Blindness in the education bureaucracy
by Jami Lund
If you share my love for liberty, you will also share my disdain for the
results of coercion.
Heres the particular problem I am thinking of: Individuals who collect
taxes, union dues, insurance premiums or clients by coercion
have little incentive to actually provide good service.
We see many examples of this flaw in Washingtons education system.
Consider two cases.
Jennifer Zora of Battle Ground recently told me about some parents living
at the outside edge of the towns school district who wanted their
children to attend closer, safer, less crowded, and demonstrably academically
superior schools in the neighboring district.
They made what they thought was a logical petition to the powers that
be to change the boundaries of the school district. Little did they
know they were attempting the unforgivable and speaking the unspeakable.
You see, the last thing the education bureaucracy wants to admit is that
one school is better than another, and permitting choice allows someone
to make that judgment. The petition of the parents was denied.
Second, Kimberly Dow of Woodinville informed me of an even more egregious
example of this problem. A number of children in her area ride a bus alongside
the Lake Washington School District and through part of the Northshore
School District to finally arrive at the Riverview schools they are required
to attend.
The affected families have petitioned to allow their children to attend
the Lake Washington schools that are closer and have better academic results.
They were disheartened to learn that, as a courtesy to the education
establishment, the Lake Washington district would not be permitted to speak
on behalf of the parents petition. A decision is expected by May 5.
What consequences does a school or district face if it is underperforming,
but refuses to allow parents another choice? None.
What incentive, then, would such a school district have to improve? None.
Right now, it seems enforcing boundaries has become more important to some
districts than helping parents receive the best possible education for their
children. Would we tolerate this kind of disregard for a client in any other
business?
These cases reveal an education establishment more concerned with preserving
control, revenue, and reputation than anything else.
The parents involved have been deemed unqualified to determine what is best
for their children and they are ignored. The students pay the price.
Living Liberty is the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's monthly
newsletter. It provides updates on the issues and projects EFF is currently
working on. You will also find commentary on state and sometimes federal
government issues.
Living Liberty is available for our members only. Please click
here if you would like to become a member.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"