As a rule, the federal government in this country doesn't tell families how to raise their children. It doesn't prescribe what clothes children should wear. Or what food they should eat. Or what books they should read.
But when it comes to education, it's a different story. Our fifty states vary widely in the degree of freedom that parents are allowed to have in deciding what and how their children learn. Given that education is really just an extension of child-rearing, it is difficult to understand why liberty is granted in one arena while often being restricted in another.
The traditional justification for restricting freedom in education has been the assertion of a compelling public interest. That is, that the interests of a free society are better served when the state plays the role of educator. However, evidence presented in the Manhattan Institute's new 2001 Education Freedom Index provides further proof that the public interest in education is better served by more freedom, not less.
The Manhattan Institute's index measures four types of educational freedom:
(1) the ability of parents to pursue charter school options,
(2) subsidized private schools,
(3) public school choice, and
(4) home-schooling.
More than a dozen states do not permit charter schools in any form, while in Arizona nearly one-quarter of all public schools are chartered. In nine states, vouchers or tax-credits are available to assist parents in affording a private school, while thirteen states do not offer families with children in private schools any form of assistance, not even with textbooks or transportation.
In some states, choosing a different public school district is made easier by the fact that districts are numerous and small or by the existence of interdistrict transfer privileges. In Hawaii, on the other hand, the parents are stuck; the entire state is one giant school district. Parents unhappy with their schools in the Aloha State have no choice but to pick up and move to an entire other state.
In Idaho, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Texas, the regulatory burden placed on parents who choose home-schooling is relatively modest, while in other states, such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Utah, the regulations are quite onerous. Illinois, by the way, is one of the more lenient states when it comes to permitting home-schooling.
Because the degree of educational choice varies from state to state it is possible to examine whether or not greater educational freedom is associated with better academic performance. The fact is, holding constant other factors which might influence academic performance, such as household income, race, and per pupil spending, states which offer greater educational freedom have significantly higher student test scores.
A two-point increase in the Education Freedom Index score for a state — roughly the difference between top-ranked Arizona and bottom-ranked Hawaii — yields an additional 8 percent of students performing proficiently on the U.S. Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math test.
Just think, without changing anything else — without spending more money or attempting to eradicate poverty — states could significantly increase academic performance. And how could they do this? Simply by offering families more choice.
States with the most educational freedom also exhibited the most improvement in test scores during the 1990s. Minnesota, for example, which ranks fifth in the index, increased the percentage of its students performing proficiently on the math NAEP by 17 percent during the 1990s, almost double the improvement nationally. Minnesota's neighbor, North Dakota, which ranks 44th, only increased its proficiency rate by 4 percent.
It only makes good sense. In a free society, a citizen should be allowed to choose where they want to live, in what business they want to work, and with whom they want to associate. Why should the education of their children be any different? Compelling a child to attend a specific public school with a state-mandated curriculum is contrary to the public good. Introducing elements of competition into education will provide benefits not only to the children of this country, but to good teachers as well.
Since the federal government's current approach to education favors mediocrity, I propose we shut down the U.S. Department of Education in its entirety, and return the tax savings to parents in the form of a larger personal exemption for school-aged children. The budget of the U.S. Department of Education has doubled in the last five years. Do we have twice the number of teachers? Are our schools twice as good? Are our students twice as smart as they were five years ago? No. No. No. All we have is twice the number of rules telling teachers what tests to give, and twice the number of administrators and support staff overseeing the bureaucracy. Let's give the money back to the people and let them decide within their own state or community what should be taught. Even former President Ronald Reagan proposed eliminating the Department of Education, so maybe it's not such a radical idea after all.
And while we're at it, why not develop a safe-harbor Model School Voucher Act along the lines of The Heartland Plan for Illinois developed by Joseph L. Bast of The Heartland Institute? Here is a sensible plan that is consistent with the United States Constitution and which individual states or communities can adopt to allow parents more freedom of choice in their children's education.
Honestly, why should there be a legal battle in community after comunity, sometimes reaching the Supreme Court, to decide the same question over and over again? We have real-world proof that vouchers work. In Milwaukee, in Cleveland, and in other locales, school choice has transformed education. In each instance the new system has brought higher achievement, fostered greater diversity, and even contributed to urban renewal.
But here in Illinois, the situation is different. According to Joseph L. Bast of The Heartland Institute, "Illinois' students, their parents, and taxpayers are being left behind by an unimaginative, unaccountable, and pervasively corrupt state political system." What are the teachers' unions afraid of? Isn't it about time we put the responsibility for education back at the local level, where it belongs?
I am indebted to Mr Jay P. Greene, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and to the Wall Street Journal, for the data included herein. Also, Joseph L. Bast of The Heartland Institute for his invaluable insights.