Today's School Problem; B. Bien

There is increasing evidence, however, that too much attention is being paid to the external form of education, its pontiffs, and its buildings, while not enough is spent on fundamentals, truth and understanding. Consider, for example, this recent comment by a banker before a gathering of school officials: Miss Bien is a member of the staff of the Foundation for Economic Education. [224 ] I don~t blame a school teacher for having· socialistic tend encies today. If I were a teacher getting paid so little that I could not afford a car or couldn~t afford to get married, rd criticize the private enterprise system. Apparently this banker failed to realize that the great majority of our teachers are not part of a private enter prise system. Rather, their jobs and salaries are a conse quence of government control which tends, more and more, to drive private enterprise from the educational field.

The Beginnings of Government Schools Since the earliest years of this country's development, government has played an important role in educational matters. In 1642 Massachusetts enacted a law requiring ccthat the selectmen of every town ... teach by them selves or others, their children and apprentices so much learning, as may enable them perfectly to read the Eng lish tongue, and knowledge of the capital laws . . . also, that all masters of families, do, once a week at least, catechise their children and servants, in the grounds and principles of religion." Before long, the citizens in many Massachusetts com munities set up town schools, financed by tax funds. Reading the Bible and learning to interpret it according to their particular religious orthodoxy was an important part of a child's training. The State, during this period, was actually the servant of the Church. There was little controversy as to the subjects and moral philosophy to be [225 ] taught. All taxpayers and parents in a town were mem bers of the same church, and the school teacher was usually the minister. For all practical purposes, these early government schools were religious schools.

As the colonies grew, the original settlers were joined by others with varied beliefs and backgrounds. They soon began to realize that if people, holding so many different ideas, were to live together without conflict, they would have to tolerate each other's faith. As a result, the idea gradually gained acceptance that tax payers should not be compelled to support religious instruction with which they did not agree. The close connection between these government schools and the various churches was slowly severed, and thus there developed in this country the truly liberal idea of sep arating Church from State. Education was given national recognition in the Ordi nance of 1787. Drawn up to govern the Northwest Ter ritory, including roughly the present states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, this docu ment stated: Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Here is proof that our ancestors had "faith" in educa tion. This sentence must have meant no more than that, in view of the ideas prevailing in this country at the time. Yet, it has been cited speciflcally time and again in recent years as a precedent justifying govemment[226 ] supported schools and even federal subsidies to local schools. Early State Aid Early in the nineteenth century, a number of persons interested in expanding and improving educational op portunities started working actively, through their gov ernments, for ""<free," ""<common," or ""<public" schools. They believed that no child should be denied the chance of attending school, even if his parents could not, or would not, assume the responsibility. The strongest movements in this direction started in New York and Massachusetts. In contrast to the early colonial schools which had been supported and managed entirely by local citizens, the trend at this time was toward state direction and control. As early as 1795, New York appro priated funds to help pay the costs of local government schools, and in 1835 Massachusetts followed suit.

In 1852, largely at the instigation of Horace Mann, for Inany years Secretary. of the Massachusetts State Board of Education and Editor of The Common School Journal, Massachusetts enacted the first state compulsory school attendance law. That legislation required all chil dren between the ages of eight and fourteen to attend school for twelve weeks each year. By 1918 all other states had followed suit with some form of compulsory school attendance legislation. The 1850's also marked the beginning of active federal interest in the field of education. Congressmen, having «faith" in education, hoped to use some of the vast fed[227 ] eral holdings of land to encourage the development of colleges and universities in the various states. They passed a bill in 1859 to provide for "land grant colleges" but President Buchanan considered it unconstitutional and he vetoed it, stating: Should the time ever arrive when the State governments shall look to the Federal Treasury for the means of support ing themselves and maintaining their systems of education and internal policy, the character of both Governments will be greatly deteriorated. The representatives of the States and of the people, feeling a more immediate interest in obtaining money to lighten the burdens of their constituents than for the promotion of the more distant objects intrusted to the Federal Government, will naturally incline to obtain means from the Federal Government for State purposes.

During the Civil War, the United States' Congress once more passed the bill calling for land grant colleges, this time with a new clause inserted, requiring that the proposed colleges furnish training in "military tactics." President Lincoln signed the bill, thus introducing the federal government into every state school system. Government Funds Mean Control When citizens turn to any government for financial support, they must always remember that with such "aid" come «strings." The spenders of government appropria tions may willingly accept the stipulated conditions. But, should conflicts arise, they are forcefully reminded of the "strings." [ 228] One of the basic principles of our government, as it has evolved through the years, is the separation of Church and State. Once this idea was generally under stood, there was little controversy about it. People real ized they could lose their freedom of worship and the right to choose their own religion if the churches were dependent on government. However, in the earnest de sire to further one of our "religions"-that of education this sound logic was forgotten.

Recent Proof The early state governments of New York and Massa chusetts distributed funds only to localities where the schools and teachers satisfied certain requirements. In New York State recently, the government schools of the City of Yonkers were threatened with the denial of state assistance because, in the eyes of state officials,the city's school budget was "inadequate." Last year, the school officials of New York City learned that their practice of excusing students from compulsory attendance during the week after the State Regents examinations conflicted with the state order that "attendance up to the last day of school was always required for state aid purposes." New Jersey state officials ordered the City of Engle wood to redraw its school district boundaries last year, before the start of the fall term, "to end discrimination against Negro children." The president of the University of Massachusetts has complained of cCundue state inter fer.ence with faculty policy." Textbooks paid for by state [229 ] appropriations for use in the government schools of Cali fornia are selected by the State Board of Education and must be printed at the State Printing Office. Because Utah state law requires instruction in the "harmful use"

of tobacco, liquor, and narcotics, a local school board has adopted a policy "against hiring anyone who uses them." As a consequence, that school board recently fired a school painter because he smoked-at home. Teachers and other professional educators are special ists, many of whom believe that only they are competent to make decisions in their field. As a result, they are apt to resent restrictions on their spending of the money allotted to the schools. Government legislators, on the other hand, must attach "strings" to control the funds they offer in order to fulfill their obligations to their constituents and the taxpayers whose money they are spending. As representatives of the people, they are not free to use tax collections. indiscriminately. Nor are they free to permit anyone else to use them indiscriminately, if they can possibly prevent it. Government controls and government money, therefore, always go together.

Dependence on Government Produces Political Pressure If a private businessman is deluged with requests for his product, this is a sign that consumers want more at the price he charges. His increased sales make it possible for him to get the funds to expand his operations. Gov ernment school administrators, however, must operate in [230 ] a different way. They are not in a position to try to please their "customers" directly, through their own efforts, by expanding their services or enlarging the school facilities. Increased demand for their "production" does not neces sarily have any relation to their ability to raise funds and increase production. They must depend entirely on voters, lawmakers, tax collectors, and finally, the govern ment officials delegated to hand out the funds. Since the beginning of government schools, the most ambitious and hardest-working teachers have realized that more money would help them do a better job in many ways. Therefore, the school teachers organized in order to strengthen their plea for a larger share of tax collections. Vote-conscious legislators have generally found it difficult to resist the claims of professional edu cators that more money was needed for the government schools.

Largely as a result of such political pressure, President Eisenhower called a.White House Conference on Educa tion in 1955. Perhaps the most important accomplish ment of that million-dollar conference, from the point of view of the professional educators, was the publicity it gave to pleas for higher taxes and greater public interest. When Dr. Samuel Brownell was Director of the United States Office of Education, he admitted that C'it is part of our job to try to wake up the people." This was the major .role of the White House Conference on Education. Called in response to political pressure, the reports which followed are being used as grounds for further pressure on politicians. [231 ] The "Problem" The taxpayers who foot the bill for the government schools are finding it more and more difficult to support them in the manner to which they have become accus tomed. Lobbying by teachers and other professional educators for ever-increasing funds leads inevitably to higher and higher taxes. Few taxpayers would begrudge additional funds to the schools if they really thought the result would be ''better'' educational opportunities, but they do not necessarily agree with those who will be spending the money as to what is "better."

Educators, also, are becoming increasingly disturbed about many aspects of the government school system. They resent restrictions on their spending of the funds provided for the schools. They want more freedom in the determination of textbooks, educational techniques, curricula, and teacher qualifications. Many feel their salaries are too low. They recognize the impossibility of educating all children "equally" and resent justifiably the tremendous disciplinary problem this attempt involves. In recent years, parents, also, have been showing more and more concern over the mounting costs and other aspects of the government school problem. They criticize the quality of the instruction, its apparent inattention to facts, discipline, drill work, and basic principles. They have questioned the tendency to outlaw religious and moral teaching from government schools. The current conflict raging over racial integration is merely one more inevitable controversy created by the use of public funds.

[232 ] Parents cannot escape responsibility for the education of their children. They may hire teachers to help them but they cannot, in the last analysis, avoid their personal responsibility. Taxpayers have the right, and the obliga tion, to intervene in the operations of the government school system, for which they are paying, in order to make sure government requirements are satisfied. Legis lators, also, have a duty to try to prevent the misuse of their constituents' tax money, so they must stipulate the conditions under which it shall be spent. Specialists in education, teachers, and administrators believe that they, too, are entitled to some voice as to the spending of money appropriated for the government schools. Because of the many conflicts of interest among all those concerned-politicians, school administrators, teachers, taxpayers, parents, and pupils-it is not sur prising that serious complaints have been raised. In spite of the widespread concern, however, most persons seek solutions in surface remedies. Few, as yet, are will ing to question the whole idea of government education itself.

Sir Michael Sadler showed keen insight when he spoke of education as "the Established Church of the United States." This particular religion, however, was singled out for special treatment, with the result that freedom of choice in schools has been almost entirely eliminated. Government education now enjoys practi cally the status of a state religion. Government became involved with the schools in this country early in their history. Their· fate· became linked [233 ] with government in earnest with the provision of state funds to foster government schools locally. The next logi cal step was enactment of the first state compulsory attendance law in 1852. Ever since then, the influence of government in education has proceeded logically, relent lessly, and inexorably, by means of one intervention after another, toward the creation of today's school ·"problem." The price the school officials have paid for seeking government support and accepting public money has been increased subservience to supervision. Parents, also, have paid dearly. Reliance on government to <:<:educate"

their youngsters has meant relinquishing their freedom of choice and control of their personal spending in this field. Thus, they have hampered their own ability to fulfill their obligation to <:<:educate" their children, with out relieving themselves of that responsibility. The laws creating and regulating government schools have interfered directly with private and individual efforts to furnish educational opportunities. The use of force is incompatible with the cause of true knowledge. Consequently, its introduction into the field of education has led increasingly to problems; and there is no reason to believe that their solution lies in introducing still further force by passing still more laws. The Solution The only solution to problems created by government intervention with the market is to repeal the legislation involved, remove the restraints erected, eliminate the [234 ] special privileges created, and enforce the principle of justice and equality before the law. Only by removal of the intervention itself can the problems it created be remedied.

One specific step toward a solution of today's govern ment school "problem" would be repeal of the state compulsory attendance requirements. Many of the trou blemakers responsible for the greatest share of the teachers' disciplinary problems would be glad to leave school for jobs where they could begin to feel useful to themselves and to the world. The <'shortages" of teachers and of classrooms would largely disappear. Once more, the responsibility for a child's education and discipline would be recognized as belonging to the par ents. A school graduation would again become an accom plishment in which both parents and children could take pride. Resistance to Change Repeal of the compulsory school attendance require ments would undoubtedly meet strong resistance. The belief is Widespread that these laws are both desirable and necessary. Members of the educational hierarchy enjoy the prestige that comes with large student enroll ments and tremendous appropriations. Many workers in industry are convinced that their own high wages are a result of the laws that compel school attendance and forbid children from working. They fail to see that these gains in wage rates have been purchased only at the [235 ] expense of total real wages and of potentially higher production and better living standards for everyone.

The people in this country have become the world's greatest producers and consumers of wheat, com, coal, automobiles, dresses, lipsticks, medicine, hospital beds, and almost anything else you might name. Their experi ence has shown that the way to get more of the things that people want most, is to leave production and distri bution to the free market. That is the path to the great est possible amount of wealth and satisfaction. Govern ment, on the other hand, has proved to be a notoriously inefficient producer. Certainly the truth of this has been borne out in the field of education. Experience with our government school system has raised serious doubts as to the suitability of force to serve the cause of true education. Therefore, why not consider removing government restraints on individual initiative in that field? If the most effective way to get the most and the best of anything and everything is to leave its production in the hands of private individuals in a free market, why not try leaving the solution of today's school "problem" to the market? Why not a free market for education?

[236 ] HOW:JS YOUR THINKING? This article was written about 1948 to describe the ideal of the American Economic System from which there had been, and still is, such grave departure. IT'S TRUE today, as it always has been, that ~~as men think, so are they." Saying that we Americans believe in the American Economic System is utterly meaning less unless we know why we believe in it and are able to explain why in understandable language. You have to start from the realization that it isn't a "system" at allI The word "system" implies a predeter mined plan-as if a set of rules had been written out in advance. Of course, that isn't true. The American Economic System isn't a thing separate and apart from America. It's part and parcel of our way of life, developed from the same roots as our other American institutions. It's a branch on the American tree; to understand the branch, we have to understand the tree and its roots.