Johanna

This was posted on my local homeschool board and I thought some of yo might
like to see it
Johanna

----- Original Message -----
From: Kay Brooks <jkbrooks@...>
To: TnHomeEd - Tennessee's Homeschool Information Site
<[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 9:17 AM
Subject: [TnHomeEd] Parents In Charge


> I pulled this from JC Bowman's education list.
> (If you want to subscribe send a blank e-mail to:
> [email protected])
> It's an excellent read and, I think, full of truth--worth a few minutes of
> your time. While he doesn't mention homeschooling this speaker does
advocate
> breaking up the government monopoly.
>
> Kay Brooks
> TnHomeEd
> Tennessee's Homeschool Information Site
> Kay@...
> http://www.TnHomeEd.com
>
>
>
>
> Champion of Freedom Encourages Parents to Enter Educational Debate
> -----------------------
> The Education Policy is pleased that its efforts to foster a competitive
> education industry are shared by a number of outstanding leaders in
> American society. Few are as astute as Ted Forstmann, Chairman and CEO,
> Parents in Charge, who made these remarks Wednesday to a group gathered
> at the National Press Club.
>
> Make Education look more like America: Put Parents in Charge
> National Press Club
> April 3, 2001
>
> It was three years ago, here at the National Press Club, that I
> announced the formation of the Children's Scholarship Fund. It has
> exceeded our fondest hopes as we have been able to help 40,000 low
> income children escape failing public schools and seek a quality
> education in the school of their choice. Personally, I have evolved from
> a person with simple charitable objectives into someone who has become
> painfully aware of the real facts of the education system in America.
>
> So today I would like to share with you what I have learned and to tell
> you the unvarnished truth as I see it. I'm going to suggest that we do
> not have a real education debate in this country. What we have are
> competing ideas for tinkering with the same old system.
>
> We're like the famous mythical Emperor's loyal subjects, debating
> whether his hat is red, or his boots are green - when in fact, he isn't
> wearing anything at all.
>
> Now the little boy who first had the temerity to say out loud that the
> Emperor had no clothes was, you will recall, given a pretty hard time. I
> guess I'm ready for that. In fact, in the early days of the Children's
> Scholarship Fund an education bureaucrat actually called me
> "un-American" on a television news show. Un-American for helping 40,000
> underprivileged kids? it got me thinking, in this context what really is
> American or un-American after all?
>
> Well, to me, America is a democratic capitalist country. That's pretty
> basic. Democratic means you have choices. It means people are free to
> choose all sorts of things - from who to vote for, to how to pray, to
> what to read, even free to drive multi-ton vehicles up to 65 miles per
> hour. Capitalism would imply that multiple suppliers compete, on a
> relatively level playing field, for the business of these free people
> who we call customers. But I want you to notice that in K-12 education,
> not a word that I have just spoken applies. We don't allow people to
> choose where their children go to school, who teaches them or what they
> learn - and we have one supplier with essentially no competition.
>
> Obviously, that's monopolistic. And given the fact that the payment for
> the product is mandatory - through taxes - and consumption of the
> product is compulsory - through attendance laws -- that's about as
> powerful a monopoly as has ever existed.
>
> By the way, we passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act outlawing monopolies in
> 1890 because we came to a national consensus that monopolies produce a
> low quality product at a high price. That's another fact.
>
> So here's where I begin to feel like the little boy looking at the naked
> Emperor. Because when it comes to the so-called education debate, all
> we've really been asking ourselves is what kind of monopoly we ought to
> have - one with longer hours, or smaller class sizes, or more buildings,
> or what. No one asks what seems to me to be the really obvious question,
> which is: why do we have a monopoly in K-12 education at all? Why in a
> country that is both democratic and capitalist, and that has a
> university system that is highly competitive and the envy of the world,
> does none of this apply to K- 12 education?
>
> Well surely, there must be a reason. We are told that America was
> founded on a system of government schools - and that therefore, they are
> a fundamental underpinning of our society. This is totally false. In
> fact, our founders consciously chose to base the country on an open
> system of education - one in which any legitimate supplier could enter
> the market and compete, and parents could choose from among them.
> Competition kept quality high and costs low. It wasn't until 100 years
> after our founding, that things changed when Horace Mann convinced the
> Massachusetts legislature to start a government-operated system in that
> state.
>
> Both utopianism and bigotry played a role. Mann promised that if
> Massachusetts adopted his ideas, "nine-tenths of the crimes in the penal
> code would become obsolete." But, in reality, both he and his followers
> were concerned about the large numbers of Irish Catholic immigrants
> entering the country, and felt that government schools were the best way
> to homogenize them within the broader Anglo-Saxon, Protestant society.
> Parents who once had authority over their children's education had it
> taken gradually away -sometimes at the point of a bayonet. The whole
> thing might not even have survived had it not been adopted and very
> heavily sponsored by major industrialists like Carnegie, Rockefeller,
> Ford and Astor who believed a standardized, bureaucratic system could
> turn out compliant workers to staff their new factories, oil fields and
> coal mines.
>
> Okay, so it turns out that the system we have is in fact the opposite of
> what the founders had in mind. But if it is a good system, maybe it only
> needs to be changed in some way or other. We're told repeatedly that
> more money is needed to make the system work. But dozens of studies have
> tried to show a connection bet`.veen money and learning without success.
> In fact we've increased spending fourteen-fold in inflation-adjusted
> terms since 1920, yet our schools, by just about every conceivable
> measure from test scores to basic safety, continue to perform at a
> mediocre level. That should come as no surprise. I think you all know
> without my telling you that no monopoly in history has ever been
> reformed by raising its prices, or for that matter expanding office
> hours, building more office space, or even by making its customers wear
> uniforms.
>
> Now, we have a new administration. President Bush and Secretary Paige
> are in charge and we are fortunate that they are because they bring
> impressive credentials and the best of intentions to bear.
>
> As you know they have proposed instituting standards and accountability
> and that is very salutory. Every good CEO taking over a business would
> institute standards and demand accountability. But they still would have
> to compete against other suppliers. So, I submit that standards and
> accountability - while beneficial for the organization you are in charge
> of, are in no way the equal of, or a substitute for competition and
> freedom of choice.
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, we are paying a huge price by being so willfully
> myopic. By refusing to open this system up, we continue to perpetuate a
> kind of educational apartheid. While more affluent families can buy
> themselves better options -- either by sending their children to private
> schools, or moving out to more expensive suburbs with better public
> schools - poor parents are stuck with no option other than government
> schools that can't teach or even protect their children. The result: 70
> percent of our inner city 4th graders are unable to read at even a basic
> level - that's according to the Department of Education. To illustrate a
> point I made just a moment ago: right here, in our nation's capital, we
> have the highest per pupil education spending, and lowest performance,
> of any urban school district in America. Normally we expect children to
> learn more as they advance through schools, but this school system has
> managed to turn that expectation on its head -- according to a report
> issued by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
> Management Assistance Authority in November, 1996, "the longer students
> stay in the District's public school system, the less likely they are to
> succeed educationally."
>
> It was this kind of inequality that convinced me three years ago to
> start the Children's Scholarship Fund. John Walton and I pooled together
> $200 million, and offered some 40,000 scholarships. Our offices were
> completely overwhelmed by the response: we received 1.25 million
> applications from all over the country - sent in, in some cities from as
> many as a third of the eligible population. Consider that these were all
> from people who were already getting their product for free, who had an
> average yearly income of $20,000 a year, and yet who were willing to put
> up $1,000 per child in order to take advantage of these partial
> scholarships. And some people still seriously suggest that parents don't
> care or aren't qualified to be in charge of their children's education.
>
> Well, I think I have news for you - very big news. We commissioned the
> SWR Whitman Group and The Wirthlin Group to produce bi-partisan polling
> on this subject. The results are eye-opening. 69% of those polled
> believed parents, as opposed to government, should set the standards for
> educational performance. 72% agreed that our educational system would be
> improved if there were a multitude of suppliers. And 82% believed
> parents should be able to choose their children's school. You have the
> full survey and methodology in your press kits.
>
> So we verified what parents want. We also wanted to know what teachers
> thought. More than 11,000 teachers, including Polly Broussard of the
> Associated Professional Educators of Louisiana, John Taylor Gatto, New
> York State Teacher of the Year, Ernestine Sanders of Cornerstone Schools
> in Detroit, Michigan, Michael Feinberg of KIPP Academies in Houston, Guy
> Doud of Staples, Minnesota, and Thomas Fleming of Michigan, both of whom
> are National Public School Teachers of the Year, and all of whom are
> here today, have signed onto a Statement of Principles which says
> amongst other things:
>
> We believe: Parents and guardians, not government, have primary
> responsibility for and authority over their children's education.
>
> We believe: Children are the reason for a system of education, and that
> system's needs must not take precedence over the needs of children;
>
> We believe: Teaching is a profession and good teachers deserve
> recognition and compensation based on their performance.
>
> We believe: Government currently controls the vast majority of schools
> in this country; our system of education would be improved by a
> multitude of providers as opposed to a government monopoly.
>
> And by the way, not only do 11,000 teachers support these principles -
> so do two Secretaries of Education, Bill Bennett and Joe Califano. A
> third, current Secretary of Education Rod Paige, speaking at a
> conference I also addressed just last month, declared that, "the idea of
> public school monopoly is dead. It needs to be relegated to the
> Smithsonian." He also said to me, "Ted, the arguments against your
> position are all bogus."
>
> The support of thousands of teachers and millions of parents - is why
> I'm here today. I'm here to launch Parents in Charge, a bipartisan
> organization which advocates the following:
>
> That every child - regardless of race, creed, or household income - must
> have an equal opportunity to receive a quality education. That parents
> have a prior right to determine what sort of education be given to their
> child. And therefore that parents have a right to choose: where their
> children attend school, and have a say in who teaches them, and what
> they learn.
>
> We have created Parents in Charge to advance these principles, and to
> educate America in a national campaign as to the real problems and real
> possibilities of American education.
>
> While we know that monopolies don't work - we also know what does.
> Freedom of choice and competition work. Listen to what my fellow board
> member and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles has to say:
> "There has never been an industry, never been a company, never been a
> product that has not been improved by competition."
>
> We have an example of this, even within education itself. It's our
> system of higher education - and it's the envy of the world. Consumers
> are free to choose among all sorts of different options - including
> state-run, and even religious institutions. And suppliers are free to
> set up schools, compete on a fairly level playing field, and even, after
> meeting certain basic certifications, receive government funding -
> which, by the way, isn't considered school aid, but student aid. This
> kind of freedom for consumers and freedom for suppliers produces high
> quality, innovation, and specialization to meet a diverse universe of
> students' needs.
>
> You can go at night, part time, or even online; you can pursue general
> studies, or a specific discipline. And if you aren't satisfied, you
> aren't going to be forced to sit there for four years - you can transfer
> to a school that better suits your goals and needs.
>
> For the same kind of thing to occur in our primary and secondary schools
> we need to have equality of opportunity not just for consumers, but for
> suppliers as well. It's no good to say that families are free to choose
> their children's schools when there are no schools to choose from. This
> was brought home to me a year ago when we offered to fill every empty
> seat in New York's private and parochial schools. While we were able to
> help 3,400 children, there are 162,000 children still waiting to be
> helped.
>
> And there's nowhere for them to go. There's no supply because suppliers
> don't have an equal opportunity to compete. How can they - when their
> customers have to pay twice, first in terms of taxes, then in terms of
> tuition? No wonder the majority of existing suppliers are either those
> who are willing to forgo making a profit - namely, parochial schools -
> or those elite institutions, which cater to customers at the highest end
> of the income scale.
>
> The powerful interests that work so tirelessly to maintain the status
> quo claim that fundamental changes would be too difficult and too
> disruptive. But consider this. The payment method would be the same. We
> would all continue to chip in with our tax dollars - some a great deal,
> some a little, some not at all. The government would continue to be the
> collection agent but not the sole supplier of the product. Instead,
> there would be multiple qualified suppliers - including the government.
> Parents would be free to choose among these suppliers and funding would
> be allocated on the basis of their choices.
>
> Please remember, this was a right parents once enjoyed - and it was
> taken away. Horace Mann started us down this path proclaiming that
> parents should be taken out of the equation entirely and that their
> children should be considered "hostages" to the great cause of
> government schooling. What would happen if Mann's "hostages" were
> released - if parents were put back in charge of their children's
> education? Parents as consumers would demand quality, safety, and
> variety. Suppliers would utilize technology, innovation and private
> investment to compete for their business. The teaching profession would
> benefit as well. Yes, bad teachers would not make it. But good teachers
> would finally get the high regard and higher pay they deserve. And
> perhaps most importantly, I believe that putting parents in charge would
> revitalize families as well. We worry about the dissolution of families.
> But we have reaped what we have sown: by taking away one of the family's
> most important responsibilities and bonding functions.
>
> So here's the bottom line of what I'm talking about: freedom, choice,
> competition. Equal opportunity for both consumers and suppliers. As I
> look out at all of you, I see some skeptical faces and I sympathize.
> This would have seemed pretty radical to me too when I appeared here
> three years ago with nothing more than a desire to help some
> underprivileged children. And I want to freely admit to you that with
> regard to the conventional wisdom on all sides of the so-called
> education debate, this is pretty different stuff. But I'll bet that most
> of you will agree with me that what I've been talking about is pretty
> normal in most every other area of American life. Because I'm really
> just talking about freedom. I'm really just talking about making K-12
> education look more like the rest of America - including our much
> admired university system.
>
> Freedom ought not to be on trial - the absence of freedom should be. The
> burden of proof ought not to be on parents seeking their rights - but on
> those who would deny them those rights. We should all be seeking a
> system that educates the public - not continuing to live in denial about
> the anachronistic system we now have, in which so many children are left
> behind. I'm asking you to think about the possibility of a new day in
> which education would be more democratic, more creative and competitive
> - in a word, yes, so much more American than the system we have now.
> Thank you.
>
>
> http://www.parentsincharge.org/
>
> Our Mission
> Parents in Charge is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to
> informing the American people about the real problems and the real
> possibilities in education. Our broad coalition of supporters are united
> under the belief that every child - regardless of race, creed or household
> income - deserves an equal opportunity to receive a quality education and
> that parents should be in charge of their children's education.
> You can register at that site for more information. They ask how your
> children are schooled and they get a star for including the homeschooling
> option. :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> -~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
>
> TnHomeEd is an independent clearinghouse of
> information about homeschooling in Tennessee.
>
> Address messages to: [email protected]
>
> Our Web Site is: http://www.TnHomeEd.com
> Commands: send blank e-mail to:
> mailto:[email protected]
> mailto:[email protected]
> mailto:[email protected]
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>