Where We Stand: Our Principles On Improving Education

In the words of the late Supreme Court Justice James McReynolds,“The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” The family has the right and responsibility to provide for the education of children. Too often, well-meaning government policies have eroded parental responsibility and encouraged complacency and dependency. A new direction that emphasizes parental rights and responsibilities is needed.

Over decades, Congress has created hundreds of education programs for pre-kindergarten to college-age students, but few of these programs have had any discernable impact on achievement. Instead, all have contributed to the growth of bureaucracy in Washington, an increase in administrative burdens on the states, and the creation of a massive education lobby. Because education is an inherently moral endeavor, it is undertaken most successfully by private institutions fulfilling their civil society mandates.Where government becomes involved, that government closest to the students will serve both children and taxpayers better than federal intervention in education does.

In K–12 programs, such as those under the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Congress should give parents the option of choosing private providers. In higher education loan programs, subsidies to middle class students and institutions should be eliminated. Subsidies can negatively affect prices and consumer decision-making while forcing taxpayers to fund inefficiencies. Competition, on the other hand, will enhance quality and efficiency throughout the education system.

A few months after the D.C. voucher program began, more than 1,000 students received vouchers to attend one of 53 private schools. Current appropriations allow for nearly 1,600 students to attend private school using vouchers worth up to $7,500. As interest increases, however, the current number of voucher slots will become insufficient and students will be left behind.

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, parents, educators, and reformers are to receive important information about the quality of their public schools.However, for the information to be useful, it must be timely. Some states have delayed the release of the list of schools not meeting state standards until just before or after the start of the school year, which did not give families whose children attend poorly performing schools adequate time to choose a better school. In the interest of parents, the U.S. Department of Education should exercise its full authority under the Act to ensure that districts provide parents with appropriate and timely information on the options available to them. Congress should hold hearings to determine whether legislation is needed to require timely release of this essential information.

At the local level, implementation of public school choice has been uneven. Although participation in choice and tutoring is growing,only a small percentage of eligible students have participated. Participation has been hampered by inadequate capacity and a pattern of bureaucratic resistance. Rural districts and urban districts with a majority of underachieving schools have few or no high-quality alternatives for students who want to transfer.Most states have effectively eliminated the option to transfer from a dangerous school by declaring that there are no unsafe schools in the state.While some districts are going to great lengths to give students several options, others subtly or not so subtly discourage parents from seeking transfer options.When the new Congress reauthorizes the No Child Left Behind Act, it should include provisions to ensure that students have access to higher performing public schools as well as private schools.

The vision of providing more dollars to the classroom withered away as Congress added a number of narrow specialinterest programs in the No Child Left Behind Act. Programs such as Ready-to-Learn Television, Star Schools, the National Writing Project, Arts in Education, Education for Native Hawaiians, the Women’s Educational Equity Act, and the Whaling and Trading Partners program have less to do with raising achievement than they do with currying favor with special interests.Controlling education spending should begin by eliminating special-interest programs during the appropriations process and returning to the original priorities of federal education programs: serving students with special needs and from disadvantaged backgrounds. Congress should pursue policies to streamline programs and move dollars to policies that ultimately empower parents rather than bureaucracy.

Since the passage of the Higher Education Act (HEA), Congress has added numerous programs, expanded eligibility to middle-income and upper-income students, and increased institutional aid. The rising use of federal higher education programs by middle-class and wealthy students is costly to taxpayers, contributes to student indebtedness, and fosters greater dependence on the federal government by individuals and institutions. Even more alarming, some researchers have found a link between government loan usage and the rising cost of education. The HEA was enacted to help low-income students gain access to higher education, but it now subsidizes institutions and higher-income students. Taxpayers— three out of four of whom do not have a bachelor’s degree—should not have to subsidize wealthy and middleclass students and college graduates. During HEA reauthorization, Congress should change these regressive policies by removing middle class subsidies from the Stafford Loan program, including subsidies in the loan consolidation program, by bringing the student interest rate closer to the market rate. (Currently, taxpayers make up the difference.) Legislators should also end duplicative and outdated programs such as the PLUS Loan program and campus-based programs including Perkins Loans, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), and the Work-Study Program.