TANCREDO: Competition key to education excellence

By Tom Tancredo, Special to the Rocky

Published August 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Speakout

Last week, Gov. Bill Ritter and former Gov. Roy Romer wrote a column about the state of education in America. In it, I believe they've unwittingly made a powerful argument for precisely the kind of educational reform that they have publicly opposed for many years: school choice.

In 10 years, the governors want to cut the high school dropout rate in half and double the number of college degrees awarded to in-state Colorado students. These are great goals for our state but the only way to achieve them is through a competitive educational system.

They lament poor math and science scores, alarming dropout rates and the declining performance of American students relative to kids from the rising economies of Southeast Asia.

What's worse, we are left with these embarrassing results despite record-shattering "investment" (i.e., government dumping your tax dollars into a hopelessly broken system) by state, federal and local governments.

And while all of this is very disappointing, it is not surprising. This is precisely the kind of abysmal result that we routinely see whenever we turn an important task over to a government-run monopoly.

I am a former public school teacher, and like it or not, education is a product. As we all know, you don't get a better product by stifling competition or imposing a rigid regime of government protectionism.

If we want a better product when it comes to education - higher educational achievement levels by our school graduates - our government policies must be geared toward satisfying the consumer: students and their parents. They cannot be driven by a concern for what education bureaucrats, substandard educators or the out-of-touch teachers unions demand.

If we need a current example of the obstructionism of the teachers' union, just look at their opposition to the merit pay proposals in Denver. The union insists on automatic increases in the base pay for all teachers, and they oppose linking pay increases to merit. Should the best teachers get higher pay than mediocre ones? Not according to the unions.

Teachers unions not only oppose school vouchers, they oppose home schooling. In California this summer, the state teachers union filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a California Court of Appeals case arguing that parents who home-school their own children must have teaching credentials identical to classroom teachers. This requirement would effectively destroy home schooling. Thankfully, they lost the argument.

Romer left Colorado to become superintendent of schools for the Los Angeles Unified School District, a job he held for more than a decade. That district's school board was controlled by the teachers union and he had a friendly City Council as well. So, why is Romer not bragging about what he achieved in that position? Maybe because the product of his stewardship in Los Angeles mirrors the awful product of the union-controlled public monopoly in Colorado.

If history has taught us anything, it is that solutions to some of the world's most complex problems have come only when we have unleashed the power of the free market. The answer to the education problem, simply put, is more choices for parents, and more competition by schools for students. It is not another ambitious big government "solution" put together by the same special interests that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - a status quo that even Romer and Ritter admit leaves our students lagging far behind youngsters from Seoul and Singapore as they enter a newly competitive global economy.

Sadly, I suspect that liberals like Ritter, Romer and their underwriters in the labor unions will continue to use every resource at their disposal to deny the children of poor and middle-class parents access to the same private schools that many of them send their children to.

I hope that when parents listen to the left's disingenuous arguments about why they shouldn't be free to send their son or daughter to any school of their choosing, they will remember the words of Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman: "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

Republican Tom Tancredo represents the 6th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

August 20, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

It is surprising that the public does not accept vouchers. Vouchers are given to university students although the public universities are still heavily subsidized. Charter schools are close to a voucher concept. Charter schools deliver high quality education at a much lower cost than regular public schools despite harrassment from local school districts. The Democrats tried to kill charter schools in recent legislative sessions. Constituents of Peter Groff complained loudly and he intervened to stop the legislation pushed by the teachers union.

The reason that vouchers have failed is the suburban school districts. Some of my suburban neighbors are openly derisive of my choice of school (a charter school) for my daughters. No one is supportive of the charter schools except the parents who use them. My neighbors think that charter schools are taking away from their resources. In reality, it is just the reverse. Suburban school districts are lavishly funded compared to charter schools. Little or no bond proceeds are directed towards charter schools. The local school districts harrass the charter schools with costly mandates that provide little value. Yet charter school parents are still forced to pay property taxes to support school districts that will not share bond levy proceeds.

Legislation about charter schools should be changed. School districts that will not equitably share bond levy proceeds should not have any control of local charter schools. The Charter School Institute should replace the local school district if the school district opts out of bond levy sharing.
August 20, 2008

12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

oma writes:

the reason people don't like vouchers is they don't work. don't know what you are referring to when you say "vouchers are given to university students". never heard of that. scholarships, maybe, vouchers, no. loans are given out to people who want to attend college, vouchers, no. this is just another tired, retreaded idea to distract voters yet again just before an election. notice tancredo can't point to one place where vouchers are working. the fact is, if the public wants more effective schools they have to pay for them. if you reduce class size, expand resources and most importantly, get the parents more involved in their children's educational life then you will see improvements. sending taxpayer dollars to some private school for one or two students to take advantage of is a losing proposition. tancredo likes to espouse free market principles, how bout this one: if people can afford to go to private schools then let them. otherwise, don't take scarce dollars away from public schools for some bleeding heart conservative idea that has never been proven to be effective anywhere. i have a master's degree and i can tell you that my classmates from public schools were equal to or smarter than any private school classmates. no difference. we can throw 43 million dollars a day away in an country that most private schooled people can't find on a map, then we can afford to pay more for our public school education. people who espouse vouchers are just calling for yet another subsidy for the rich. by they way mmannino, i never had a children but i have paid taxes my whole life to the school system, an investment i am proud to make in order to better society. if you tutor in the schools like i have, you will soon find out that if parents don't get involved in their kids education, little will be accomplished to the degree we all would like.
August 20, 2008

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

You are falsely claiming that vouchers do not work. They have never been tried except in a few places. In Milwaukee, they have been successful. The parents like them but the teachers union hates them. Charter schools are close to vouchers. Charter schools have been very successful in Colorado in terms of quality of product, parent satisfaction, and low cost. Charter schools differ from vouchers primarily in that local school districts retain control of charter schools. I am proposing that local school districts should not have control unless bond levy proceeds are provided.

Your claims about class size and school budgets are misinformed. The issue is not class size especially when looking at small differences in class size such as 21 to 18. The main issue is discipline. One or two disruptive students can ruin the educational experience for an entire class. Rather than reduce class size, the resources should be devoted to dealing with and removing disruptive kids from classes. I believe that classroom disruptions are the primary reason that parents choose charter schools especially in poor areas.

Regarding funding, most of our public schools are heavily funded. Most of the funding (85%) goes to compensation of school district employees. Compensation is high for school district employees especially retirement compensation. The retirement compensation is worth 25% to 35% additional compensation for long term employees. Most school districts are not having any trouble hiring except in a few areas. More funding will not improve educational quality.

I do not think our public school system is broke. Most parents in suburban areas are very pleased. Schools in poor areas are another matter but not for lack of funding. Parents in these poor areas need choices that would be provided by more charter schools and vouchers. Schools reflect the surrounding community. Crime ridden communities with low levels of parental control will have poor schools. Schools cannot replace poor parenting and crime ridden neighborhoods.
August 20, 2008

2:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

BO writes:

mmannino-
Vouchers should be allowed under the following set of conditions:
1) Private schools have to accept anyone with a voucher. Public schools currently have to accept anyone in their district. That means every kid's needs must be met as dictated by law. That includes hiring SPED resource teachers, ELL teachers, speech patholigists, classroom paras, and any other specialists that may be needed. I would be willing to bet that most private schools don't have all these people in place. One student may need as many as 4 of these people, not including the regular classroom teacher.
2) If a private school accepts vouchers, they have to be judged and graded like all the public schools in terms of CSAP, AYP, NCLB, etc. and be subject to the same penalties for not cuttin' the mustard.
3) Private schools have to follow the same procedures for expelling a student as public schools, and have the same responsibilities for the education of said expelled student as a public school does.

Why? Because if one red cent of tax money is redirected toward a private school, that school should be bound to operate under the same principles as public schools. If a school wants to remain private, it should take no public tax money.
August 20, 2008

2:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

oma writes:

i agree, the main issue is discipline which goes back to parenting. precisely my point. you are correct again that one or two can disrupt the entire class. in my opinion, those parents should be called immediately from their place of work and get their kid. the reality is, they can't do anything about it either and teachers become nannies to bad parenting. other things the general public does not consider is just how many children are who have parents in jail, or from broken homes, or are crack babies, or those who, at the third grade, are more educated than their parents. i know, i tutored just these kinds of kids for several years. when they go home, they do not have a structured environment in which to progress. i have been intimately involved in public education issues for a while. your comment about compensation is off base. teachers need more, not less compensation in dealing w/ bad parenting and off base public opinion. and in defending the one place where vouchers are in use for time, the results are very mixed. see http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.a.... the bottom line is, vouchers promoted by repubs are a smoke screen and, as usual, are sound bite solutions to complex problems. this country became great due to a free public education for everyone. it was only due to whining from the gingrich crowd in 1994 that people have become dissatisfied w/ the system without looking at the complexity of the issue. i am not saying that improvements cannot be made. but private schools have their own issues that also keep them from performing at their peak. i also object to my tax dollars going to some religious school who already is subsidized by their constituency. one other thing. repubs think by plastering the phrase "free market" on everything that it will cure our ills. but, society has an interest in overseeing things that affect society as a whole. a system of supposed "free market" schools w/ no public oversight will be a disaster, just like the enrons, sub-prime fiascos that would have benefited from public oversight. by the way, 18 in a class size is still too big.
August 20, 2008

3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

chief writes:

Here's a thought. When I was a student during the '70's and 'early '80's, our school had clear definitions pertaining to behavior which was accepted in the classroom and parent's, including mine, and students, understood what they were. If you decided that you did no want to follow those rules, various disciplinary actions were taken. The problem, or one of them, that I see now, is there is very little personal responsibility...it's all ways someone elses fault. This, "it's not me" attitude may come from parents, the government's reponse to bailing out their favorite businesses or our love of the celebrity who can do no wrong. The sense of entitlement is out of control. Whatever the cause, people need to understand that they are responsible for their own actions. Until someone teaches kids reponsibility, and maybe the parents should take this class too, spending more money will not solve a thing.
August 20, 2008

7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

BO,

I do not agree with your first and third conditions. Public schools have some poor mandates. Opening the school system to more choice and competition means that mandates must be relaxed.

Specialization is important in development of educational products as it is in any product. Schools should be free to provide more specialization. In some cases, enrollment restrictions are necessary. The public schools have enrollment restrictions in some schools and certainly in many programs. The idea that a school should take every child is misguided. This idea may be appropriate at the elementary level but not at higher levels. Specialization allows schools to develop to deal with different kinds of kids such as gifted, musically talented, troubled, vocational, and so on. Here is an example of new charter school that needs restrictions on enrollment. Global Village Academy provides intensive language instruction for grades K to 8. After a class has progressed from the early grades, it will not be possible to add children unless they have sufficient language background. You simply cannot mix students with no language background with others who have fluency.

Regarding common tests, I have no problems with mandates for standardized tests. Standardized tests can be taken too far but the CSAP level is fine. However, I am not sure that a strict approach about enforcing testing standards is the right approach. Charter schools will collapse from their own weight if the school is not performing. Parents will simply move their children. Public schools are different however because public schools are not parent run. With more choices, public schools can become like charter schools. Parents will simply move their children if the school is not performing or providing the desired educational experience.

Regarding the discipline issue, schools should have wide latitude subject to some overriding principles about discipline. If the discipline procedures are poor in existing schools, the remedy is to fix the procedures, not to force them on other schools.

Charter schools, vouchers, specialized public schools, and specialized programs provide choices that parents demand. The goal should be more choices, as much as permitted by budgets and parental preferences.
August 20, 2008

8:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

BO writes:

mmannino-
I appreciate the respectful nature of your response.
My stance on the first condtion is this- its fair to say that a high number of SPED kids don't do well on CSAP. They take the same test as everyone else. They can have the test read to them, but, otherwise, they take the same test. If private schools won't take these kids due to the specialized nature of the school, then where to they end up? The neighborhood public school, where they continue to struggle, and (less importantly) ultimately hurt the school-wide average score. With enough students scoring low enough for a long enough period, the school faces punitive measures. That's my major issue with the currrent atmosphere- a continuous cycle.

As far as the discipline issue, there are many problems in this area. Currently (or at least as of 2005 when I last taught in CO), if a student was expelled, that district was still responsible for the education of that student. This is a state law as far as I know. It would be great to change this, but its not going to happen anytime soon.

What it boils down for me is this- public schools work in many places. Too many people use what's going on in Denver, Los Angeles, and other large city districts and assume that's how it is everywhere. Its not- there are still many great (not perfect, but great) public schools, both large and small, in this country. It's our society that has changed, and while I believe most schools are trying to adapt to the positive changes, the negative changes are killers. Our society is now overcrowded with apathetic kids and parents that don't parent. Too many are trying to be their child's friend. People expect teachers to do more than they should, fix things that are out of their control, and then call them, and their schools, failures if they can't. Human nature has always dictated that there are great, good, average, below average, and lousy students. Going to a voucher or complete privitized system won't change that. You may end up with great students in all your schools under a privitized system (which I realize you haven't advocated), but there will be fewer of them, and all that saved tax money will be needed to build more prisons.
August 20, 2008

9:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

BO writes:

mmannino-
Sorry, I forgot to address another area.
You claimed that public schools have enrollment restrictions in certain schools and programs. In my experience, a public school has to take any kid that lives in their area, unless, in a multi-school district, that school is overcrowded. I have taught in smaller districts (which is why we differ so much) that have usually 2-5 elementaries, 1 middle and 1 high school. The only way these places can turn kids away is if they're out of district transfers.

Restrictions on programs are also non-existent today. Extracurricular programs can't cut these days. As far as advanced classes are concerned, the Office of Civil Rights has stated that public schools can't use grades in previous classes or GPA to restrict admittance in advanced classes. They are open to anyone. That means the often-stoned kid that got 26% in my Honors World History class last school year received an F with honors. Classes can still be sequential, but admittance can't be based on grades in a previous class or GPA. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is.

You mentioned not having kids with varying abilities and skills. This goes on all the time in public schools, hence the reason I feel privates that accept vouchers need to take anyone. I understand that schools would develop that are geared towards a specific student (college prep, vocational, etc.). I doubt enough schools would develop to handle the troublemakers (too much of a pain) or kids with severe learning and other disabilities (too expensive). To me, if vouchers are going to be issued under our current system of laws (mandatory schooling for all until 16, IDEA, etc.), then they should be good for any kid at any school.

I think we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.
August 20, 2008

10:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Move past vouchers.

Get the gov out of education. Stop collecting taxes for education. Let the consumer decide where he wants to spend his own money. The free market will invent solutions that will never ever come from the government monopoly education system.

Home › Opinion › Speakout

TANCREDO: Competition key to education excellence

By Tom Tancredo, Special to the Rocky

Published August 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Speakout

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs