The author has chosen to use a question-answer format in order to make the often complex subject matter, easier and more enjoyable to read. Q and A is not a dialogue bewteen real people -- the author has provided the dialogue for both Q, standing for Quaero, which is Latin means "I search for" and A, Auctor, which in Latin means "person responsible."
Q - Why are American students performing so poorly in school?
A - Many people have lost faith in themselves and their abilities and have lost faith in one another. This is especially noticeable in the breakdown of the family.
Q - And important if you believe that parental involvement plays a large role in academic success.
A - Either kids drop out and no one cares because the parents themselves have no self-respect, or they are on drugs or working themselves to death. At the other extreme when middle or upper class kids drop out everyone has hysterics.
Q - Are you condoning "dropping-out" of school?
A - I don't think it's something to get hysterical about and especially if the motivation is the usual "what will people say" or "what will become of him or her". A little concern about the person who has decided to drop out; some investigation into reasons for the decision, a look at alternatives and respect for the individual's ability and willingness to take charge of his or her own destiny is called for.
A lot depends on control--either you have a need to control another person's life or you choose to help them become self-controlling and fulfill their own potential.
Q-That's all well and good until someone in your own family drops out.
A-According to the way numbers are kept, one of our sons could be counted as a drop out even though he now has a college degree.
Q-How can that be?
A- States use different criteria. By one set of criteria drop-outs are statistically defined as 9th grade students that fail to graduate four years later.
The United States Census Bureau uses the percentage of all 16-24 year olds who have not graduated and are not enrolled in school or an equivalency program---using the Census Bureau definition, the Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics estimates the current drop-out rate at 12.6 percent and completion rate at 87.4 percent.
Q- I believe most people see the dropout rate as a national crisis. Senator Bentsen told the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) in March 1987 that twenty-five percent of American teenagers drop out of high school. That's double the figure you cited for 1991.
A- Remember it depends on definitions. For instance, whose criteria was used? The drop-out rate today, meaning by one reckoning, the rate of those not graduating on time, is 28.4 percent---unchanged since the late 1960s. But today it is possible to continue or even start an education at almost any stage of life. Failing to march to the drummer of one's peers need not spell disaster. Every day brings its own set of hopes, dreams and opportunities. I abhor those who wring their hands and suggest that "It is too late!".
Q- Assuming you do understand society's concern and need to have well educated skilled workers in order to compete in the global market of the future, what can be done to discourage drop outs besides encouraging stable and supportive families?
A- For one thing stop acting like a decision at one point in time is some kind of stigma which will last forever. Encourage diversity and make sure our educational system is flexible with plenty of opportunity. For instance in the public system as we know it today, drop outs who decide to go back to school should be allowed to attend classes outside their own districts. I would like to see a greater availability of classes with participants of mixed ages.
Q- Minnesota has an incentive program which allows drop outs who want to have another go at education to attend a high school outside their district.
A- That's right. In it's first year (1987) 15,000 students enrolled. Not bad! More than half had been drop outs.
Q- The Achievement Council in California issued a set of statistics that showed California was more troubled by drop outs than the national average that you recited. The Council claims that between 1984-1987 dropout rates increased from 29 percent to 33 percent in the state and the drop out rate for Latinos and Blacks rose from 45 percent to 48 percent.
A- In the 1990s Latinos and Blacks will make up a school-age majority in California so with that in mind, statistics showing larger drop out rates for minorities in the state, have to be taken seriously.
Q- I see what you mean. Drop outs become adults and if too many adults are unable to support themselves others may not be willing or able to support them later.
What do you think of former Secretary of Education, Terrel Bell's proposal to have states legislate what he calls a Parent Educational Responsibility Act that would make parents sign a contract obligating them to take an active role in their child's education as a prerequisite to entrance to the public school system?
A- I think it is a stupid wrong-headed idea! Some things shouldn't be legislated. It is ridiculous to legislate character or matters of the heart. Most children would think it silly to pass a law that says everyone should be good, or loving, caring and nurturing or take an interest in the life of their children.
Q- Not an interest----"an active role". The later can be measured and objectively adhered to in a way that interest or love cannot.
A-Nevertheless I think individual character is built through responsibility and individual character is something that is sorely lacking in our society today. In one of my books on the Deficit I used the example of a movie starring Jane Fonda and George Segal.
Q- I read about it in your book. The movie was called Fun With Dick And Jane.
A- That's right. They were a couple down on their luck, facing foreclosure on their gorgeous home, having to halt construction on their swimming pool and so forth. Obviously in need of rescue and desirous of a little pampering, they turned to the wealthy parents of the character played by Jane Fonda. In a scene that is obviously meant to poke fun and show how callous and cold "Republicans" can be, Jane's screen-father refuses financial help and tells her going through the financial set-back will build character and he doesn't want to rob her family of this wonderful opportunity to work through its problems.
I said in my book that I could have given the same speech and in fact have taken this approach in raising our own sons---an approach that the film maker obviously expected the viewing public to realize was archaic, cruel and ridiculous.
Q- I get it. You're of the opinion that it is up to parents and schools to see that as well as becoming proficient in the traditional three Rs (reading , riting and rithmetic) another three are added---responsibility, risk and reward.
A- I never looked at it that way but I'll accept it. However I'd like to define reward in my own way. I'd like people to understand that it is acceptable and praiseworthy to spend one's life in pursuits which do not yield large amounts of cash.
It must become fashionable again to recognize that there are numerous things of value in this world besides money. It should be commonplace for a man or woman to take pride in having spent extra time nurturing a family, cultivating friends, tending a garden, caring for animals, exercising and/or drawing closer to nature, reading, studying, praying, communicating, creating in any of the arts---all rewarded, not generally with money, but with intangibles that should demand respect.
A person's life should not be judged so heavily by material possessions but these other things should be taken into consideration when assigning valuing ---especially when a young person is considering options.
Q- Have you heard of Code Blue?
A-In 1990 a report issued by a commission of educational, political, medical and business leaders issued a report known as Code Blue which said "Never before has one generation of American teenagers been less healthy, less cared for, or less prepared for life than their parents were at the same age."
Q- That is absolutely shameful.
A- Since 1950 teen suicide has increased by at least 300 percent and is now the second leading cause of death among adolescents.
Q- Don't tell me---homicide ranks first---right?
A- The teen homicide rate is up 232 perent since 1950 and unfortunately you're right, it is the #1 cause of death, at least among 15-19 year old minorities. According to the report 25 percent of black males are in prison or under court supervision. One third of high school seniors get drunk once a week. The average age for first time drug use is 13. Behavior is the cause of all this suffering---behavior such as drinking, drugs, violence, promiscuity.
Q- It looks like Code Blue identified a crisis of character and a lack of spiritual values among our youth.
A- I've heard all kinds of justifications for the poor product of our public school system.
Q- For instance?
A- I've heard that Johnny can't read because (1) teachers' salaries are too low (2) Reagan's racism (3) violence.
Q- Why don't we go over them one at a time.
A- Fine. First let's discuss teachers and in order to do that in the 1990s we have to discuss unions.
The NEA (National Education Association) had 2 million members in 1990. That one union by itself is the largest in the nation with the Teamsters second, weighing in at a trimmed 1.6 million.
But if you add the 770,000 AFT (American Federation of Teachers) you can readily see that teachers have more union members than any other trade or profession; 80 percent of all teachers are unionized. Teachers now comprise one third of all unionized government workers and ten percent of all the union workers in the entire country. Their average salaries almost doubled during the eighties.
Q- Well who were their bargaining partners? Not private employers with their own money on the line and in competition with other producers. Bureaucrats and politicians, already feeding at the public trough, didn't offer much resistance.
A- It is ironic. In an attempt to become more competitive, the private sector is learning to do more with fewer people while our various levels of government are doing less with more people.
Many ordinary citizens are beginning to see that public services---education, police protection, court system, sanitation, transportation----all have gone downhill in most ---not all---areas of the country.
Q- I concur. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) is currently spending half its $70 million budget in an attempt to recruit the nation's nine million health-care workers----as if that industry weren't costing the nation too much already.
A- I'm afraid our educational system is a preview of what will happen if the unions get a hold of the nation's health industry. Supervisors, middle management, administrators---whatever you want to call them, they expanded at the expense of the classroom teacher and the students. In education in 1970 there were approximately thirteen students for every staff member and by 1990 the ratio was nine students for every staffer. Now organizers for the teachers unions are going after two and a half million nonteaching public school workers with the possibility of doubling this membership.
Q- In an excellent article by James Cook (Forbes 5-13-91) Keith Geiger, head of the National Education Association--NEA--was quoted:
We have struck a delicate balance between bargaining for salaries, members' rights and working conditions, and being on the leading edge of educational reform and improving education for the youngsters.
He wants teachers to decide how and where to spend taxpayer dollars.
A- On the one hand educators blame others for their poor performance, and on the other hand they are more than willing to accept pay increases and benefits for their part in solving a problem that by their own insistence, has its solution elsewhere. If a private enterprise makes a mistake it closes down but if a government entity makes a mistake it grows, attributing the "mistake" to lack of money.
Q- I want to share one more item from Mr. Cook's article. He said 1,000 New York City school janitors were unionized yet remained independent contractors. As such they are given a budget from the city to spend as they city fit. That means hiring their own maintenance workers (relatives and friends) and paying themselves an average of $57,000 a year or 46 percent more than the average New York City teacher.
All they have to do for this is "sweep the floors every other day, mop the cafeteria once a week and scrub the floors three times a year."
A- You wonder why thousands of people line up for these "custodial jobs"?!
Q- We hear so much about the low pay of teachers. Do you happen to know what they make----on average? I realize salaries must vary from one locality to the next.
A-Teachers' pay has risen dramatically over the past twenty years. Just over the past ten years teacher pay rose by 87.3 percent. but few people hear anything about the gains.
In 1981 salaries averaged $17,544 and for nine and a half months of actual teaching, the average public school teacher earned $32,880 in 1990-91 with the highest paid Alaska teachers averaging $43,406. That's quite a bit higher than for the average woman with four years of college who works twelve months a year.
Q- In the same vein, few people hear about the time spent in preparation outside the classroom by good teachers. By the way, do you happen to know what California teachers are paid?
A- Average California pay ranks fifth in the nation at $39,118.
Q- But what about inflation?
A- Even if we take inflation into consideration real salaries increased by 27 percent---not so dramatic, but gains nevertheless. Even more telling is the fact that per-pupil spending across the nation has been increasing. with a low in 1990 in Utah of $2,579 and a high in the District of Columbia of $7,850 per-pupil.
Q- How did all this spending come out in graduation rates and SAT scores? I mean, did the money have a correlation to performance?
A- If you mean did the most spent per-pupil bring the best results the answer is very definitely no.
DC spent most on students and its teachers were the third highest paid in the nation ($39,850) whereas they ranked 50th in high school graduation rates and fell near the middle on test scores with a rank of 22.
Even though Utah spent less than a third of DC's expenditures, its test scores ranked 15th and it was 8th in high school graduation. Teachers salaries ranked 47th ($23,652) showing no correlation between money spent and results attained. (All the states and their rankings can be found in the back of this book.)
Q- In June 1989, the Brookings Institution, a DC think tank, conducted a study which found resources such as teacher salaries and per pupil spending have little correlation with student achievement.
A- John Chub of Brookings and Terry Moe of Stanford concluded student achievement is primarily determined by the student's aptitude, family background and school organization. Chub and Moe found that today the organizational structure of public schools is a hindrance to reform. Organization was broken down to goals, leadership, personnel and emphasis on academics and discipline. Successful schools were characterized by clearly articulated goals, principals with vision and teachers who have an active role and students that take challenging courses and are disciplined.
Q- With the discovery that spending does not correlate with success, it is stupid to go on spending more on education and getting less.
Q- With the discovery that spending does not correlate with success, it is stupid to go on spending more on education and getting less.
A-We pay more and get dissatisfied teachers and kids with low test scores and high dropout rates. While teachers' salaries increased by 24 percent between 1986-1990, their satisfaction with their standard of living dropped from 80 percent to 67 percent and satisfaction with their jobs dropped from 90 percent to 77 percent.
Q- Those statistics would suggest that satisfaction is more important than pay. If this is true I don't understand why we keep raising pay. Is it hard to attract good people to teaching?
A- A lot of people with four-year degrees are shut out of teaching even though they would like to give it a try. Creative and talented teachers are prevented from teaching by the stultifying web of political,administrative and union controls. What if these good teachers were able to operate their own schools?
Q- You mean go into practice on their own in the manner of doctors or lawyers?
A- Right. They could establish professional practices, with parents, armed with vouchers, as clients.
Q- The least competent bureaucrats would never let this happen.
A- Bureaucratic social programs have a built-in constituency whose jobs depend on the continuance or expansion of these programs. We should not be surprised to find that this constituency does not want the problems solved because that would mean their jobs would end.
Q- Can you really blame them? Of course the teaching profession has a self interest in perpetuating the public school system.
A- I agree there is no point in blaming educators for acting in their own self interest but I do blame taxpayers and parents who refuse to act in their self-interest. Like sheep asking to be shorn, we let bureaucrats feast at the public trough and are only too willing to keep that trough filled with higher salaries and benefits regardless of the results.
Q- Doesn't the Bush administration favor merit pay for teachers?
A- Merit pay was mentioned in the report "America 2000" as was alternative-teacher certification, adult literacy and job skills.
Q- I certainly can understand the President's enthusiasm for alternative-teacher certification in the light of a speech he made in Forest City, Iowa on May 9, 1991; a portion of which you quoted in your 1988 book, The Election Process:
"To give you a personal example of the thinking that holds us back: A few years after we moved to West Texas, I tried to volunteer to teach a couple of courses---I can't remember whether it was the high school or the new community college---but my Phi Beta Kappa in economics wasn't good enough for Ector County, Texas, because I didn't have the required education courses. I think I would've made a good teacher, but I wasn't allowed to contribute. . .In the future, education must meet national expectations and national goals as well as local ones. I also believe our educational system must become innovative and entrepreneurial if it is to carry the load it must carry in the years ahead."
A- Can you imagine the kids that missed out on being taught by a future President of the United States?
Q- Why in the world don't we institute alternative-teacher certification?
A- Actually 33 states now have alternative routes to certification.
Q- You mean in those states as a prerequisite to teaching it is no longer necessary to take educational courses?
A- That's right, but the requirements vary. Only Connecticut, New Jersey and Texas have programs available in all subjects on all grade levels. Others restrict entrance to areas where there is a shortage.
In New Jersey there is a basic skills test and a one year apprenticeship and these new teachers need a certain number of teaching courses from an accredited college. Since 1985 the number of teacher applicants has doubled and the quality has improved. The number of minority teachers has doubled. Many alternative teachers scored higher on the national teacher's exam than their traditionally certified counterparts.
Q- I'll tell you the person I wish I'd had as a calculus teacher . . .
A- Jaime Escalante.
Q- I guess Jaime Escalante, the teacher who was immortalized in the movie "Stand and Deliver", proves that poverty and the home environment cannot defeat excellent teaching.
A- I think you're right. This immigrant from Bolivia has been a true inspiration for the entire nation. He was able to help 576 kids from the barrios of Los Angeles pass the College Board's rigorous Advanced Placement calculus test. When asked his secret he said all a teacher has to do is care more about teaching than he cares about the system.
Q- The students at Garfield High in Los Angeles are lucky to have someone to challenge and inspire them---someone who has proved that hard work by students and concern by the teacher add up to success.
A- Unfortunately for Garfield High, in the summer of 1991 Mr. Escalante left that school after 17 years. Garfield's lost is Hiram Johnson's gain as Mr. Escalante began to teach in this 70 percent minority high school in Sacramento, California in the fall of 1991.
Q- Speaking of inspirations; Ronald Nagrodski, 36 is a teacher in a small Illinois school (397 pupils). He has instituted an advanced mathematics curriculum similar to that used by Jaime Escalante at Garfield High in Los Angeles. His ninth graders are learning from textbooks previously used by seniors. He only earns $30,000 a year and says "The only thing you get out of working hard as a teacher is the gratitude of your students and the feeling of doing a good job."
A- That's not a bad return and most really good teachers wouldn't trade the challenge of teaching for all the money in the world.
I recently read about Tilden High on Chicago's South Side. There a dedicated lady who has spent 34 years teaching has instituted a challenging program for inner-city students. Journalist Michael Ryan wrote of Joyce Oatman in Parade Magazine, June 9, 1991:
Oatman read every educational textbook she could get her hands on and began enrichment programs for her students. She brought them to school early in the morning and talked them into staying late and coming in on Saturdays. She worked with them on basic skills like reading and math but also talked to them about how to think critically and about issues as diverse as philosophy and the environment.
Q- We're getting a little sloppy here, don't you think? I mean all teachers are not saints; the profession has its share of shirkers and complainers and sometimes the behavior is condoned. I remember a few years ago a ruling was issued by a review panel stating that it was perfectly fine for a teacher to file for sick leave for a golf outing.
A- Are you serious?
Q-Absolutely. It seems that the teacher's physician had advised her to take a day off when she was bothered by stress. It was kind of strange that she denied playing golf on her "sick leave" until she was confronted with her score card and then she had arguments that prevailed to justify the prescription for stress.
A- I don't think it's particularly productive to "beat-up-on" teachers but people are so fed up with paying more and getting less that I think it's time to set some facts straight.
Q- Like what?
A-John Taylor Gatto, awarded the title of New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991, wrote one of the most persuasive articles I ever read against centralized control and in favor of competition and choice in education. (WSJ 7-25-91)
"There isn't a right way to become educated; there are as many ways as fingerprints. We don't need state-certified teachers to make education happen---that probably guarantees it won't."
Q- That's amazing that a "Teacher of the Year" would say such things. Who gave him his title---some right-wing home-schooling organization?
A- His title was conferred by the New York State Education Department. I found him to be a credible spokesman for my own beliefs, partly because you would not expect a man who has obviously succeeded within the system to come up with these kinds of observations. He went on:
How much more evidence is necessary? Good schools don't need more money or a longer year; they need real free-market choices, variety that speaks to every need and runs risks. We don't need a national curriculum, or national testing either. Both initiatives arise from ignorance of how people learn, or deliberate indifference to it.
Q- He must know a little something about how people learn. I wouldn't mind having him teach my children.
A- Unfortunately, after 26 years of public school teaching Mr. Gatto is leaving the field because as he put it, "I teach how to fit into a world I don't want to live in." He claimed that in all his years of teaching rich and poor kids he never met either a learning disabled or a gifted child. He decided these terms are imaginary---sacred myths to preserve "the temple of schooling".
The participants in our dialogue are starting to discuss national standards in schools, leading into issues of public and private schools....
Q- David Kearns, Deputy Secretary of Education, believes national standards and assessments are necessary. In fact he claims "You can't run anything if you don't have them." Who do you believe?
A- I know it's hard to find agreement in all areas---sometimes in any area! Although I agree with Mr. Gatto that a national curriculum is undesirable, I think some sort of evaluation of educational institutions is necessary, especially if taxpayer funds are going to support them. I agree with Mr. Kearns' assessment that the GI bill was the ultimate in choice in education because the money followed the individual and could be used for the public or private education of the holder's choice.
Q- Many schools don't favor vouchers because accepting money from government entails the acceptance of government regulation.
A- As I said, I don't think "regulation", i.e. controlling curriculum, is necessary. As Mr. Gatto pointed out, there are infinite ways to teach and learn and these ways can only be explored in an unregulated environment. However a minimum mastery of basics must be assessed for two inescapable reasons.
First, holding a school accountable is the only way to prevent any charlatan from putting his hand in the taxpayer's pocket by opening a store front school and wasting the time and abilities of kids as well as the taxpayers' money. There are myriads of ways to achieve the basics tested for and then the rest would be up to the imagination of the educators and the tastes of the student-parent consumers.
Second, taxpayers are tired of forever paying more and getting less. I see nothing wrong with setting national proficiency goals which must be reached by every student in basic skills such as reading, writing, math, geography and science. No more paying thousands of dollars and finding that "Johnny can't read."! If the school has accepted vouchers (taxpayer dollars) and some of its student- customers have not learned---i. e. not been satisfied--- a rebate should be due the taxpayers. A couple years into the new system the government should pay the schools, not only on the basis of achievement, as seen in test scores of students, but at the end rather than the beginning of the school year. This would avoid any problem with having to collect rebates from defunct schools. Just like any business, a school should perform in order to break even, and excel in order to make a profit.
Q- Instead of allowing educational entrepreneurs to get rich . . .
A- Or to go broke! Entrepreneurs are risk-takers with time and capital on the line.
Q- My point is, maybe teachers should share in the profits and ---ok---losses. Would you allow schools to teach religion, or race hatred for instance, as long as their students were proficient in the basics? In other words, could taxpayers find they were getting a little something extra that they might not want for their dollars?
A- This is not a perfect world and freedom entails risk. However I would rather trust in a free market and the wisdom and goodness of ordinary men and women than in the carefully drawn straight-jacket plans of bureaucrats.
Therefore, although I appreciate the grave risk you have pointed out, I would nevertheless not have the government attempt to regulate what is being taught in any institution. The reputation of the school would be publicized in a free market, if not by those who run the institution directly, then by their competitors who would want potential customers to know that if they chose XYZ, along with a good academic background they would get lessons in bigotry.
Higher educational institutions and employers would help the process by chosing not to accept students with that kind of "extra" training and parents and students would find it in their own self interest to take their vouchers elsewhere.
The free market would destroy those schools more completely than government mandates and thousands of big brothers second guessing and evaluating teaching curriculum.
Q- It's truly amazing when you think about it, that we have any private schools in this country at all. After all the government pays for education and yet many people choose to pay thousands of dollars on their own, in addition to taxes. Why?
A- Private schools generally get better results. Although tests scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests are close in math for 12th graders, for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here, the difference in the scores is quite remarkable in the fourth and eight grades. Another unlikely distinction is that private schools are more racially mixed than are public schools.
Q- You've got to be kidding! The desire for racial diversity is one of the main reasons people give for not wanting their children to attend private schools.
A- I suggest you consult the research done by John Chubb of Brookings and Terry Moe of Stanford. Also private schools spend more of their resources on classroom instruction and less on administration.
Q- That's not surprising.
A- Would you be surprised to know that absenteeism is twice as prevalent among public school teachers? Besides having fewer absences, private school teachers spend more time preparing lessons outside of school.
Q- You mean private school teachers are generally more happy and more dedicated to their work.
A- Surely that's no surprise----but it's certainly not universal. There's little doubt that private schools have smaller bureaucracies and need to please customers rather than political constituencies which works to make them better.
Q- If what you say is true, then no wonder a 1988 Harris Poll found that half of public school parents would choose private schools for their children if they had the means to do so.
A- An indictment against Chicago's public schools is the fact that Chicago's public school teachers are twice as likely as other parents to send their children to private schools. However the teachers union opposes extending the same choice to less affluent parents.
Q- The five million children currently in non-public schools save tax payers annually over $20 billion. Because it typically costs less to educate a child in a private school, providing assistance to low-income parents could save taxpayers billions of dollars. Independent or private sector education is not a rich man's issue. Recent figures show that 41.7 percent of families who send their children to private schools have incomes less than $25,000.
A- On July 23, 1991 John Sanders, Vice President of the National Association of Independent Schools reported on the findings of a survey done by the polling firm of Belden and Russanello over a period of time extending from October 1988 to July 1991. The firm was commissioned to find out about the attitude of the general public towards private education. Questions were asked like:
Teachers certification---is it a prerequisite for good teaching?
18 percent yes and 71 percent no.
Should values be taught?
80 percent = yes and 19 percent = no.
Are local schools doing a good job?
15 percent= excellent, 55 percent = good,
18 percent = not so good and 8 percent = poor.
Are private schools a valuable option for the nation?
87 percent = yes
Are private schools bad because they take resources from public
schools?
8 percent = yes
When asked whether private or public schools are best at
discipline?
5 percent said public and 84 percent said private.
If cost were not a factor where would you send your child ?
private non-parochial = 33 percent (although only 4 percent of parents
actually did send their kids there)
parochial = 18
percent and public schools = 45 percent (real world interaction)
When asked if vouchers equal to the amount spent on each child's public school education should be used for private schooling 57 percent said it was a good idea and 38 percent said no. Under age 40 the idea of vouchers was more popular. The poll found the younger the people the more popular vouchers are.
Americans, ten to one, believe private schools are better at giving basic education.
Those under age 40 are more likely to choose independent schools if they could afford them.
Parents like public schools better than non-parents do.
The higher the level of education the higher and the more positive respondents viewed independent schools.
The South and the West were most dissatisfied with public schools.
People under age 30 know more about independent schools.
Public assistance to private schools is most feared by private schools. They want to extend choice to low-income families.
The public is saved $27 billion annually by kids attending private schools. Most private schools are religious independent schools.
Q- Speaking of religious schools, let's get controversial. What do you think about banning prayer from schools?
A- I love what Gregory Anrig, president of the Educational Testing Service had to say about prayer in the schools: "As long as there is testing in the public schools, there will be prayer in the public schools."
Religion enjoyed full scale support of the population until fairly recently in this country. I remember having the starring role as the angel that brought the good tidings ( I belted out most of the second chapter of Luke) in the schools rather ostentatious Christmas pageant as a second grader. Soon after, in 1947, religion was outlawed in public schools by a Supreme Court ruling.
Q- The Supreme Court, which by the way opens with a delivered invocation, "God save the United States and this honorable Court", may have something new to say about prayer in schools when it rules on Lee vs Weisman in the spring of 1992.
A- Wasn't that the suit filed by a parent against a Rhode Island school principal who allowed a prayer during graduation ceremonies?
Q- That's right. The anticipation stems from the presence of the two newest Justices, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas, who many think may join forces with Justices Byron White, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy to change current church-state rulings.
A- Currently the Court holds that any government action whose purpose or primary effect is to promote religion, violates the First Amendment. I've never been able to understand Justice O'Connor's contention that government actions that appear to endorse religion should be held unconstitutional. It makes so much more sense to me that any display of religion is acceptable as long as no coercion is involved.
The prohibition is not against the practice of religion, (that prohibition occurred in the USSR) but against the establishment, which is where the coercion comes in.
Q- Back as far as 1946, thirty-six states had laws prohibiting public school teachers from wearing religious garments.
A- That was purely anti-catholic sentiment rearing its head. Today only Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Oregon still have those laws.
There is a new trend that I would like to call to your attention. In August 1991 three church-sponsored Cornerstone Schools opened in the inner-city of Detroit as an experiment combining academic and non-denominational religious instruction. The very day the project was announced there were 300 applicants which led to a waiting list of up to two years.
Q- That shows the desire for educational alternatives and especially education with a strong moral underpining.
A- Exactly. The interfaith Cornerstone School Association operates its three schools on a year round basis charging a modest tuition of $1,800 with scholarships available. The Association will probably expand to fill the need which is not even recognized by some educators. It certainly isn't recognized by Al Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers who reportedly said, "Teaching kids values won't help them learn to read or write."
Q- I understand that Sweden is the only other major industrial country that doesn't subsidize religious schools. The governments of other countries supposedly underwrite these establishments.
A- They believe that underwriting is a way to guarantee, to protect, to preserve and extend religious freedoms.
Q- Maybe it's time for us to reconsider.
A- Variety is the key. Mandate as little as possible. To avoid having an educational system run by bureaucratic administrators, such as we have now, it is important that we leave educational entrepreneurs to their own innumerable devices. Let them provide the ideas, the energy and the capital. If they want to offer entrepreneurial shares to teachers as an inducement to attract or keep the best, then let them make that decision. Back off with your "shoulds"---this country is already suffering from too many "shoulds" and not enough freedom.
Q- Wouldn't your entrepreneurs be eager to recruit the very best students and leave those with less promise out in the cold?
A- I think not. Students could be tested at the beginning and end of the school year and if progress was made in bringing the students up to a predetermined leve in core skills, the school would not be penalized for working with less promising students. Of course students would not be promoted to the next grade until the standardized norms were mastered, but a predetermined amount of progress would avoid penalty.
I like to think of nationalized tests as the "did-you-get-what-you-paid-for" tests or the TSTs---tests to satisfy the taxpayer.