One form of anti-intellectualism is a resistance to complexity. I do have to admit that sometimes complex matters boil down to an elegant simplicity -- Einstein's famous formula linking energy and mass is a case in point -- but to arrive at that elegant simplicity often requires winnowing through a good deal of complexity. For every simple solution to a complex problem, there was considerable questioning in the background. Does it account for this? Does it account for that? When the answer is "no," the elegant simplicity morphs immediately into the simplistic. If a solution doesn't take into account the reality that surrounds us, such as it is, then no matter how much we might want it to be THE answer, it isn't.
The Post, today, published a story by DelReal and Brown that provides a case in point. They write that "Washington has long designed education policy to deal with urban and suburban challenges, often overlooking the unique problems that face rural schools." Not all schools are urban and suburban, and an education policy that ignores the reality of rural schools is not THE answer, no matter how much we might want it to be THE answer. The go on to point out that "with a new administration in the White House that prefers 'school-choice' approaches — favoring charter schools and private-school vouchers so parents can opt out of public schools and bring taxpayer dollars with them — the nation’s rural schools are left to wonder about their fate." Trump has to know that his presidency is principally a "rural presidency." He is in office, at least in part, because he (shamelessly?) manipulated a rural voting base that has inextricably linked small town christian values with the GOP and Trump, for better or worse, was the "christian" and the GOP candidate. Nevertheless, Trump one wonders how Trump could have the least experiential appreciation for rural values. It's difficult to imagine Trump sitting in Grinde's Diner, at six in the morning sipping coffee with men wearing overalls and ball caps emblazoned with feed store logos, but nevertheless those were the people who voted for him. When Ted Cruz leveled the accusation of "New York values" at Trump, he was pointing directly at this lack of experiential appreciation, but it went nowhere in part because it was equally difficult to imagine Cruz sitting in Grinde's Diner. I mention Grinde's Diner, not only because it is a "real" place, but because one can't eat there without noticing its support of the local high school athletic teams. Of course, Trump isn't the only one out of touch. His choice of education secretary, Besty DeVos, is equally out of touch with the realities of rural life, as her remark on "grizzlies" demonstrates. For those who want a pop-culture reference, to get a sense of how deeply public schools are embedded in small town culture, watch a couple of episodes of "Friday Night Lights."
I doubt that vouchers are a solution to anything, and would tend to ensconce privilege for the privileged. Before I go on, let me say outright that public school funding is a complex mish-mosh and it varies from locality to locality, state to state, and includes everything from lottery funds, property taxes, state taxes, local bonds, grants, and yes federal funds. What I am about to say is a way of conceptualizing the problem, not a solution to the actual problem of providing education to our nation's youth. That said, the rich have always had educational resources for their children, and as the DeVos confirmation hearings demonstrated, neither she nor her children ever attended a "public" school. One has to admit that private education is often "better" than public education, though what makes it "better" is often a matter of personal preference. Sometimes it is "better" because it upholds more rigorous academic standards, sometimes it is "better" because it upholds a particular religious doctrine, sometimes it is "better" because it has appealing programming the arts or the sciences, but regardless, those who can afford the tuition will send their children to "better" schools. If you have no children or your children attend private institutions, taxes that go to public schools do not directly benefit you. Property taxes are a particular sticking point, and because the rich own more property, both business and personal, they tend to pay more in taxes. Although this means "better" public schools in the districts where they live, but they are still public schools that must be all things to all people and consequently "worse" than many private options who are not caught up in egalitarian failings. They resent the taxes in part because they are "in addition to" the tuition they pay at private institutions, and so wouldn't it be great if all or a significant portion of those taxes be returned to them in the form of a voucher that they could subsequently apply to their private educational option. Extrapolating on this idea, wouldn't it be great if everyone had this option -- that is to say, if everyone received a voucher that could be applied to offset the tuition at the institution of their choice? They could then choose schools for their children that better fit their definition of "better," to include schools with a clear religious agendas.
What is wrong with more choice? By way of illustration, let us say that, instead of spending enormous sums of money subsidizing public or mass transportation, we decided to give everyone an annual "transportation voucher" of $1000 and people could spend it however they chose. One thing would happen immediately. For those who commute to and from work with mass transportation, the cost of commuting would go up considerably. In most cities -- and of course mass transportation depends upon masses and is an urban, not a rural, phenomenon -- the fares paid by riders recover between 25 and 35% of the cost. The remainder is paid by taxes, usually sales taxes. From there, relatively simple calculations can be made -- that is to say, the anticipated increased cost of fares can be compared to the $1000 stipend to see which is the better deal. If the rise in the cost of fares exceeds $1000 it's a bad deal for those who depend upon public transportation. The same applies to the sums of money subsidizing public or mass education. Here again, suppose we decided to give everyone an annual "education voucher" of $1000 and people could spend it however they chose. One thing would happen immediately. Public or mass education is funded entirely by tax dollars. If all or some of those tax dollars were diverted to "vouchers," they would need to make up the difference and begin charging tuition similar to higher education. In short, what had been "free" before would now represent an out-of-pocket expense for parents. From there, the same relatively simple calculations can be made -- that is to say, the anticipated cost of tuition can be compared to the $1000 stipend to see which is the better deal. If the tuition exceeds $1000 it's a bad deal for those who depend upon public education.
Implicit in either calculation, however, is the assumption that all else remains the same. Sales tax pays for the transportation voucher, property tax for the education voucher. A cynic might ask, why change the existing status quo if everything remains virtually the same? A skeptic might ask, who benefits and how? The idea of choice is appealing to many Americans, but there is always a difference between the theoretical and actual choices available to people -- i.e. theoretically, I can buy any automobile I want, but the actual means available to me limit my choices severely. Theoretically, I could send my children to any schools I want, but the actual means available to me would likewise limit my choices severely. With that in back of one's mind, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that public education is fully tax funded and private education is fully tuition funded. If, suddenly, all primary and secondary education were fully tuition funded, the $1000 voucher would not significantly increase the actual choices available to me and most Americans. We would find ourselves limited to those schools where the annual tuition is around $1000. In reality, these would be pretty crappy schools. There are reasons why the annual tuition at the "better" private schools runs upwards of $30K a year, a cost that would consume the full annual income of altogether too many Americans. In that respect, vouchers would change little or nothing. The poor would have "poor" schools fully funded by tax dollars, except now at one remove through the accumulated vouchers of the parents. Those rich would continue to have "better" schools mostly funded by tuition dollars, except now those "better" private schools also receive an additional government subsidy of $1000 per student.
Still, the idea of individual choice is appealing to many Americans, particularly when it comes to religion. The public schools, for example, are government entities, and under the establishment clause, cannot be used to promulgate any particular religious doctrine. Some of my neighbors in Mountain Home voted for Trump, for example, because they believed he would "bring back prayer to the public schools." Of course, I am quick to ask, "prayers to whom and in what form? Prayers acceptable to the LDS or the Catholic community?" When the object is to over-turn court rulings on the establishment clause, such a distinction might not be immediately important. Vouchers that allow parents to choose their school would also allow circumvention of the establishment clause, insofar as the vouchers themselves would not establish a religion -- theoretically, they could be spent at a muslim or buddhist school -- but in actuality the vouchers would be spent at schools representing the religious majority and in many smaller communities that school would be the only viable alternative available. Vouchers would serve principally to reinforce majority religious perspectives. Insofar as there are regional differences in majority religious perspectives -- think the Mormans of Utah as opposed to the Baptists of Alabama as opposed to the Catholics of Louisiana -- it would also serve principally, over time, to reinforce already existing regional religious differences.
Although most Americans recoil at the idea of "class" distinctions -- the workers thinking themselves "every bit as good as their bosses" -- I could also point out that relatively small differences in tuition would also reinforce ever finer and more invidious "class" distinctions. For example, where multiple choices are available, imagine a school that costs $1000 annually as opposed to a school that costs $4,600 annually. The former represents a monthly expense, after voucher, of $0. The latter represents a monthly expense, after voucher, of $300. For someone making $30K a year, that represents 12% of annual income. For someone making $100K a year, that represents a little less than 4% of annual income. Who would "choose" the $1000K school, who the $4,600 school, and what would be the consequence of that choice for the child socially? One could imagine someone making $30K sacrificing to send their child to the "better" school, but what happens when a second or third child comes along? Even the parents most willing to sacrifice for their child may find the expense simply impossible. Although theoretically egalitarian and open to choice, over time, the demise of public education and the emergence of vouchers within a "privatized system" would also serve to reinforce already existing economic class distinctions.
Although too most Americans would recoil at the idea that "religion" and "science" are incompatible, I might suggest that, over time, choice would exacerbate other forms of "class" distinction. Although I have known scientists that have religious belief, their religion always struck me as somewhat deracinated. If they hold to the observational truths of science, it makes literal belief in the revealed truth all but impossible. It reduces the bible to literature and the god of the bible to a literary character -- a character of supreme importance, no doubt, but nevertheless a character whose significance resides in allegorical or metaphorical truth. At which point, religion may be important to the "spiritual life" of the individual, but it is irrelevant to the larger enterprise of science. I say this because those who choose a religious education may well engage with an excellent religious curriculum, but if the school remains true to their roots in faith, if it insists on the literal truth of the bible, if they reject deracinated forms of religion, they will also reject the fundamentals of so-called STEM education in science, technology, engineering and math. Those who choose a scientific education may well engage with an excellent STEM curriculum, but if the school remains true to their observational skepticism, if it insists on the provisional truth of theory, if it rejects the dogmatic truth, they will also reject the fundamentals of a faith-based education. The former will teach science as though it were merely technology. The latter will teach religion as though it were merely philosophy or literature. As parents choose the one over the other, over time, the demise of public education and the emergence of vouchers would also serve to reinforce already existing cultural distinctions. As a side note, the Trump voter who sneered at the "snobbish cultural elites" and the liberal voter who sneered at the "ignorant redneck" Trumpist were each doing so, not on the basis of economic class distinctions, but on the basis of cultural class distinctions.
Et cetera. Having said all that, it's unlikely that the demise of public education and the emergence of vouchers would leave "everything the same." Part of the push for vouchers comes from the resentment of those who are disproportionately funding the educations of other people's children. The resentment is fanned by the notion that they are also funding an education that they find questionable. Even if vouchers were implemented, and they had greater choice to send their children to more acceptable schools, the core resentment of those who are disproportionately funding the education of other people's children would remain. Since public education is funded largely through property taxes, let us say, for the sake of argument, that the prevailing tax rate for education is 5 mills. If I owned a $1,000,000 home, that would mean an annual tax of $5,000. If I also owned an apartment complex with say 50 units valued at $5,000,000 that would mean an annual property tax of $25,000, which coupled with my personal property tax would mean a total of $30,000 annually. How is that fair when I have only one child and pay $30,000 toward her education while each of the 50 residents of my apartments have multiple children, and pay nothing toward their education? Shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game? Perhaps the voucher should be proportionate to the contribution replicating the "neighborhood" distinctions that existing prior to the demise of public education -- i.e. the differences between the assessed values of homes in one school district as opposed to another school district. I wouldn't want to second guess how things might change, but as changes are proposed and we ask, "who benefits and how?" I doubt that the answer will ever be "the poor."
The more one digs into the complexities of vouchers, the less they seem like a good idea -- at least to me. Better to avoid even the modest complexity outlined above (modest because the real complexities of school funding are even more daunting) and focus on a single issue -- choice! If we put vouchers in place, you will have more choice and can send your children to schools where prayer is not only allowed, but encouraged! in the meantime, pass out the guns, the grizzlies are potentially coming!
No comments:
Post a Comment