I read a commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal this morning with great interest — it describes an effort (in New Jersey, of all places!) to transfer control of education funding from derelict school districts to the parents. The money quote:
The remedy these parents seek is fundamentally different from the one established by more than three decades of litigation across the country. Courts in states like New York, Texas and California have ordered massive increases in school funding to fulfill state constitutional mandates for educational “equity” or “adequacy,” all on the belief that more money will boost school quality and student performance. The funds have produced new programs and bureaucracies, but too often they fail to trickle down to the students by way of improved educational quality.
In any area other than education such a remedy would be considered bizarre. Suppose you purchased a car whose warranty promised “thorough and efficient” transportation, and it turned out to be a lemon. If you sued to enforce the warranty, would a court order a multibillion dollar payment to the auto maker in the hope that someday it would produce a better product? Of course not: It would order the company to give your money back so you could buy a different car.
The author of the piece (Clint Bollick, recipient of a 2006 Bradley Prize, president of the Alliance for School Choice) is supportive of the plaintiffs (the parents). He doesn’t seem to have a read on the proabability of the suit’s success. Knowing the liberality of the New Jersey courts and the influence of public employee unions in general, I’d guess the chances aren’t good. But I sure like the sound of it — and wouldn’t be just gorgeous irony if the kick in the butt that our primary education system so badly needs came from New Jersey?
You might wonder just how badly the school districts named in the suit are actually doing. Here’s the scoop:
One of the defendant school districts in the new suit, Englewood City, spends $19,194 per student, well over twice the national average. But at Dismus Middle School, over two-thirds of the students do not have basic proficiency in math and fewer than half are proficient in language arts literacy. Newark, a recipient of massive Abbott funding, spends $16,351 per student and pays its teachers an average salary of $76,213. Yet in 24 of its schools, fewer than half the students demonstrate basic proficiency in math or language arts. At William H. Brown Academy and at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. School, fewer than one of every 10 students demonstrates basic math proficiency. It’s time to try something else for these children.
Amen to that.
But … anticipating the court will find against the plaintiffs, and uphold the status quo (though I’d certainly be pleased if it went the other way) … I wonder what theory the court would use? Perhaps they’ll find a new “right” in the Constitution — the right for public employees to waste our hard-earned dollars and to fail utterly in their duty to educate our kids, forever and without consequence.
Let’s hope that Newark’s Chancery Court can find the wisdom — and the courage — to buck the forces-that-be in New Jersey. What a refreshing change it would be for the citizens of that state (those who haven’t already fled to more hospitable territory, such as California, Siberia or Iran) to find themselves admired for their bold reform, instead of scorned for their corrupt and moronic local government…
No comments:
Post a Comment