Chapter 9 Chapter 6 Where is the problem with the school? -1

Education has always been an important part of the American dream.In Puritan New England, schools were quickly established.At first as a vassal of the church, it was later taken over by secular officials.With the opening of the Erie Canal, farmers left the mountains of New England for the rich plains of the Midwest.Wherever they went, they established a school.Not only established primary and secondary schools, but also established universities and seminaries.Many immigrants from across the Atlantic in the second half of the nineteenth century were eager for education.Most people do not pass up any opportunity of education lightly in the principal cities and large cities where they settle.

The first schools were private and attendance was entirely voluntary.Gradually, the government began to play a larger role.The first is financial support, and then the establishment and management of government-run schools. Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school statute in 1852, and all states did so in 1918.Until the twentieth century, government control of education was mainly exercised through local authorities, prevalent in district schools, controlled by local school boards.Then began the so-called reform movement, a movement largely aroused by the great disparity in racial and social composition between the different school districts within the large cities.In addition, the movement has been influenced by the desire of professional educators to play a larger role.The movement grew as the government expanded and power was concentrated in the 1930s.

Broad, universal education for all, as well as public education for the assimilation of new members of our society, has gone a long way in preventing separatist activity and enabling people of different cultural and religious backgrounds to live in harmony.We have been, and have reason to be, proud of this. Regrettably, our education has gone downhill more and more in recent years.Parents complain that the quality of education their children receive has declined.Many people are increasingly concerned about the physical health of their children.Teachers complain that they are taught in environments that are often not conducive to children's learning.More and more teachers fear for their personal safety while teaching.Taxpayers complain about rising fees.Few people think that our schools are teaching children the knowledge they need to solve real problems.Contrary to the desire to promote assimilation and create an atmosphere of rapprochement, schools have increasingly become a source of division that we have previously tried to avoid.

The quality of teaching in primary and secondary schools is uneven: in some wealthy suburbs close to major cities, schools are running well, and in many small towns and villages, schools are also excellent or relatively satisfactory, but in some large cities School is unbelievably bad. "The education of Negro children from low-income families is without a doubt the worst-achieving and most failing area in the public educational enterprise. It is not so much that Negro children are educated as they are denied an education. But according to the government’s consistent statement, the biggest beneficiaries of public education are the poor and the oppressed. From this point of view, public education is indeed a double tragedy.”①

In our view, public education is afflicted with the same ailment that afflicts many of the welfare programs that we have discussed in previous and subsequent chapters.More than forty years ago, Walter Lippmann diagnosed it as "social hypercentralization disease", the cause of which lies in "a change in the belief that the free exercise of power by those narrow-minded and self-righteous despotic, reactionary, and decadent", . . . progress must be limited to the role and power of the ruler, whereas it is now believed that "the power of the ruler is unlimited, and therefore no limit should be imposed on the power of the government." ②

① Leonard, Billett: "Reforming Education with the Free Market Approach," RAND Corporation Paper No. P-6141 (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 1978), pp. 27-28. ②The words in "Good Society", quoted from Wallis' "Over-regulated Society", p. VIII. In terms of bringing up children, this symptom manifests itself in the inability of parents to interfere with the education their children receive, neither directly paying tuition to choose schools for their children, nor indirectly through local political activities to change the educational system.Control of schools has passed into the hands of professional educators.The increasing concentration of school power and bureaucracy, especially in the big cities, has exacerbated the disease.

The role of the private market is somewhat larger in higher education than in primary and secondary education.But there, too, cannot escape the ills of an overly centralized society. In higher education, fewer students attended public schools than private schools in 1928. In 1978, the number of students attending public schools tripled.Since students pay their own tuition fees, the government's role in direct financing lags behind its role in administration.Despite this, however, direct government appropriations in 1978 already accounted for more than half of the total funding of higher education, made up of public and private schools.

As with primary and secondary education, the increased role of the state has also adversely affected tertiary education.It creates an environment that makes it difficult for both dedicated teachers and hard-working students to learn. Primary and Secondary Education: The Problem Even in the first years of the republic there were schools not only in the cities but in almost every small town, village and most of the rural areas.There are laws in many states or localities that require the establishment of a "public free school."However, most schools are run on tuition fees and private funding.City, county, or state governments generally provide only some supplemental funds to cover the cost of schooling for children whose parents cannot afford or are paying insufficient tuition.Although education was neither compulsory nor free at the time, it was actually universal (except for slaves, of course).In an 1836 report, the principal of the New York State public schools said: "In every respect, there is reason to believe that the number of children educated in the public schools, private schools, and junior colleges is equal to the number of children between the ages of five and sixteen. equal to the total number of children at the age of 10."1 Of course, the situation varies from state to state.On the whole, however, children of white families, regardless of their family's economic status, were educated.

① Quoted from EG West's "The Political Economy of American Public School Legislation", published in "Journal of Law and Economics", Volume 10 (October 190), pages 101-128, the quotation is taken from 106 pages. Beginning in the 1840s, there was a movement to replace the various private schools with so-called free schools.That is to say, parents and others do not pay tuition fees directly, but pay tuition fees indirectly to the school through taxation. EG West, who has extensively studied the development of the role of government in education, argues that the movement was not started by parents dissatisfied with the status quo of education, but "mainly by teachers and government employees". of.The most famous participant in the free schools movement was Horace Mann, who is called "the father of public education in America" ​​in the Encyclopedia Britannica. ②Horace Mann served as the first secretary-general of the Massachusetts State Board of Education established in 1837.For the next twelve years he led a sweeping campaign for a government-funded primary and secondary education system run by professional educators.His main argument is that education is so important that it is the government's responsibility to provide every child with access to education.Schools should be secular and admit children of all families of different faiths, social status and races.This universal free education enables children to overcome the disadvantages caused by the poverty of their parents. "In his report to the Massachusetts State Board of Education, Horace Mann repeatedly emphasized that...education is the best and most profitable public investment." ③Although these arguments are all put forward in the name of promoting the public interest , but educational and administrative support for the public school movement is largely motivated by narrowly self-serving motives.They expect more secure jobs, more secure salaries and greater control over their education because the government, rather than the students' parents, pays tuition directly.

① See note ① on page 155, page 108. ②Note that there is a word here that is easy to misunderstand. The words "public" and "government" mean the same thing, though in some contexts, like "public utility," "public library," etc., they mean different things.In terms of schooling, is Harvard in any way less "public" than the University of Massachusetts? ③ Ibid., p. 110. "In spite of great difficulties and obstacles, . . . the main outlines of the educational system advocated by Horace Mann were drawn by the middle of the nineteenth century." ①

Since then, most children have attended public schools.Only a small number of students continue to study in so-called private schools, mostly run by the Catholic Church or other churches. The school system has changed: formerly private schools are now majority public schools, but this change is not unique to the United States.As one authority put it, "People gradually accepted the idea that education should be the responsibility of the state."He called this process "the most significant trend of the nineteenth century. It still affects education in all Western countries in the second half of the twentieth century." It arose in Prussia and appeared almost simultaneously in France under Napoleon.The UK followed the US in this trend. "Under the influence of laissez-faire, England hesitated for a long time before allowing state intervention in the cause of education." The public school system was finally established in 1870, and compulsory primary education was not introduced until 1880, until 1891 Basically abolish tuition fees. ③ In Britain, like the United States, education was popularized almost before the government took over.Professor West argues with good reason that the government takeover of education in Britain, as in the United States, was not caused by parental pressure, but by teachers, administrators and well-meaning intellectuals.He concluded that the government takeover has reduced the quality and diversity of education. ④ ①R．Bartz, Freeman: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7 (1970), p. 992. ②W． O． L．Smith: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7 (1970), p. 988. ③Ibid., pages 988-989. ④ E.G. West: "Education and the State" (London: Association for Economic Affairs, 1965). Education, like social insurance, is an example of the parallels between totalitarian and socialist theories.Both Prussia and the French Empire, where the aristocracy was monopolized, were the pioneers of national management education.Socialist-leaning intellectuals in the United States, Great Britain, and later the French Republic were the main proponents of state control of education. In the United States, the establishment of the public school system, like a socialist island surrounded by the ocean of the free market, only reflected in a small way intellectuals' early mistrust of the free market and voluntary exchange.At best it reflected the intellectual emphasis on the ideal of equal opportunity.Horace Mann and his acolytes capitalized on this strong emotion with great success in the reform movement. Needless to say, the public school system cannot be considered "socialist," but only "American."The most important factor in determining how the system works is the decentralized political structure: the U.S. Constitution severely limits the powers of the federal government, preventing it from playing a significant role.The states have largely left control of schools to local groups, small towns, small cities, and districts within large cities.Parents' close monitoring of the political institutions that run schools partially replaces competition, while also ensuring that the popular demands of parents are met. Things had changed before the Great Depression.School districts are consolidated, educational districts are expanded, and professional educators are increasingly empowered.The decline of the one-room schools and local school boards became irreversible in the aftermath of the Great Depression, when the public joined the ranks of the intellectuals and began to worship government, especially the central government.And the power to control schools was quickly transferred from smaller local agencies to larger local agencies, such as county, city, state agencies, and more recently to the federal government. In 1920, local appropriations accounted for 83 percent of total public school revenue, and federal appropriations were less than 1 percent. Local appropriations fell to 68 percent in 1940 and are currently less than half.The rest of the funding is provided by the state: state appropriations accounted for 16 percent of total public school revenue in 1920, 30 percent in 1940, and more than 40 percent now.Although the percentage of federal government appropriation is small, it has grown rapidly, from less than 2% in 1940 to about 8%. Parental control is diminished as professional educators take over the power of education.In addition, the responsibilities assigned to schools have also changed.Schools are still expected to teach children to read, write, and count, and to teach them basic concepts of value.But schools are now also seen as a means of promoting social mobility, enhancing racial integration, and using them to achieve other goals that have little to do with the primary mission of schools. In the fourth chapter, we talked about Dr. Max Gammon's "bureaucratic substitution theory", which he put forward after inspecting the British National Health Service.In his words, within a "bureaucratic system . Production is shrinking.”① Gammon's theory fits perfectly as a result of the growing bureaucracy and concentration of power in the American public school system.In the five years from the 1971-1972 school year to the 1976-1977 school year, the total number of US public school staff increased by 8%, and the cost per student increased by 58% in dollar terms (11% after adjusting for inflation) .Inputs have clearly gone up. The number of students in the school fell by 4%, and at the same time, the number of schools also decreased by 4%.We believe that few readers will object to the statement that the quality of education has declined more than its quantity.This is a fact illustrated by the decline in grades recorded in official examinations.The output dropped significantly. Is the decrease in output per unit of input caused by the growth of bureaucracy and the increasing concentration of power? Let us look at the evidence below. The number of school districts decreased in the seven years from the 1970-1971 to the 1977-1978 school year 17%, which can be said to be the development of a long-term trend of increasing concentration of power.As for bureaucracy, let's look at an earlier period, the academic years 1968-1969 to 1973-1974, because we only have data for this period at present.During this five-year period, the number of students increased by 1%, the total number of professionals increased by 15%, teachers increased by 14%, and superintendents increased by 44%. ② ① Gan Meng: "Health and Safety", p. 27. ② We would like to thank Herbert. Lobsenz and Cynthia Savo, they compiled the "Market Data Collection", we got the required data from the "Education Database" of the "Collection". The problem with schooling is not just about size, that is.The expansion of school districts or the increase in the number of students per school is not the only factor that matters.Because it turns out that in industry, large scale often increases efficiency, reduces costs and improves quality.It can be said that the development of American industry depends to a large extent on the principle of mass production and economists' so-called "economic effect increases according to scale".So why does size affect education differently? In fact, it is not that the impact is different.The problem is not the difference between education and other activities, but what kind of policy arrangements should be adopted: whether to let consumers choose freely, or to let producers have the final say, and consumers have no say.If consumers are free to choose, businesses must produce high-quality and low-cost products that consumers love if they want to expand.Companies simply cannot sell products that consumers don't like by relying on their large scale.GM's sheer size didn't prevent it from continuing to grow.Nor did Grant's sheer size save it from failure.Given the free choice of consumers, it can only survive if large scale produces efficiencies. But in general, in various political arrangements, size does affect consumers' free choice.Individual citizens feel they have a greater say in what the political authorities do in a smaller area than they do in a larger area, and they do.He may not have the freedom of choice he has when he buys something, but at least he has a considerable opportunity to influence what happens around him.Also, if there are many small areas, individuals can choose where to live.Of course, this is a complex choice involving many factors.Nonetheless, it means that local governments must provide services to their citizens commensurate with the value of their tax dollars.Otherwise, it will be replaced, or some taxpayers will be lost. But things are very different when power is in the hands of a central government.Individual citizens feel that they have little or no voice over a high and impersonal political authority.The possibility of moving from one region to another, while still present, is extremely limited. In school education, parents and children are consumers, and teachers and school administrators are producers.The centralization of schooling means that educational units become larger, consumers have less choice, and producers have more power.Teachers, administrators, and federal officials are just like everyone else.They may also be parents who sincerely hope for a good education system.However, their interests as teachers, school administrators, and federal government officials are different from their interests as parents and the interests of the parents of the children they teach.Their interests are advanced by greater centralization and bureaucratization.Although this is not consistent with the interests of the parents, their interests are indeed advanced by reducing the power of the parents. This phenomenon occurs whenever government bureaucrats take over something without regard for sacrificing consumer choice.This situation abounds in postal services, in garbage collection, or in the many examples given in other chapters. Those of us in the higher wage classes still enjoy freedom of choice when it comes to schooling.They can send their kids to private schools and they actually pay twice for their kids.One is to pay taxes to fund the public school system, and the other is to pay for the tuition of one's own children.In addition, they can also choose where to live based on the quality of public schools.Good public schools are concentrated in the wealthier suburbs of big cities.There, parents still have control over the school. ① ① Indeed, many of these public schools are arguably effectively tax loopholes.If you attend a private school, tuition is not deductible for federal income tax.Public schools are funded with local taxes and thus do not have to pay taxes. The worst situation is in the urban areas of large cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Boston.The people who live here can only afford double tuition if they work hard enough, and many of them send their children to parochial schools.Their financial situation does not allow them to move their families to places with good schools.Their only recourse is to try to influence the political authorities in charge of public schools.However, doing so is usually futile or difficult, and they simply cannot afford to do it.Inner-city residents are probably more disadvantaged in their children's schooling than in all other respects, with the possible exception of crime prevention, another "service" provided by the government. It is ironic and tragic that a system that strives to ensure that all children speak a common language, share the same values, and have the same educational opportunities is actually deepening social divisions and creating wildly unequal outcomes for all children. educational opportunities.The cost of education per student in inner cities is often as high as in wealthier suburbs, but the quality is far worse.In the suburbs nearly all the money is spent on teaching, while in inner city schools the greater part of the money is spent on maintaining discipline, preventing vandalism, or compensating for damage caused by vandalism.The environment in some inner-city schools is more like a prison than a place of learning.In terms of paying taxes to educate their children, parents who live in the suburbs do better than those who live in the city. Voucher Program for Elementary and Secondary Education Even in the city, schools don't have to be what they are now.In the past, this was not the case when the parent had greater control.The same is not true today in places where parents still control the schools. America's deep-rooted tradition of doing things its own way provides many good examples of what happens when parents are given more choice.Let’s take a church elementary school we visited as an example. The school is called St. John Chrysosme Elementary School, which is located in one of the poorest streets in the Bronx District of New York City.It is funded in part by a charity called the New York City Scholarship Foundation, in part by the Catholic Church, and in part by tuition fees paid by students.It is the parents' choice that their children attend this school.Almost all these children come from poor families.However, their parents must pay at least a certain amount of tuition fees.These children are well-behaved and curious.Teachers concentrate on teaching.The campus is very quiet, there is no loud noise. Even factoring in the pro bono services of teachers who are nuns, the cost per student is much less than that of a public school student.Yet these kids scored, on average, two grades above their public school counterparts.This is due to the fact that teachers and parents are free to choose how to educate their children.Taxes are replaced by private money, and control is taken away from bureaucrats and returned to those who should. Let's look again at an example in secondary education.Violence was rampant in Harlem in the 1960s.Many children are leaving school, and some concerned parents and teachers have decided to try to change that.They used private funds to buy several empty shops and set up so-called schools along the street.The best and most successful of these, the Harlem Preparatory School, catered for the intake of young men who could not be educated by conventional methods. Harlem preparatory schools lacked adequate material conditions.Many teachers do not have the credentials required to teach public schools.However, that didn't stop them from getting things done.Although many students have performed poorly in the past and dropped out of school, at Harlem Preparatory they found the education they were looking for. The school has been very successful.Many students have been admitted to universities, and some have been admitted to top universities.Sadly, it didn't end well.After being hit by the initial stages of the economic crisis, the school is struggling with a lack of cash.The Board of Education offered to pay Carpenter (the principal and one of the founders of the school) a sum of money on the condition that he abide by the Board's rules and regulations.After a long struggle to maintain her independence, Carpenter backed down.Schools are taken over by bureaucrats. "I feel," observed Mr. Carpenter, "that an institution such as the Harlem Preparatory School must die rather than prosper under the rigid bureaucracy of the Board of Education. . . . Everything, we'll just have to wait and see. I don't believe things are going to turn around. I'm right that everything that has happened since we were on the board of education is not all good or all bad, but it is bad More profit less." There is value in these kinds of private adventures.But at best they scratch the surface of what is to be done. One way of bringing knowledge back to the classroom that could make more headway is to give all parents greater control over their children's education, as those of us in the higher wage classes actually have now.Doing so is especially important for those parents who are currently the most disadvantaged.Parents are always more concerned about their children's education than others, and they are more aware of their children's abilities and needs.Social reformists, especially educational reformists, have always assumed that parents, especially poor, poorly educated parents, are not concerned with, and have no inclination to choose, the education of their children. ability.This is pure nonsense.Such parents indeed have few opportunities to choose for their children.However, there is enough evidence in the history of the United States to show that, given the opportunity, they are always willing to make great sacrifices for the happiness of their children, and they will make very wise choices. Undoubtedly, some parents are less concerned with the education of their children and lack the ability and desire to choose wisely.However, they are very few.Sadly, our current system does, by any measure, too little to help their children. A simple and feasible way to guarantee greater freedom of choice for parents while maintaining existing financial resources is to implement voucher schemes.Let's say your child is attending a public elementary or middle school.Nationally, taxpayers (you and I) paid an average of about $2,000 per child in school in 1978.If you take your child out of public school and into private school, you're saving taxpayers about $2,000 a year.But you won't get any of the savings unless you give it back to all taxpayers, and even then you'll only pay a few pennies less in taxes.On top of paying taxes, you have to pay private tuition, and that's a strong incentive to send your kids to public schools. But suppose the government says to you, "If you don't want us to pay for your child's education, you will be given a voucher that will allow you to pay a certain amount for your child's education at a government-approved school." Tuition." The amount on the voucher might be two thousand dollars, or, to share the savings between you and the other taxpayers, it might be fifteen hundred or a thousand dollars.But whether it's $2,000 or less, it would relieve at least some of the financial hurdles that currently limit parents' freedom of choice. ① ①Milton Friedman originally proposed the plan in his essay "Economics and the Public Interest," in "The Role of Government in Education," edited by Robert A. Solow (New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press, 1955).This article was rewritten as Chapter Six of Capitalism and Freedom. The voucher program embodies exactly the same principles as veterans receive education benefits.Veterans can get a voucher that can only be used for education.With this money, he can choose any school he wants, as long as the school meets certain standards set by the government. Parents shall also be permitted to use vouchers at any school, private or public, in the district, city, or state in which they reside, or in any other district, city, or state, willing to accept their child.In this way, not only will each parent have more choices, but it will also force public schools to raise funds by charging tuition fees (if the amount of the voucher is equal to all educational expenses, the school must be completely self-financing; if it is not equal to all educational expenses, schools must be partially self-financed).In this way, not only public schools have to compete with each other, but also with private schools. This plan does not reduce anyone's burden of paying taxes for education.It is only on the premise that society has the responsibility to provide education to children, and it gives parents a wider range of choices, allowing them to decide what kind of education their children should receive.The plan also would not affect the standards currently set for private schools, which were developed to enforce compulsory enrollment laws. We believe that the voucher scheme can only partially solve the problem.Because it affects neither education funding nor forced enrollment laws.We advocate going further.Generally speaking, the richer and more evenly distributed a society is, the less reason there is for the government to subsidize education.In any case, parents bear the bulk of the cost of education, and there is no doubt that it is cheaper for parents to pay for education directly than to bear it indirectly through taxes for the same quality of education—unless educational activities Very different from other government activities.In practice, however, as average incomes in the United States have risen and income distribution has become more equal, government funding has taken a larger and larger share of overall education spending. One reason for this, we believe, is government management of schools.When parents' incomes increase, they naturally want to spend more on their children's education, but since schools are run by the government, the easiest way to achieve this is to increase spending on public schools.One advantage of the voucher scheme is that it will encourage more parents to pay school fees directly.If parents want to spend more money on education, they can top up the voucher amount and pay tuition fees directly.The public grants for needy students will still remain, but this is a big change from the fact that 90% of children in school depend on government subsidies, because only 5% or 10% of needy students need relief. The Compulsory Enrollment Act is the basis for the government to hold standards in private schools.But we can't figure out what is the basis for implementing the law itself.Our views on this issue have changed over time.When we first came to this question in general terms a quarter of a century ago, we thought it necessary to impose such laws on the grounds that "a stable and democratic Society is impossible."1 We still believe in this reason.But twenty-five years of research on the state of education in the United States, England, and other countries have shown that compulsory schooling is far from necessary in order to obtain a minimum of cultural knowledge.As already noted, reports of this type show that primary and secondary education in the United States was almost universal before the Enrollment Act was introduced.In the United Kingdom, primary and secondary education was almost universal before the introduction of compulsory enrollment laws and government-funded education.Compulsory schooling laws, like most statutes, have both advantages and disadvantages.We no longer believe that the benefits outweigh the risks. ① See note ① on page 164, page 86. We realize that these views on government-funded education and compulsory schooling laws may be too extreme for most readers.That is why for the time being we are merely presenting this view without asking the reader for full support.We advocate a voucher scheme as the surest way out of the present practice. Currently, the single most likely alternative to local public schools is the parochial school.Because only the church can subsidize schooling on a large scale, and only subsidized schooling can compete with "free" schooling. (Trying to sell what other people throw away!) The voucher scheme will offer all sorts of alternatives, if they are not stifled by the extremely rigid standards required for government "approval".People's choices between public schools will increase dramatically.The size of a public school will be determined by the number of patrons it attracts, not by geographic boundaries drawn by government authorities or by the number of pupils allocated.Parents who set up non-profit schools (and there are already a few parents who do) will be guaranteed funding for their education.Civic organizations—from vegan groups to Boy Scouts and the YMCA—can build schools and attract patrons.The most important significance is that new types of private schools will rise and develop a vast new market. Let's now briefly look at the possible problems with the voucher scheme, and some of the objections that have been raised against it. (1) Questions of religion and government.Does it violate the First Amendment if parents can pay for religious schools with vouchers? Whether or not it violates the First Amendment, the important question is: adopt a policy of strengthening the role of religion in elementary and secondary education Is it suitable? The Supreme Court has generally struck down state statutes that finance parents' sending their children to parochial schools, though it has never had the opportunity to rule on a full-fledged voucher program that includes both public and private schools.However, it is likely to rule on such a plan in the future.很显然，最高法院采纳的计划将把与教会有关的学校排除在外，而适用于所有私立和公立学校。这样一种有限制的计划将远远胜过现行的制度，而且也不逊于一个毫无限制的计划。目前与教会有关系的学校可以通过把自己划分成两部分来达到政府所要求的条件：一部分与宗教无关，是独立的学校，可以接受凭单；另一部分带有宗教性质，主要组织课外活动和星期日活动，由家长或教会直接提供资金。 这种牵涉到宪法的问题只能由法院来解决。但是，要强调的是，领取凭单的是家长，而不是学校。根据美国军人法案，退伍军人可以自由选择天主教学校或其他学校。而且据我们所知，迄今为止并没有人对此提出过第一号修正案的问题。社会保险金和福利津贴领取者可以随意在教会商店里购货，甚至可以把政府救济金捐献给教会，对此，也没有人提出过第一号修正案的问题。 无论律师和法官如何花言巧语地狡辩，我们确实认为，目前惩罚不把孩子送到公立学校的家长的做法，违背了第一号修正案的精神。公立学校也在传授宗教，只不过不是信奉哪一个神的正式宗教，而是一整套价值观念和信仰，但这实际上已经构成了一种宗教。目前的做法剥夺了一些家长的宗教信仰自由，他们不相信公立学校传授的那种宗教，但却不得不为自己的子女接受这种宗教教育交纳学费，而要让孩子逃避这种宗教教育则必须花更多的钱。 （２）财政耗费。对凭单计划的第二条反对意见是，由于要为大约10％的目前正上教会学校或其他私立学校的孩子们提供凭单因而会增加纳税人为整个中小学教育所付的钱。其实，这只对那些忽视把孩子送到非公立学校的家长所受的歧视的人才成为“问题”。凭单计划的普遍实行将结束那种用税金来教育一部分儿童，而不管其他儿童的不平等现象。 不论怎么说，我们可以采用以下一种十分简单的方法来解决这个问题：使凭单金额大大低于每个公立学校学生的费用，以保持公共费用总额不变。在竞争性的私立学校上花少量的钱，很可能带来比现在在公立学校上花大量的钱更好的教学质量。这可以由教会学校每个学生的费用之低来说明。（名牌贵族学校收费高昂也不值得奇怪，正象1979年“二十一家俱乐部”对它的第二十一只汉堡包收费超过十二点二五美元一样，这并不意味着麦克唐纳饭店不能以四十五美分的高价出售汉堡包，或以一点零五美元的高价出售“大麦克”。） （３）欺骗的可能性。谁能确保凭单用来给孩子交学费，而没有用来给爸爸买啤酒或给妈妈买衣服呢，我们的回答是应该把凭单的使用范围限制在已经得到政府批准的学校或其他教育机构，只允许在这类学校中将它兑换成现金。这不能防止所有欺骗行为（因为政府官员可能把它作为“酬金”送给家长），但是，它将把欺骗行为控制在一个可以容忍的范围内。 （４）种族问题。有一段时期，南方一些州为防止白人和黑人享有同等待遇而实施了凭单计划。这样做被判为非法的。防止公立学校在实行凭单计划时采取歧视做法也是非常容易的：政府将只兑换那些没有歧视行为的学校的凭单。研究凭单计划的学者遇到的一个更为棘手的问题是，由于持有凭单的人可以自由选择学校，这就有可能增加校园内的种族隔离和阶级隔离，从而加剧种族冲突，而形成一个日益分裂和等级更加分明的社会。 我们认为，凭单计划会产生完全相反的效果；它会缓和种族冲突，促成一个黑人和白人为共同的目标而合作的社会，同时，又将互相尊重各自的权利和利益。许多人之所以反对强迫的种族合并，并不是出于种族主义情绪，而是因为他们多少有些担心孩子的人身安全和教学质量受到影响，这种担心也是很有理由的。如果种族合并不是靠强制，而是靠自由选择产生的话，那才是最成功的。非公立学校、教会学校和其他类型的学校，常常站在消灭种族隔离的前列。 一些公立学校发生暴力行动，仅仅是由于政府强迫人们上指定的学校造成的。只要给予学生足够的选择自由，无论是黑人学生还是白人学生，无论是穷人家出身的学生还是富人家出身的学生，无论是北方学生还是南方学生，都会离开那些不能维持纪律的学校。那些培养无线电和电视技术人员、打字员和秘书或无数其他专业人材的私立学校，很少发生纪律问题。 让其他学校象私立学校那样专业化，共同的利益就将战胜肤色的偏见，实现比目前更为广泛的种族平等。种族平等将成为现实，而不是仅仅停留在口头上。 凭单计划的实行，将废除为大多数黑人和白人共同反对的用校车接送学生的制度。也许人们还会用校车接送学生，而且接送的学生可能会更多，但这将是自觉自愿的，正象今天接送孩子上音乐课、舞蹈课那样。 黑人领袖不支持凭单计划的态度，是我们长期以来百思而不得其解的问题。他们的选民从凭单计划中得到最多的好处。这将给予他们控制子女上学受教育的权力，摆脱各级官僚机构的控制，更为重要的是，摆脱教育机构的顽固控制。黑人领袖们通常把自己的子女送到私立学校去读书，那么，为什么他们不帮助别人也这样做呢？我们怀疑这是因为凭单计划将使黑人摆脱其政治领袖的控制。这些领袖通常把教育的控制看作是获得政治支持和权力的来源。 然而，由于向广大黑人群众的子女开放的教育机会日益减少，越来越多的黑人教育家、专栏作家和其他社会团体的领袖们已经开始支持凭单计划。争取种族平等会议已把支持凭单计划作为其主要的政策目标。 （５）经济等级问题。凭单计划将对社会和经济等级结构产生什么样的影响？这也许是研究该计划的人们分歧最大的问题。有些人认为，公立学校最大的价值在于它象是一个熔炉，使富人和穷人，本国人和外国人，黑人和白人能够融洽地生活在一起。这种情形在小社区内，过去和现在都是真的，但在大城市里，却几乎全然不是这样。在那里，由于公立学校提供的教育和收取的学费同所在地区关系很大，因而造成了居民的分化。所以毫不奇怪，国内大多数名牌公立学校都设在高收入居民区之中。 在凭单计划下，大多数儿童很可能仍将上附近的小学，而且就近入学的人数肯定要比现在多，因为该计划实施后将不再用校车强迫接送学生。但是，由于凭单计划将使各居民区的组成更加参差不齐，因而某一地区内的学校种类可能要比现在多得多。中等学校的等级几乎肯定要比现在少。侧重某一方面的学校，如艺术学校、理科学校或外语学校，将广泛地吸引来自各个不同居民区的学生。当然，自愿选择仍将严重地影响学生的阶级组成情况，但这种影响将比今天的小得多。 对于凭单计划，人们特别关注的一个问题是：家长是否能够并乐意“添补”凭单金额。如果凭单金额为一千五百美元，家长可能另外添上五百美元，把孩子送到学费为两千美元的学校。但有人担心，由于广大中等和高等收入的家长愿意添补不足的学费，而收入低的家长拿不出钱，结果，凭单计划可能在提供教育机会上造成比现行制度更大的不平等。 这种担心致使一些支持凭单计划的人提议禁止“添补”。 ① ①参看克里斯托弗·詹克斯及其合作者：《教育凭单：关于向家长提供初等教育补助费的报告》（坎布里奇，马萨诸塞州：公共政策研究中心，1970年12月）；约翰.E.孔斯和斯蒂芬·D．修格曼：《教育选择：节制生育的理由》（伯克利：加利福尼亚大学出版社，1978年）。 孔斯和修格曼写道： 私人添补学费的自由，使许多人，包括我们自己在内，都不能接受弗里德曼的计划。……无力添补学费的家庭将不得不去上那些凭单之外不再另收学费的学校，而比较富裕的家庭则可以自由地在学费高昂的学校中进行选择。今天全靠私人资金和个人财富进行的选择，明天将会变成一种由政府资助的、令人反感的特权。……这违背了一项基本的价值准则，即：任何提供选择自由的计划必须保证所有家庭的孩子享有同等的上某一所学校的机会。 弗里德曼的看法是：在一项允许添补学费的提供选择自由的计划下，穷困家庭的处境可能要比他们今天的处境强一些。然而，不论该计划将使这些家庭的教育得到多大改善，政府有意识地资助经济分离的做法，是我们绝对不能容忍的。如果弗里德曼的计划是政治上唯一可行的计划，那我们不会对它抱有多大热情。 ① 对我们来说，这种观点似乎是前一章讨论的那种平等主义的一个例证：宁让父母把钱花在放纵的生活上，也不让他们把钱用在改善自己子女的教育上。这种观点在孔斯和修格曼那里表现得最为明显，因为他们曾在另外的场合说过：“以牺牲个别的孩子的发展为代价的平等的许诺，在我们看来似乎是平等主义的最终腐败，不论其本质上有任何好的东西。”②这是一种我们衷心赞同的情绪。但我们认为，从凭单计划中受益最大的是非常贫穷的人。一个人怎么能够避免“政府资助”所谓“经济分离”，就闭眼不看它“使穷人的教育得到了多大的改善”，而自以为是地为反对凭单计划的意见辩护呢，即使能够确实证明这种计划带来了某种程度的“经济分离”，也不能这样做，更何况这根本就不是事实呢。相反，通过大量的研究使我们相信，它将产生截然相反的效果。另外，我们要指出的是：“经济分离”这个词的意思非常含糊不清，难以明白它所表达的确切含义。 ①孔斯和修格曼：《教育选择》，第191页。 ②同上，第130页。 平等主义对人们的影响是非常强烈的，以至赞成有限的凭单计划的人甚至不同意试一试无限制的凭单计划。但是，据我们所知，除了有人毫无事实根据地宣称无限制的凭单制度将导致“经济分离”外，再没有人提出过任何别的理由。 在我们看来，这种观点是知识分子往往小看贫穷家长的又一证明。即使最穷的父母也能（而且实际上也确实是这样做的）积蓄几个钱来改善子女的教育状况，尽管这笔钱不足以支付当前公共学校的全部学费。我们估计，穷人家庭也会象其他人家一样添补学费，尽管添补的数额可能较小。 如前面指出的，我们认为一项无限制的凭单计划将是改革现行教育制度的最有效的途径。这种教育制度非改革不可，因为正是这种制度注定了市内的许多孩子过贫穷悲惨的、行凶犯罪的生活。这项计划还将摧毁现行经济分离的大部分基础。在这里，我们无法提供这种见解的全部根据，但只要从另一方面来看我们早先的一个论断，就能显示我们的看法的合理性：在各经济集团所获得的各种商品和劳务（除防范犯罪行为的保护措施外）中，有比教育质量差别更大的东西吗，对各种不同经济集团开放的超级市场，是否象学校一样在质量上差异那么显著，凭单计划几乎丝毫不会改善为富人提供的教育的质量，却可以适当地改善为中产阶级提供的教育的质量，同时极大地改善为穷人提供的教育的质量。由此我们可以肯定，穷人得到的好处，将大于某些富人或中产阶级的家庭由于能够避免为孩子交纳双重学费而得到的好处。 （６）对新学校的怀疑。这是想入非非的计划吗，现在的私立学校几乎全是教会学校或纨袴子弟学校。凭单计划会不会是只补贴了这些学校，结果把大量的来自贫民窟的学生留在质量低劣的公立学校呢？有什么理由认为会出现新的学校呢？ 理由就在于将会出现一个新的市场。目前，市、州和联邦政府每年在中、小学上花费将近一千亿美元。这个数目比餐馆和酒吧间每年花在食品和酒上的钱多三分之一。后者为各阶层和各地区的人们开办了足够的各式各样的餐馆和酒吧间。前者或甚至它的一部分也一定能开办大量的、各式各样的学校。 凭单计划将开辟一个庞大的市场，吸引来自公立学校或其他职业的许多顾客。在同各类人谈论凭单计划时，给我们留下的最深刻的印象是，很多人都说，“我一直想去教书（或办一所学校），但我不能忍受教育机构的官僚主义、烦琐的办事程序和公立学校普遍的思想僵化。如果实施你的计划，我愿意试着办个学校。” 很多新学校将由非赢利组织来办，其他的则由赢利组织来办。对于未来学校工业的最终结构，现在尚无法预言。这将由竞争来决定。现在可以预言的是：只有那些能够满足顾客需要的学校才会生存下去，正如只有满足顾客需要的餐馆和酒吧间才能够生存下去一样。竞争将确保它们满足顾客的需要。 （７）对公立学校的影响。把管理学校的官僚的花言巧语同实际存在的问题区分开来是十分重要的。全国教育协会和美国教师联合会宣称，凭单计划将会断送公立学校体制，而按照他们的说法，公立学校体制是我国民主制度的根本和基石。但他们说这些话时，从来没有列举出事实证明：今天的公立学校体制取得了预想的结果——不管早先取得了什么样的结果。这些组织的发言人也从来没有说明，为什么办得那样好的公立学校会害怕私立学校的竞争？如果公立学校办得不好，为什么要反对它“垮台”。 其实，对公立学校的威胁来自其自身的缺陷，而不是它们的成就。目前，在共同利益把人们紧密地结合在一起的小地方，公立学校，特别是公立小学，还是办得比较令人满意的，在这样的地方，即使是最全面的凭单计划也不会对公立学校产生多大影响。公立学校将继续保持其统治地位，或许由于潜在竞争的威胁，而使它有所改善呢。但是，在其他地方，特别是在公立学校办得十分糟糕的城市贫民窟内，大多数家长无疑要把自己的子女送到私立学校去读书。 这将引起一些过渡性的困难。那些最关心子女幸福的家长很可能首先把孩子转到私立学校去。尽管他们的孩子并不比剩下的孩子更聪颖，但他们将受到更多地鼓励去念书并有着更有利的家庭支持。结果可能发生这种情况：一些公立学校只剩下一些“渣滓”，他们受到的教育从质量上来说可能比目前还要糟糕。 随着私人市场接管教育事业，整个教育质量将极其迅速地提高，以至最差的学校在绝对质量上也会有所改善，尽管相对水平还是低的。正如哈莱姆预备学校和其他类似的例子所表明的，在能够激发人们的热情，而不是使人们互相仇视，和对一切都淡漠无情的学校，许多原来的“渣滓”学生在学校的表现都是非常好的。 正如亚当·斯密在二百年前所说的： “讲授果真值得学生到堂倾听，无论何时举行，学生自会上堂，用不着校规强制。对于小儿……为要使他们获得这幼年时代必须取得的教育，在某种程度确有强制干涉之必要。但学生一到了十二、三岁以后，只要教师履行其职务，无论哪一部分的教育，都不必要加以强制的干涉。…… 未有公立机构的那一部分教育，大抵教得最好，这是值得注意的。 "① 凭单计划的障碍 自从二十五年前我们首次把凭单计划作为解决公立学校制度缺陷的切实可行的办法提出以来，支持在增加。今天，一些全国性组织也表示赞成。②自1968年起，先是联邦经济机会办公室，而后是联邦教育委员会，相继鼓励和资助了对凭单计划的研究工作，并且表示愿意为这方面的试验提供资金。1978年，密执安州为通过一项有关凭单计划的修正案进行了投票。1979年，加利福尼亚州展开了一场运动，要求在1980年对凭单计划进行投票表决。最近，又成立了一个非赢利性的研究机构，专门研究凭单计划。③在联邦一级，有人提出法案，打算对交付给私立学校的学费实行某种程度的免税，这些法案几次险些被通过。尽管它们本身并非凭单计划，但它们却是这种计划的部分翻版，这是由于免税额是有限度的，也由于这种方法很难把无力或有很少力量纳税的人都包括进去。 ①亚当·斯密：《国富论》，下卷，商务印书馆1979年版，第323一324页。 ②例如“争取教育自由公民会”，“全国争取个人教育权利协会”。 ③“教育凭单研究会”1979年5月正式成立于密执安州。 教育界官僚们的自私自利，表现在他们是反对在学校教育中推行市场竞争的主要障碍。正如埃德温·Ｏ·韦斯特教授所说，这个在美国和英国公共教育事业的建立中起过关键性作用的特殊利益集团，坚决反对研究、考察或试验凭单计划的所有尝试。 黑人教育家和心理学家肯尼思·Ｂ·克拉克总结了管理学校的官僚们的态度： ……看来，为提高城市公立学校工作效率的必要改革，并不会由于它应当到来而到来。……如想了解教育机构抗拒这种改革的能力，最要紧的是了解这样一个事实：公立学校制度是很少受到私立学校和教会学校竞争的，是受到保护的公有垄断集团。批评美国城市公立学校的人，甚至包括我这样严厉的批评者，几乎没有哪一个敢于对目前公立教育组织的现状提出疑问。……也不敢对选拔学监、校长和教师的标准和水平提出疑问，不敢问一问所有这一切给公立教育的目标——即培养从事民主事业的有知识和文化的，培养具有社会责任感、尊严、创造性而又尊重他人的人——带来的影响。 垄断组织根本不必关心这些问题。只要各地的公立学校可以确保得到州政府的补助和联邦政府越来越多的补助，只要它们不必为激烈的竞争节省开支，指望公立学校的效率有所提高的一切想法就是痴心妄想。如果没有其他方法可以取代现行的教育制度——不包括私立学校和教会学校，因为它们的发展几乎已经到头了——那么，改进公立教育的可能性是很有限的。 ① 这一估计的正确性后来被教育机构对联邦政府出资进行凭单计划的试验的反应所证实。当时许多地区主动制定了颇有成功希望的计划。但只有加利福尼亚州阿卢姆罗克一个地方的计划，经过艰苦磨难，获得了成功。我们根据亲身经历了解得最清楚的例子发生在新罕布什尔州。当时该州的教育委员会主席威廉·Ｐ·比特本德进行了一项试验。条件似乎满好，联邦政府拨了款，定出了详细计划，选出了作试验的一些地区、家长和行政管理人员也达成了初步协议。正当一切都很顺利的时候，当地学校的学监和其他头头却劝说一个又一个地区退出了预定的试验，结果，整个探索夭折了。 阿卢姆罗克的试验是实际进行的唯一试验，但很难说它是真正的试验。试验仅仅限于几所公立学校，而且除政府拨款外不允许家长或其他人捐款。一些所谓的小型学校建了起来，它们的课程各不相同，家长可以任选一所学校让孩子在那里上三年学。 ② ①肯尼思.B.克拉克：《可供选择的公立学校制度》，见《哈佛教育评论》的《平等教育机会》特辑，第明卷第1期（1968年冬季），第100－113页，引自第110－111页。 ②丹尼尔·韦勒：《公立学校凭单的示范：阿拉姆·洛克试验的第一年》，第1495号兰德公司报告（加利福尼亚州圣莫尼卡：兰德公司，1974年）。 正如负责这项试验的唐·艾尔斯所说：“所发生的意义最为重大的事情是：教师第一次有了一些权力。他们可以按照自己的想法来安排适合学生需要的课程。州和地方学校委员会对麦卡科兰学校的课程安排不予干涉。家长越来越多地参与学校的事情，更经常地参加学校的会议。另外，如果他们看中了另一所学校，他们有权让孩子转学。” 尽管这项试验的范围有限，但由于家长可以进行更多的选择，因而对教育质量产生了很大影响。从考试分数上看，麦卡科兰学校从所在地区的第十三名上升为第二名。 但是，现在这项试验已经成为一件过去的事了。象哈莱姆预备学校的命运一样，教育机构断送了它。