|
|
What Does the Constitution
Say About Education? Nothing. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t even mention the word education. It gives Congress no specific authority over public education. That authority is constitutionally reserved to the states. But since the 1960s, the federal government has become increasingly involved in funding and regulating American public schools. Before the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, the largest federal venture into local education came in 1965 with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). When President Lyndon Johnson signed the law, he declared that “all of those of both parties of Congress who supported the enactment of this legislation will be remembered in history as men and women who began a new day of greatness in American Society.” Four decades later, we have yet to witness that new day of greatness. Congress has continually tinkered with ESEA so that it now runs about a thousand pages and includes dozens of programs. In 2002, the law was updated and renamed “No Child Left Behind.” The new name communicated the important theme. Americans should not tolerate “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” as President George W. Bush put it, allowing persistently failing public schools to shortchange many students, particularly low-income and minority children. But No Child Left Behind and ESEA are hobbled by the same problem: There is very little the federal government can do to improve local education. The federal government provides less than 10 percent of the funding for local schools, lacks the authority to manage schools, and is ill-equipped to serve the diverse needs of 50 million school children in American public schools. In the 2009 federal budget, programs for elementary and secondary schools receive about $72 billion. Unfortunately, much of this funding is spent on bureaucracy and administration, not by principals and teachers for actual classroom education. In fact, because federal regulations require extensive bureaucratic compliance, federal dollars generally come with big administrative costs for state and local governments. Instead of trying to serve as a national school board, the President and Members of Congress should use their positions of leadership to return educational control to those who are closest to the students—to principals, teachers, and especially parents. Find out more:
A Nation at Risk: The Case for Federalism and School Choice, • by Dan Lips at www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg2125.cfm. Reforming No Child Left Behind by Allowing States to Opt Out: An A-PLUS for • Federalism, by Dan Lips at www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg2044.cfm.  |
|
The Power of Choice: School Cafeteria vs. Shopping Mall Food Court If you could choose between eating your lunch at a school cafeteria and a shopping mall food court, where would you expect to get a better meal? If you’ve eaten your share of school lunches, you would probably say the mall food court. This illustrates how the power of choice influences quality. In most school cafeterias, there is only one food provider. If a cafeteria offers only Sloppy-Joe sandwiches and Tater-Tots, that’s what students must eat—or go hungry. For the cafeteria service, the absence of customer choice reduces the pressure to deliver a quality meal. In a mall food court (or
any other public eatery), customers can choose from among many different restaurants. Shoppers can compare the alternatives
and choose the meal that best suits their eating priorities—whether nutritional value, taste, or cost-consciousness.
Unlike the school cafeteria, restaurants must strive to offer a good deal and quality service. If they don’t, they risk
going out of business. Anyone who values quality and service—not to mention tasty food!—would probably choose a mall food court over a school cafeteria. That is the power of choice, and it functions the same in education as in food. Anyone who values educational quality has good reason to support parental choice. Private School Choice In all, 14 states and the District of Columbia are currently supporting private school choice through tuition scholarships
or education tax credit policies.34 Approximately 150,000 children across the country are using publicly funded scholarships
to attend private schools. Does school choice
drain resources from public schools? |
|
Is school choice
constitutional?
Yes. In 2002, in the landmark Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Cleveland’s school voucher program. The Court ruled that the program, which allowed students to use scholarships to attend religious private schools, did not violate the First Amendment. At the state level, some state constitutions include specific prohibitions against programs that allow children to use tax dollars to attend private or religious schools of choice. In most states, however, properly designed school choice policies are constitutional. Can school choice programs
help children with special needs? |
|
Does
school choice lead to racial segregation? No. In fact, school choice programs have been proven
to promote integration in public education. Researchers studying school voucher programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Washington,
D.C., found that children participating in the school choice program chose private schools that were more racially integrated
than the public schools they would otherwise have attended.50 Are schools held accountable in school choice plans? Yes. School choice programs make schools accountable to parents. If parents decide that the school they selected
isn’t meeting their child’s needs, they can transfer their child to another school. Additionally, most private
schools test students regularly and report the results to parents. Since private schools are directly accountable to parents,
they don’t need to be heavily regulated by the government. |