Evil or Stupid?

When Steve at Cascade Policy Institute shares with me a particularly arrogant or harmful case of a policy he encounters that is clearly at odds with the truth of the matter, I always wonder if it is a case of simply being stupid or if it’s a case of being evil. Most simplistic reductions are wrong but in this case, reasons for blatant bias can always be collapsed into one or the other of these two categories.

In cases of blatant bias, sometimes an editorial writer will come right out and ask the question of motive as happened today in an Investors Business Daily editorial. The editorial pointed out that media bias often distorts the fundamentals of the US budget deficit. The case in point was a major newspaper headline that stated the "Budget Deficit To Set Record" which is certainly not an objective characterization and at worst, intentionally misleading. In fact the deficit is currently shrinking. It went from 6% of GDP in the 1980s to a surplus of over 2% in 2000 then to almost 4% deficit, and now is declining toward 1.9% of GDP estimated for 2007. Looking at the trend line leads the editorial writer to "Wonder whether this is due to ideological bias or economic ignorance…"

Before, or if, we want an honest discussion of public policy, we must agree on the facts. In this case, even though we may want the government to control its spending far better, beginning with disingenuous assertions of fact gives no common ground for rational discussion. We instead wind up in arguments over whether the characterizations of the facts are misleading, and that factual argumentation forestalls rational discussion of policy issues based on objective and shared understanding. But by trying to push for agreement on a more objective description of the deficit, by setting it into a trend line for example, it also makes it appear that we are defending a particular position, in this case, the Bush administration when what we really need before we defend a policy is a solid foundation of factual description of the problem.

If media bias is intentional, as apparently it was in the Rathergate case with the purpose of making the Bush administration look bad, then we can do little more than condemn and dismiss. Motive is hard to prove. But where bias is due to lack of understanding, then there is a possibility for overcoming this ignorance. The ignorance problem seems to be what we face in the debate over school funding in Oregon.

The mainstream media consistently characterize our public education systems as suffering many years of cuts in the education budget, as being underfunded, as having a problem of stable funding. I and many others don't agree with the characterization. Before we can discuss proposals, we have the preliminary problem of first reaching agreement on the facts. We can’t even say that the "problem" of lack of funding is a fact. It is only a characterization of the situation which depends on some huge, hidden presumptions.

It is certainly true that the current monopoly system of government schools cannot control its costs and attempts to reduce services instead. There is almost nothing in the system design that inhibits rising costs and inefficiency except altruistic and enlightened management, and, of course, stubborn taxpayers. It is far easier to blame the legislature or the taxpayers than it is to look inside the black box to figure out why it is so inefficient. But it is not true that funding is necessarily inadequate for public education, only that it is inadequate for delivering public education using government schools in their current, protected state of operation. Trying to adequately fund government schools to be the exclusive means for delivering public education is impractical and no one has ever been able to show what an adequate level might be. It is simply never enough. There is always more that needs to be added. We mustn’t confuse adequate funding of government schools with adequate funding of public education.

But on the other hand, we could find out what adequate funding for public education might be. There are other means for delivering public education. Charter schools, for example, are not government owned schools but are public schools because they deliver public education. They operate at far lower cost than do government schools. Private schools may be more efficient. In terms of direct cost to the taxpayer, homeschooling is the most efficient.

The way we could arrive at facts regarding adequate levels of funding for education would be to allow many providers other than the government schools owned by school districts to offer public education and then compare the relative costs and efficiencies. These are real facts that could provide benchmarks from the actual operating costs of providers in the education industry.

The Oregon Quality Education Model is not based on such empirical facts of comparison. It is based on a committee who looks at government school costs only and then tries to determine what an hypothetical, adequate level of funding would be. The committee no doubt does believe in their analysis as somehow objective but since their analysis is so tightly controlled by the box containing their thinking they can only see government schools as synonymous with pubic education. They are not even close to glimpsing what is possible.

Deep down, we all agree government schools think they are underfunded. We all probably also agree that charter schools, private schools, contract schools, voucher schools, homeschooling all cost less than government schools. But what isn’t happening is putting the two together. Inside-the-government-school-box-thinking is all we get. We don’t hear the facts of the lower costs by other providers discussed at the same time with funding government schools. Now there may be huge political challenges in opening the delivery of public education to providers other than the districts’ government schools but that certainly is no reason not to be open and honest about the facts of adequate funding of public education.

Adequate levels of funding does depend on what kind of system we use to deliver the product. Restricting our view of the facts and our policy proposals only to blindly and thoughtlessly continuing to protect and support the government monopoly as sole provider is itty bitty thinking. When we trade off giving more choices, more education, to more kids for fewer choices, limitations of service, to fewer kids, we are thoughtlessly advocating policy with immoral consequences. The immorality of the position is to subordinate kids’ public education to protecting and funding government schools.