Why public schools are unsustainable

Since I am (thankfully) childless, my response to the demo in my own head was probably a bit glib— though not necessarily mistaken: “Ho hum. If these silly people would just vote in politicians with the brains and the balls to raise sufficient taxes and allocate them properly, we could fund the damn schools adequately.”

After all, who do they think keeps voting in Republicans, whose only answer to any problem is “Cut taxes on the rich”?

Republican damage

Let’s face facts: Inadequate public school funding is a problem that won’t go away any time soon. And it’s not just a Pennsylvania or Philadelphia problem, either— it’s a nationwide issue, thanks to the severe damage Republicans have wrought on the economy through 2008 (and how effectively they’ve hindered the recovery since then). So, what to do?

Frankly, I can’t imagine any viable short-term solution that doesn’t involve steep tax hikes. That’s how public schools are funded— through taxes. But voters seem to lack the will to raise taxes to a level adequate for the current needs of students.

OK— then what about adequate long-term solutions?

Well, that’s easy and obvious (if not palatable to the public): Have fewer kids. Let’s face it: The fewer kids there are to educate, the less money must be raised to maintain an acceptable budget.

Right to procreate

I can hear the gasps and snarls of outrage now. Of all the rights people assume they possess, the unfettered right to have children— and as many as you want— seems one of the most fundamental and inviolable. While people may theoretically concede that the growing stresses on the planet due to overpopulation will eventually be unsustainable, few are willing to entertain any solution that infringes on their absolute right to procreate freely.

Apparently the most the general population is willing to accept is to encourage (voluntary) birth control— and a sizable percentage still find that practice contrary to the natural order. (I’m looking at you, Catholics, Muslims and conservative religionists of all stripes.)

Well, unless the world gets a handle on rampant population growth, Nature herself will eventually, inevitably step in. And her methods of controlling population tend to be on the drastic side (war, pestilence, famine, etc.).

Back to basics

But let’s keep our focus on schools for right now, given that they’re a perfect example of the resources-vs.-population problem that society will soon face with greater frequency and urgency.

Americans tend to forget that our public school system was founded in the 19th Century— an era when not only was population a mere fraction of what it is today, but also when much less time and resources were required to educate the so-called “common man” to a generally acceptable level. The so-called “basics”—reading, writing and basic arithmetic, a couple of years’ worth each, at most—were usually considered adequate to allow most people to function in society.

Think of the two main aspects of schools— number of students and resources per student to achieve an acceptable minimum level of education— as two rising curves. With each passing generation, both curves have been rising, sometimes drastically. As the number of students has risen, so has the amount of education considered necessary to properly serve each student.

Global warming, too

One rising curve or another could probably be sustained indefinitely without placing too much burden on the tax base. But both curves rising sharply year after year? Sooner or later, we’d reach a level of unsustainability.

I maintain that schools are now reaching that level of unsustainability (as we are with other aspects of life impacted by population: global warming, Social Security, food and water supplies). The only way to cope with the problem— to prevent the wholesale collapse of public schools as a viable institution— is to bring those curves down.

One of the curves would mean teaching less, so that public schools increasingly teach an inadequate curriculum— which is pretty much the <i>de facto</i> response now, as the public and the politicians pretty much dither on what to do.

Rising cost

I think we would all agree that schools should be able to provide an acceptably comprehensive education that would give our kids a good grounding for life in today’s increasingly challenging world (and yes, that should include arts programs, non-moralistic sex education, and fully equipped science classes). But the cost per student has risen so high that the public (in a typically shortsighted response) has begun balking at paying the bill.

That leaves the second curve: population. There simply need to be fewer kids, which means that people have to stop having so many babies.

The only realistic alternative is to watch public schools collapse or become increasingly ineffectual. And isn’t that what’s happening now? Things will continue along this path as long as the general mindset continues to be, “Sure, I think we should fund our schools, but don’t raise my taxes to do it—and don’t you dare impinge on my God-given right to have as many kids as I want.”

If you disagree, fine. Go protest the lack of funding like those well-meaning but ineffectual people I saw on Broad Street. But don’t be surprised if your protest is drowned out by a louder noise in the background: the sound of another public school collapsing, or turning out yet another generation of inadequately educated kids.

To read responses, click here.

To read a response by Dan Rottenberg, click here.

To read a response by Caroline Dunlop Millett, click here.