teacher and student, synergism is created, unleashing great potential for discovery.

Second, under tax supported compulsory attendance laws, children are led to believe that education is “free.” It may be free to the students, but not at all free to taxpayers, especially to those three out of four taxpayers who do not have children in school. Early in life children learn that there is a relationship between price and value. Things that are expensive are usually good, while things that are cheap or free have less value. Therefore, in the view of many students, public education must not be worth much since it is “free.” Consequently, many students have little commitment to the process.

Third, compulsory attendance at a government school lowers educational standards to the lowest common denominator. Under law, all children must be treated equally (as differentiated from “equitably”). This means that the standards of student achievement must be set to assure that all students, regardless of ability, have a reasonable chance of success. This is good news for those students at the bottom, but bad news for those at the top. Unfortunately, the one-size-fits-all public schools are not able to provide an “equitable” education for all, that is, an education appropriate for the unique needs and interests of each individual student.

Fourth, government schools are designed more for socialization than individualized learning. As a result, the promotion of students from grade level to grade level, irrespective of academic achievement, is commonplace. Consequently, millions of students who are learning little of value are kept in school to suffer their own miseries and interfere with other students who are trying to learn.

Fifth, compulsory attendance forces large numbers of failing students to remain in school at a horrendous cost to taxpayers. In the school year 2008-09, the “official” average annual cost per student was approximately $11,000. (This figure is greatly underestimated. See my article, “Free Public Schools are Far from Free: Actual Costs Greatly exceed Published Costs,” EducationNews.org, May 9, 2008). Every 1 million students wasting their time in school, often at the expense of other students, adds up to a waste of $11 billion per year. However, for The Education Establishment, there is a strong motivation, albeit non-educational, to keep these kids in school. The local school district receives a significant per student income from the state.

The problem caused by compulsory school attendance has been recognized for quite some time. In 1974, the National Commission on the Reform of Secondary Education published a report, “The Reform of Secondary Education,” (McGraw-Hill). The Commission, sponsored by the Kettering Foundation and consisting of twenty leading educators, made 32 recommendations to improve secondary schools. The report generally pointed out that our public secondary schools are violent, boring, and inefficient, as well as increasingly costly. The report highly praised certain alternative schools. The most shocking recommendation of the commission, however, was that “compulsory attendance laws are the dead hand on the high school.”

Conclusion: The billions of dollars wasted as a result of compulsory attendance at government schools could be redirected as education vouchers so that individual parents are enabled to purchase a learning program appropriate for their individual children. This would not only help children otherwise lost in the public schools, but would ultimately serve the bests interests of the state.

Unfortunately, such an educational structure precludes innovative learning programs more in tune with the needs of all students. Generally, secondary students fall into one of two categories – those planning to attend college and those without that ambition. However, even those students who do not plan to go to college are caught in a structure that has been designed basically to satisfy college entrance requirements. As a result of this over-emphasis on college preparation, many students stay in college-prep programs but do not go on to college, while many other college-prep students enter college, eventually drop out. Those who are not in the college-prep program seldom receive a practical education that prepares them for the realities of employment. Also, many of these non-college bound students feel “second rate” compared to their college-bound peers. In many ways, the college-bound program is considered socially and educationally superior to other programs. This is not a good situation. All students should feel good about their education, regardless of their goals.

But the college-prep program does not even serve well a significant number of those students who actually go on to college. Approximately 30 percent of students who enter the 8th grade do not graduate from high school. Of the 70 percent that do complete high school, approximately 50 percent enter college. Of those that enter college, about 40 percent drop out within six years. These figures indicate that roughly 25 percent of students who enter the 8th grade graduate from college. In other words, we have a secondary school curriculum that primarily benefits a minority of students in high school, that is, those who actually complete college. As a result, the majority of students are shortchanged. The millions of students who drop out of high school gain little from a college-prep program. Many of those who graduate from high school, but do not go on to college, have few skills to prepare them for employment. And, sadly, many of those who enter college eventually drop out, having wasted valuable time and money and being ill prepared for gainful employment.

The pressure on students to go to college is overwhelming. As a high school guidance director, I regularly worked with students who had been rejected by colleges as well as with students who applied for college even when their heart was not really committed to that course of action. The parental, community and peer pressure is so great on some students that they are “forced” to apply to college. It is this group that comprises most of the college dropouts. What a waste! For example, a college student who drops out of college at the end of the second year has wasted (his parents’) money for tuition, room, board, supplies, and other direct and indirect expenses. At the rate of $20,000 per year, this would amount to $40,000. In addition, if the student were not in college, he or she would likely be employed. If the student were employed at $20,000 per year, the lost income would amount to $40,000. This college dropout, then, at age 20 years old, is bout $80,000 in the hole – and probably has few skills for employment and responsible adulthood.

It is clear that public secondary schools do not provide education programs of value to all students, and the result is a waste of valuable and limited resources and many frustrated students. The often-moaned refrain, “Well, I didn’t go to college, but… ,” reveals a system that favors one group over another.

The existing monolithic and monopolistic government school system is intrinsically incapable of serving the education needs and interests of a pluralistic student population. The answer is not to continually tinker with the existing system. The answer is to make the free market available to parents and education entrepreneurs. Such an approach will serve the best interests of society as well as the best interests of the individual.

These expenses include student bus transportation, food services, insurance, supplies, equipment, capital repairs, travel, lighting, heating, air-conditioning, telecommunications, security, consulting services, textbooks, building and grounds maintenance, legal services, and contingencies. Each of these expenses is represented by a department head who always has reasons to demand more money for the next year’s operations. When all of these staff requests are summed initially, they invariably result in a total budget request in excess of what will be available.

Then begins the process of trimming staff requests to reduce the proposed budget to the level of reality. In the end, however, all existing programs are funded, and almost no significant funds are left over for new and innovative programs. This bureaucratic process continues year in and year out, perpetuating the status quo. Under these conditions, any attempt to introduce a new program meets with fierce resistance from imbedded programs. When the final budget crunch arrives, the first budget items to be lost are new programs. As a result, the public schools never change significantly because the first priority of budget making is the perpetuation of existing programs.

Even when there are anticipated surplus funds as the school year ends, it is common practice to spend these funds whether they are needed or not. This is done to avoid a reduction in the following school year budget. And when in the unlikely event that school budgets are under pressure to be reduced, it is common practice to select sensitive areas (football, textbooks, etc.) that will cause an outcry of protest from parents. The whole budget process is one in which all parts of The Education Establishment cooperate to be sure that the status quo remains intact. As a result, new and innovative programs have little chance of getting started.

Over the past several decades, legal suits have been brought to the courts seeking redress for alleged education inadequacies. The courts have generally responded by ordering that more money be spent. In all of these cases the teacher unions have been key players because they know that their members will be the chief beneficiaries of increased funding.

Thomas Nechyba, professor of economics at Stanford University, and Michael Heise, professor of law at Indiana University, maintain that such court decisions have done little to improve student learning. The authors conclude in their study (“School Finance Reform: Introducing the Choice Factor,”: New York City Schools, John Hopkins Press, 2000) “. . .that it may be helpful for courts to find ways to link school finance and school choice proposals in their judicial remedies. Specifically, we propose that judicial remedies flowing from successful challenges to the adequacy of school finance system should direct an increased funding in the form of vouchers to the families of those school children who are served by inadequate schools rather than to the very schools that have failed to deliver adequate educational services.”

In other words, spending more money or the redistribution of funds within a state does not correct educational inadequacies. According to Nechyba and Heise, funds would be best turned over to the main stakeholders in education, namely the parents and their children. By providing education choice through vouchers, a competitive education market would emerge, giving parents options to select the best education for their children.

Frankly, local school boards lack the power to upset the system, anyway. Increasingly, school boards are mere errand boys for the state and federal government. All of their actions are prescribed and proscribed. State and federal laws and regulations tell local boards what they must do and what they cannot do. Local boards operate within a legal and bureaucratic paradigm that is dominated by calendars, accreditation standards, standardized testing, school bus transportation, building codes, Carnegie Units, budgets, invoices, hiring (seldom firing), labor contracts, investigations, policy adoptions, business reports, and political posturing. If a school board did agree to make a real fundamental improvement in the way public schools operate (an unlikely scenario), it almost certainly would not have the legal power to enact such a change. But year after year, dissatisfied parents parade before school boards, motivated by well intentioned, but naïve, belief that the school board will help them. By the time parents learn that the school board is not going to make any real changes, their children are out of school, and a new generation of parents is standing, hat in hand, before a new set of board members. I have participated in hundreds of school board meetings, both public and executive, and that’s they way they work – or, don’t work. The only way parents will receive help is by helping themselves by seeking an appropriate education program outside of the government schools.

School board members serve for all the wrong reasons. According to Chester Finn, Jr. and Lisa Graham Keegan, authors of “Lost at Sea: Time to Jettison one of the Chief Obstacles to Reform – The Local School Board” (Education Next, Vol. 4, No. 3, Summer 2004), “School boards and their associations have emerged as doughty defenders of the status quo . . . and are no longer the embodiment of participatory democracy.” According to their article, the most active groups in school board elections are teacher unions, and “less than 60 percent of school boards provide formal channels for community input on key issues.”

Having worked with hundreds of school board members, I learned that people serve on school boards for all the wrong reasons:

• They are using their positions to springboard to other political office.
• They wish to sacrifice themselves on the altar of public service.
• They want financial income and benefits from school board service.
• They actually believe they know more about education than anyone else.
• They are union patsies.
• They are parents looking out for their own children.
• They are revengeful ex-employees of the school district.
• They are “empty nesters” looking for a cause.
• They are people using public service for private gain.

Not a very pretty picture! I have known a few good board members who were committed to student welfare and sound management. Usually, they were business people accustomed to effective decision-making.

Finn and Keegan agree – somewhat. They say school boards “. . . often resemble a dysfunctional family, composed of three unlovable types: 1) aspiring politicians for whom this is a rung on the ladder to higher office; 2) former employees of the school system with a score to settle; and 3) single-minded advocates of one dubious cause or another who yearn to use the public schools to impose their particular hang-up on all the kids in town.”

The one-size-does-not-fit-all government schools are trying unsuccessfully to make a monolithic and monopolistic institution provide for the pluralistic needs and interests of children – and impossible task.

In 1917, the Chicago Board of Education adopted a resolution that prohibited Chicago teachers from belonging to the Chicago Federation of Teachers, but several teachers did join the Federation, and they were fired. The teachers appealed to the courts, and the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the School Board’s action, stating that union membership “is inimical to proper discipline, prejudicial to the efficiency of the teaching force, and detrimental to the welfare of the public school system.” When a similar case arose in Seattle in 1930, the courts rendered a similar decision.

This general prohibition against membership of public school teachers in a labor union was not reversed until 1951, when some teachers employed by the Norwalk (Connecticut) School Board were fired for going on strike. Although the state upheld the dismissal of the striking teachers, the court nevertheless ruled that in the absence of enabling legislation:

• Public school teachers may organize.
• A school board is permitted, but not legally required, to negotiate with a teachers’ union.
• A school board may agree to arbitrate a labor dispute with teachers, if the school board makes the final decision.
• A school board may not agree to a closed shop.
• Public school teachers may not strike.

Employees of the U.S. Postal Service, under the protection of the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, had the right to join unions before any other group of federal employees. Nevertheless, between 1912 (when the Act was passed) and 1962, growth in federal employee unions was limited.

Public sector collective bargaining really began on January 11, 1962, when President John F. Kennedy signed his Executive Order 10988, which gave all federal employees (except management personnel) the right to join or not join unions of their choice. Executive Order 10988 was replaced in 1971 with E.O. 11491, which expanded unionization rights of federal employees. But the 1962 executive order was the real beginning of teacher collective bargaining in that the federal executive order legitimized the concept of the right of public employees to unionize at the state and local levels of government.

Growth in public employee unions was also facilitated by the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1962 and 1964 that provided for reapportionment. These two decisions resulted in reorganization of the state legislatures, which in turn brought about legislative arrangements more friendly to unions. In Michigan, for example, in 1965, after reapportionment had taken place, Democrats controlled the state legislature for the first time in 20 years. The state legislature passed the nation’s first comprehensive state collective bargaining law that same year. Although that law, even today, prohibits strikes by public employees, it also includes alternative provisions for handling negotiations impasses, along with prohibitions against specific unfair labor practices.

The introduction of collective bargaining also received a boost from the 1961 breakthrough in the form of a mammoth labor contract negotiated by the United Federation of Teachers, covering 45,000 teachers in New York City. The ensuing New York City strikes of 1965 and 1968 helped to rally public school teachers throughout the U.S. behind the union flag.

The rest, as they say, is history. Today most states mandate collective bargaining between teachers and school boards, and most teachers are covered by negotiated labor contracts. Through the use of illegal strikes, threats and other forms of intimidation, the teachers’ unions have put their self-interests first, and bullied their way to become the primary obstacle to K-12 education improvement.

Despite the efforts to breakup the government school monopoly with magnet schools, intra-district choice, charter schools, tuition scholarships, dual enrollment, education management organizations, and accelerated programs, the American K-12 school system still remains essentially a government monopoly. In other words, the government – not the parents – still decides what education shall be available to youths. True, some parents can, and do, choose private schools for their children, but to do this these parents must endure the burden of double taxation – a burden making private schools an impractical option for most parents. But, even when parents sacrifice to send their children to private schools, these schools often are not a real choice because they usually operate under stifling government regulations, limiting true freedom of education choice.

As Ayn Rand explains in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, there has been a generational loss of memory as to the true meaning of economic freedom. Today, expanded government controlled economy is the norm. The same is true of private education. Through the generations, as government took over K-12 education, much memory has been lost as to what education was like pre-collectivism. Today, most of the great grandparents, the grandparents and the parents of today’s youth attended public schools. As a society, we have known no other system. We have been brainwashed to believe that education takes place only on government property and in government buildings where government employees teach a government curriculum. Ask people what education would look like in a competitive market free of government influence, and their responses indicate that over the generations we have lost true understanding of real education freedom.

So, let’s refresh our memories. Following are the striking differences between monopolized government schools and freedom of education choice. Note that I did not say the differences between government schools and “private schools” Freedom of education choice results in many learning opportunities that do not take place in traditional brick-and-mortar buildings. Therefore, one should think of K-12 education choice as a learning process that can occur at anyplace and at any time in a free market place.

The characteristics of public schools are listed below in normal typeface, with the corresponding characteristic of freedom of education choice following in boldface type.

1. Control of the public schools is from the top (the government) down, depriving parents of control over their children’s education. Under freedom of choice, education is controlled from the bottom (the parents) up, providing parents with control over the education of their children.
2. Public schools are collectivist institutions, where the needs of the collective (the government) prevail over the needs of the individual. In choice programs, the education needs and interests of the individual prevail over the group.
3. In public schools, political considerations too often determine education policy. In a private education setting, all decisions are made on the basis of what is best for individual student learning.
4. Excessive laws, policies, regulations and executive orders characterize government school management, thus impeding the free flow of learning. In a choice environment, learning takes place by contract between the student and the education provider, thus reducing the need for top-heavy administration concerned with issues unrelated to learning.
5. Costs are excessive in government schools because of relative inefficiency and effectiveness due to politics and bureaucracy. Private programs must compete to survive and cannot afford useless overhead. Public schools today cost over twice as much as private schools.
6. For most students, attendance at a public school is compulsory, creating many problems. Under private education, attendance is based upon contract between the student and the education provider.
7. In public education, students are generally required to attend a specific school based on the location of residence. Under freedom of choice (especially with the internet and distance learning), the location of the provider can be anyplace where there are willing customers.
8. Education in government schools must take place within the span of approximately 180 days each year, thus limiting learning opportunities. Under freedom of choice, there is no “school year” since learning is by mutual agreement between students and providers.
9. The “school day” in public schools is approximately six hours, thus rigidly and artificially limiting learning opportunities. There is no “school day” in a choice setting since learning takes place according to individualized programs.
10. The government insists that a full education consists of attending a public school for twelve years. This requirement is irrelevant since learning is life-long and takes place according to the needs and wishes of the individual student.
11. In public schools, the government decides exactly what curriculum shall be made available, thus limiting learning opportunities for many students. In private education the customer decides what they want to learn.
12. Public schools require that instruction take place by a “certified” teacher, despite the fact that there is no correlation between such certification and student learning. In a private sector education program, anyone who can satisfy the students educational needs and interests can be put to good use.
13. Student misbehavior in public schools is legendary, sapping teachers of their energies and interfering with students who wish to learn. Since learning in private education programs is by mutual agreement, student misbehavior is seldom an issue.
14. Public schools grade students “on the curve,” which compares them to other students, dooming millions of students to being graded “below average.” A private program can evaluate students in terms of progress toward their own individual goals.
15. Government school perniciously segregate students by age, depriving them of rich opportunities to learn from others. In a choice environment, students can be grouped based on achievement and learning characteristics, regardless of age.
16. In public schools, irrelevant grade levels are measures of student progress, a rule for the convenience of educrats rather than students. In a private contract relationship, there are no “grade levels,” – only continuous progress of the individual student.
17. When students are placed in brick and mortar government buildings, learning becomes almost exclusively vicarious, thus depriving students of more diverse methods of learning. In a private education program, relieved of pointless government regulations, students are freer to practice more effective “hands-on” learning.
18. In government schools where many students are there against their will, teachers use fear and intimidation to motivate students, which creates a negative learning environment. Since private education contracts are by mutual agreement, there is no need to use threats and force against students.
19. Public schools are heavily unionized, creating binding labor contracts that are serious impediments to innovative learning improvements. It would be almost impossible to unionize workers effectively in private education programs.
20. Public schools, which are highly bureaucratized and monopolized, are resistant to incorporating the latest technology into student learning. Unlike government schools, private education programs are free to change their methods of operation at will.
21. Public schools generally prohibit gender-grouped learning, even though there is no evidence that such a practice is sound in all situations. In the private sector gender-based learning can take place by mutual agreement.
22. In the public schools, a “diploma” certifies that students have survived twelve years of school attendance. In the private economy, students can be given credit for achievement – not time in class and years in school.

The opportunity for parents to take advantage of the availability of free choice in the education of their children does not exclude their right to remain in the public schools. The important issue is that all parents should be allowed to make their own choices. Furthermore, the opportunity for parents to take advantage of choice does not prohibit the government from requiring that all students achieve a minimal level of education. How this requirement is met should be left to the parents.

In summary, this article shows what is happening when the government is in charge of K-12 and what can happen when students and their parents are in charge.

Under SBM, money and accompanying decision-making powers are transferred from the school district’s central office to the individual schools where site committees, consisting of the principal, parents, teachers, and students (in secondary schools), are enabled to run the schools. The money that the schools receive is based upon student-weighted funding – an algorithm that distributes funds equitably according to the different needs of students in each school. The acid test of SBM is how much power and money is actually transferred to the individual schools.

I spent much time in Edmonton (80,000 students in 200 schools) in the late 1980′s studying its system. I was asked to install a similar SBM system in a large suburban school district (70,000 students in 85 schools) outside of Washington, D.C. After successful installation of SBM in that school district (the first in the nation), I wrote a widely circulated book, School Based Management: A Detailed Guide for Successful Implementation. Based on that book, I presented set-up and training programs for SBM throughout the nation.

Serious problems face SBM

During the intervening years, the experience of many school districts has revealed that SBM has certain flaws and faces serious obstacles. In some ways, SBM can be viewed as a sincere effort of limited success to achieve choice. Others might see SBM as a desperate concession made by The Education Establishment to fight off real school choice.

The major problems with SBM as a means to achieve choice are:

1. About 95% school district budgets are consumed by obligatory costs, such as employee salaries and benefits (entrenched in binding labor contracts), pensions, student transportation, debt payments, maintenance, heating and air conditioning, risk management, student food supplies and services, required curriculum materials, capital equipment, and many other fixed costs. As a result, the individual school has little money that it can spend at its discretion to carry out SBM.
2. Thirty-five states have labor relations laws that require negotiations between local school boards and teacher unions. After over four decades of this monopoly collective bargaining, thousands of school districts have deeply imbedded binding contract provisions that limit the power of principals to direct the workforce in their schools.
3. Public education in America is a state responsibility. To carry out this responsibility, state departments of education issue volumes of regulations and directives that supersede the power of school boards and local schools. Any SBM school that wishes to stray from these constraints must acquire school board approval and apply for waiver from the state department – a process perfectly designed to discourage creativity and experimentation. Delaware’s plan, however, may reduce this problem since Vision 2015 is being adopted as a statewide program.
4. Since World War II, the federal government has (without constitutional authority) inserted itself into every nook and cranny of school district operations. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) are just two huge examples among many. SBM does not enable schools to escape from this stultifying and entangled web of federal regulations.
5. As stated previously, SBM requires that individual school site committees run the schools – albeit their powers are severely limited as explained in this article. In too many situations, the activist union members have achieved disproportionate power on the committees, pushing their own interests over those of the students.
6. Successful SBM requires that principals be entrepreneurs and be willing to take risks in the name of creative education. Unfortunately, these are no characteristics of your typical school principal. School principals are administrators, that is, they are trained in graduate school and trained by experience to take orders from above and carry them out with fidelity.
7. Real SBM requires a transfer of power from the central school district office to the local schools. School board members and their administrative minions are powerful people in the overall operation of the schools. Their resistance to this transfer of power often verges on sabotage of SBM.

SBM is not to be confused with school choice

Although SBM is superior to the traditional top-down management system that dominates most school districts, it should not be viewed as method for achieving actual school choice. Such choice can be found only in a free market place of open competition free of double taxation.