Return to Main Page


Education Excellence??!!!
by Frank Mazur, South Burlington, Vermont


 
(09/01/05) In 1983 the Reagan Administration released "A Nation at Risk", a devastating report on public education in America. It reported that our society is being eroded by education mediocrity and that our nation’s future success is at stake.

The report also offered an action plan to stem this education quality decline by recommending hiring better-educated and qualified teachers, regularly assessing teacher performance, and performance pay so that better teachers would be paid more. It also recommended lengthening the school day and school year, more homework and a much stronger curriculum particularly in math and English.

After all was said and done, recent international test results show no improvement. Former West Virginia Gov. Wise, president of the Alliance for Excellent Education says that we give our kids a strong start but they finish flat as they progress through K-12. Fifteen business groups recently stated our ability to compete on a global basis is at stake because our academic progress in math and science is declining.

How has Vermont done since the1983 report was published? Though the report didn’t recommend increased spending, more resources were added to fund our public education. I wasn’t able to get Vermont Department of Education data from 1983 but used data from a "Report Card on American Education" state by state analysis done by the American Legislative Exchange Council from 1981 to 2003.

If you look at specific recommendations in the 1983 report, they were ignored. SAT scores have increased slightly and the National Educational Assessment Program (NAEP) test scores are marginal. Why haven’t our schools improved? It isn’t a money problem because we spend more than most states per pupil. It isn’t a commitment problem because our parents and communities are committed to education quality. We all think "our schools" are the best. Is it an institutional problem that protects the status quo with an inflexible bureaucracy or a politically active teachers' union?

Harvard professor Chester Finn says it is because public schools "have not been obligated to produce results." They have not had to implement change because they "have a captive student body and a guaranteed source of income forever." They are a monopoly with no competitive pressure and that’s why they oppose school choice.

Another Harvard professor, Caroline Hoxby, said that unions don’t oppose performance pay in competitive industries because they know they have to survive in the marketplace. It is this lack of market forces in public schools that’s responsible for the poor performance in our schools because teachers don’t have to improve to survive. The unions have only the teachers' best interest in mind.  The late Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers (the nation's oldest teacher's union)  said in 1985 as reported in the Manchester Union Leader, " When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children."

While K-12 students are not eligible voters, their parents are.  What can voters do to raise the level of our children's education? Advocate for radical and fundamental change by promoting competition through school choice, charter schools and privatization.  Our students are our nation’s future. They deserve better.

Frank Mazur
South Burlington

*  *  *

Frank Mazur is a small business owner and was a member of the Vermont House from 1995-2004. He’s also chair of the advisory board to FreedomWorks.com
 
 


Return to Main Page