I have been told that I do not care about poor people. This accusation intensified after last week's column regarding the minimum wage. However, such a claim is simply unfair. All of us on either side of the political spectrum want to see our entire society grow and become prosperous. Those on the left view redistribution as the best way of attaining this goal. However, this is a short-term solution to the perpetual problem of poverty in America. Americans that have been left behind need a long-term solution that will give them opportunity. I believe this solution lies in the classroom.
For parents who are lucky enough to live in the suburbs, the American school system is in perfect condition. They have the opportunity to send their children to high-caliber schools. And for suburbs with sub-par school systems, wealthy parents can send their children to a prestigious private school to ensure they receive a top-notch education. On the other hand, our school system is failing those Americans that need it most. I am referring to the unfortunate families that live in inner cities and other poverty-stricken areas. These families have no choices and are forced to send their children to schools with steel bars on the windows, metal detectors at the school gates and under-qualified teachers. In short, there is a crisis of inequality in America of the worst kind: inequality of educational opportunity.
Currently, families only have one choice when it comes to publicly funded education. School choice would allow the mother in the inner city to take the government subsidy that is going toward the dilapidated schoolhouse that her children are currently attending and instead use it for a school that will actually provide her children with an education. School choice will provide the poorest Americans with the same educational opportunities as those of wealthy Americans.
School choice also introduces competition into the school system, thereby introducing accountability into schools. If a school is failing, it will lose students (customers). This will give them an incentive to better their schools. They will fire poorly performing teachers, upgrade their facilities and pay teachers based on performance. And this is not just a theory, either. According to Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby, public schools in areas with school choice programs are more likely to hire more capable teachers.
Critics of school choice claim that such an idea would take money away from public schools and segregate schools by race. However, evidence from current school choice programs refutes these claims. All one needs to do is look to our friendly neighbors north of the border. Canada is a country in which 92 percent of the public enjoy some form of publicly funded school choice. Studies of this system by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation have found that there was a weaker correlation between socioeconomic status and achievement scores in provinces with school choice. In other words, inequality in the school system was reduced due to school choice.
However, the most promising findings concern blacks, who have historically been denied the opportunity to succeed by the U.S. government. The Foundation found that "private schools participating in voucher programs ... are much less segregated than public schools." And interestingly, economist Derek Neal found that blacks in urban private schools are more likely to complete college than those in public school.
We should not be surprised by the inequality in our school system. Government-controlled monopolies never work because they restrict choice and thereby create inefficiencies. So shouldn't liberals support a movement to topple this massive monopoly that is restricting Americans' rights to an education? Unfortunately, it is liberal teacher unions that lead the fight against school choice.
This is troubling for me, considering I have supported teacher labor unions for most of my life (my mother and wife are teachers). However, my view of unions changed after seeing my mother and my wife in the classroom. After witnessing how well they taught and their commitment to their students, I realized that they didn't need a union to ensure their job security. Unions simply force teachers to pay union dues, make certain all teachers are paid the same (even substandard teachers) and fight against the needed reforms, like school choice, that are needed to fix the American school system.
School choice is the type of pro-poor policy a liberal should endorse. Wealthy Americans do not benefit from this policy; they already can send their children to private schools. However, poor Americans do not have that option. School choice gives them that option. And it is with this endorsement of such a pro-poor policy that I will claim that "I care about poor people."
Jared Kotler is a graduate student in the School of International service and Kogod School of Business. To read more from Jared, visit http://econfreedom.blogspot.com.
