Admittedly, the cautionary premise of this piece has been rendered virtually moot by the actions of state and federal bureaucrats, and by the general acquiescence of the electorate, but if others are inspired to further consider the topic, its articulation is not in vain. Regardless, is it not the purpose of a teacher to inspire in others the desire to challenge and ponder any premise?
Nobel Economist Milton Friedman argued that choices can be categorized into one of four decision-making classes based on two factors: whose money is being spent and on whom it’s spent. For brevity’s sake only two categories will be considered. In one class, humans are free to spend their money on themselves. As it pertains to education, rational individuals would seek the greatest educational benefits at the lowest cost. Parents would be free to choose what their children learn based on their choice of residency. If this were so, parents within Duneland and elsewhere would influence what their student learned by the threat of movement, and the subsequent tax revenues lost by the local school. This reality was closest to existence when schools were primarily funded by local property taxes. As governmental agencies continually tighten regulatory and budgetary control over education, decisions pertaining to student learning become the monopolistic territory of faceless bureaucrats who make decisions within the reality of Freidman’s fourth category—spending other people’s money on other people. In this case, the bureaucrat—who has not met your child—cannot logically decide what benefits your child, nor will he reasonably consider the final bill for it is not his to pay. The tax collectors seize your money neither with your consent nor with limit, and divert it toward educational goals and services with no regard to your child’s individual needs. As a result, several Indiana communities were forced to raise their local property taxes to fund the shortfalls created from such ill-conceived seize and divert programs. Meanwhile, schools receiving diverted funds have been taken over by the State due to abysmal results.
The lawmakers’ actions are likely well-intentioned; however, as was taught prior to centralized education existed, there exists a particular path paved with good intentions. The author humbly encourages the reader to ponder the potential unintended consequences the continual shift in education may have on their most prized possession—their children. The author regularly challenged students to consider an adage observed by human beings across cultures and across the historical continuum; “when the central planners’ plans fail, the central planners plan more.”
Michael Okeley is assistant principal at Chesterton Middle School. This column solely represents the writer's opinion.