Join the conversation

Like many education stakeholders, I appreciate President Obama’s budgetary commitment to education (even though he found an inhospitable audience in the House). Despite tough financial times, it’s commendable that he is taking a far-sighted approach to the health of the country by focusing on education. However, with his budget, we’re left facing the same problem we’ve faced over the past couple years - over-emphasis on competitive funding programs like Race for the Top.

Perhaps in examining the issue of competitive funding, we should consider largely philosophical roots of competition ideologies. Libertarianism is the poster-child for competition and privatization, but most would agree that this philosophy breaks down in certain categories: some needs simply are not fulfilled well relying on the private sector, and some of these needs—like education—comprise areas where we simply can’t afford market failings.

Maurice Elias recently blogged on this issue on edutopia. He wrote, “it is difficult for me to understand why we want, need, or should tolerate competition for a public function such as education. We don’t have competition for police and fire services. These are required to be uniformly excellent and equitable. They are not always, but when they are not, they must be improved directly, not by siphoning funds for alternatives.”  

Two current major issues in education competition are competition between traditional public schools and other schools, and competition for funding among public schools (highlighted in the president’s budget proposal).

Experience has shown that rather than inducing public schools to perform better—as competition adherents like Sen. Rand Paul argue—competition from private and charter schools typically takes away funds (as examples in New York and Pennsylvania show), higher-achieving students (which detracts from public schools by leaving higher percentages of special-needs children and withdrawing the positive effect higher performers can have on lower performing students), teachers and personnel (as in Mississippi), parents, and community investment from public schools. I think there is positive collaboration to be had between the public and private sector in education—contracting private companies to do school research, or for some funding initiatives for example—but a public emphasis in education is required to reach all our citizens, to attempt to better equalize opportunity, and to draw from broad support in revising effective teaching for students of all levels of aptitude.   

Regarding the second category of competition for funding among public schools (on the district and state level), the reality is that those with more resources—both financial and manpower—win out over those without this, even though the latter are in greater need (see here and here). Federal oversight for education is compelling in certain realms like ensuring civil rights and equality – areas to which it has historically been dedicated. It is ironic, then, that this is the current federal emphasis for schools—to essentially encourage inequality in resources and punishment.