Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose” Episode on Education part 2. It was Friedman’s voucher plan that was put into practice in Sweden in 1993. See Friedman below next to George Shultz who was next to Reagan.
(R Row, from front to rear) Milton Friedman, George Shultz, Pres. Ronald Reagan, Arthur Burns, William Simon and Walter Wriston & unknown at a meeting of White House economic advisers.
The key to straightening out our schools is competition. Do you think that the Little Rock School System would rise to the occasion if they had to? Now they have a captive audience that can not afford to go elsewhere.
TI: On a general level, the range of choices is very wide. There are all kinds of independent schools. In 215 of Sweden’s total 290 cities and municipalities, there are one or more independent schools operating. Compulsory schools are for pupils 7–16 years old, are mandatory by law, and have uniform content with one national curriculum for all schools, regardless if they are public or independent. Upper secondary schools are for students ranging from16–19 years of age. Upper secondary students choose between different educational programs depending on their goals (such as preparation for university studies or education for a profession). Upper secondary schools were formally voluntary, but almost all students attend now, and the curricula differ between programs. However, for every program the curriculum is national and the same for public and independent schools. Around 14 percent of all compulsory schools and 44 percent of all upper secondary schools are independent. And there is a steady increase every year. In 1992, less than 1 percent of schools in Sweden were private. Today one out of five Swedish compulsory or upper secondary schools today is independent.
Before the voucher reform, the few private schools existing merely differed from public schools regarding ownership. Today, almost half of the independent schools differ more or less radically from public schools regarding pedagogical concept and methods to fulfill the curriculum. Around 10 percent of the independent schools are religious/confessional. More than six out of 10 independent schools are run as for-profit limited companies, a form for school operation that has become more common throughout the years. And there are small, local schools—founded by teachers and headmasters and run as only one unit—alongside larger chain school companies that are represented all over the country. One school corporation is even listed on the Stockholm Exchange Market.
Milton Friedman’s film series “Free to Choose” Episode on Education part 1. It was Friedman’s voucher plan that was put into practice in Sweden in 1993.
.
I went to the Van Buren v. Bryant basketball game the other night at Bryant. I wore a white razorback shirt with the number 32 on it and my grandson Luke Hatcher wore a yellow shirt and sat next to me. Kevin White who is the asst pastor at North Park Baptist is sitting in front of me with the dark green hat and the green shirt. His son Drew White is trying to block a shot by the Bryant player. (Van Buren won the game.)
Drew actually is not only one of the best basketball players I have seen but he also has a scholarship to play football at OBU as a receiver. His brother is presently a receiver at Southern Arkansas University and they will be playing against one another in conference play next year.
Luke’s family just moved here from Van Buren and they were members of North Park Baptist Church which one of the most dynamic churches I have ever visited.
Across the United States, policymakers are increasingly adopting education policies that give families the power to choose their children’s schools. Nonetheless, the idea of providing school vouchers to allow children to attend private schools remains controversial. For instance, congressional leaders and the Obama Administration have tried to end a successful school voucher program for low-income children in Washington, D.C.
American policymakers on the Left and the Right may be surprised to learn that a universal school choice program has taken hold in Sweden. The Heritage Foundation interviewed Thomas Idergard, Program Director of Welfare and Reform Strategy Studies at Timbro,[1] a free-market think tank based in Stockholm.
Dan Lips: Mr. Idergard, thank you very much for taking the time for this interview. Can you please tell us the background of how Sweden’s voucher program came to be? How was it created?
Thomas Idergard: Thank you very much, Mr. Lips, for giving me the opportunity to tell you more about the Swedish model for real school choice—for all.
The Swedish school voucher program was introduced in 1992 by the then Center-Right government. First, the Social Democrats opposed the reform, but after having returned to power in 1994 they not only accepted it but also expanded the legislated compensation level of the voucher. Today there is almost a total national political consensus—with the one and only exception from the small Left (i.e., former Communist) Party—on the foundations of school choice in Sweden.
Since the 1970s, the Swedish school system had declined regarding quality and student attainment. One reason for this was the lack of choice. Only the very rich, who could afford private schools with private tuition fees on top of our very high taxes, had a right to choose. For all the rest, the school was one monolithic organization in which all students were considered to have the same needs and to learn the same way. The lack of choice created a lack of innovation regarding pedagogical concept and ways of learning adapted to different students’ needs. Public schools, run by politicians in the local branch of government (cities and municipalities), were all there was for 99 percent of all students.
The school voucher program was designed to create a market—with competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation—based on the Swedish and Scandinavian tradition of social justice and equality: All families should be able to choose between public and private schools regardless of their economic status or wealth. This equal opportunity philosophy, taken into its full potential, created an education market!
With 15 years of experience, we in Sweden can summarize the effects. Education’s private sector share of students has grown from 1 percent to 10 to 15 percent, depending on grades. In some areas the competition is fierce, with both public and independent schools closing as a result. The variety of independent schools is large in both ownership — from parental cooperatives to corporate chains — and in innovative pedagogy and practice, of which the much-acclaimed Kunskapsskolan is not the only interesting example.
Vouchers are not the sole fix for education — there is no such single reform. But with real competition, independent schools are still generally performing better academically than public schools, even if the differences probably will decrease as their share increases and failing schools disappear. More important perhaps, is that all schools — public and private — perform better in areas where alternatives are plentiful.
As a former Swedish State Secretary of Schools, involved in developing the reform in the 1990s, I often get comments from American friends: “You’re supposed to be the socialists, not us,” they say and ask, “How is it that Sweden, with its egalitarian tradition, has one of the most radical systems for market-driven choice in the world?”
Maybe that is the answer. With our egalitarian tradition, we can’t accept that the right to choose the best school for your child should be reserved just for those who have the means to pay for it.
Mr. Odd Eiken is Executive Vice President of Kunskapsskolan Education, the largest private school provider in Sweden. He was State Secretary of Schools in Sweden 1991-94 and helped develop the nation’s voucher reform.
School choice efforts took a substantial step forward yesterday when Oklahoma’s Democratic Governor Brad Henry signed into law the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Act. Special needs children in the state will now be able to attend a school of their parents’ choice through the help of vouchers. This program will provide significant opportunity for an estimated 15 percent of Oklahoma children and their families.
Support for the new law came from both sides of the political spectrum. The principal authors of the bill, Sen. Sally Kern (R) and Rep. Jason Nelson (R) were joined by representatives Anastasia Pittman (D), Jabar Shumate (D) and Sen. Patrick Anderson (R), to maneuver the legislation through the state congress and senate before its signing by Governor Henry. Nelson thanked Governor Henry in The Daily Oklahoman for his support and explained that the bill will provide children with special needs “a chance at a better education and a better life.”
Betsy DeVos, chairman of The American Federation for Children, commented on the school choice victory:
We salute Governor Henry for his leadership in enacting this transformational new program, and we congratulate the bipartisan team of Oklahoma legislators who worked together and put politics aside for the sake of helping children with special needs.
Oklahoma joins a growing list of states who offer school choice for parents of special needs children, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and Utah. The president and CEO of the Foundation for Educational Choice, Robert Enlow encouraged other states to take similar action:
Because of the governor’s and legislature’s courageous acts, Oklahoma’s children with special needs have been afforded a new, better chance to succeed in life. … Other states should emulate Oklahoma and its willingness to put the interests of kids and parents first.
Back in Washington, the Obama administration has been turning back the clock on school choice, working to phase out the highly successful and popular D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. But states like Oklahoma are moving forward with policies to put power in the hands of parents and opportunity in the reach of children. Many families will now have the opportunity to send their children to those schools they feel will best meet their needs. Hopefully the administration will see state choice victories as a sign that it is indeed parents – not bureaucrats or union leaders – who should have control of their children’s educational future.
Andrew Coulson, director of the Center for Education Freedom at the Cato Institute, believes giving businesses tax credits for sending kids to private school is the most effective way to expand school choice. The regulatory and legal obstacles to charters schools and vouchers, he argues, present too many hassles to work around .
Reason.tv sat down with Coulson at the National Summit on Education Reform in Washington, D.C. to talk about the public education tax credits and more.
This interview is part of National School Choice Week, a non-partisan initiative to raise awareness of how competition and choice can transform K-12 education.
Approximately 6 minutes. Filmed by Jim Epstein and Meredith Bragg, and edited by Epstein. Interview by Nick Gillespie.
Go to http://reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.
In 1980 I watched the film series “Free to Choose” and Walter Williams was in that film series. I really liked what he had to say.
Dr. Walter Williams proposes:
Failing Public Schools – Give parents greater control over their children’s education by setting up a tuition tax credit or voucher system to broaden competition in turn revitalizing both public and non-public schools
Sweden’s Voucher System Part 1
Pat Lynch “In search of Leadership,” (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Feb 7, 2011) asserted, “Goodness knows, the Little Rock School District gets a fair amount of criticism, and a good deal of it is entirely deserved…Central Arkansas deserves better…”
It is a wonder to me that liberals never admit that maybe the voucher system is worth trying since the current public school system in Little Rock is not working.
Did you know that many of the liberals in Sweden have endorsed the voucher system put in place there? I will be posting parts of the article “Sweden’s school voucher system is a model for America,” (The Daily Caller, Jan 23, 2011) by Odd Eiken.
In 1993, Sweden introduced a system of school choice and vouchers, inspired by the ideas of American economists Milton and Rose Friedman. Even though the system was just as controversial then as any U.S. voucher proposal, the right to chose your school and bring the funding with you is today considered a natural right for families and is widely accepted by all political parties.
Even Sweden’s Social Democratic Party supports the system and recently closed an internal debate on for-profit schools by deciding that there is no virtue in running schools at a loss: schools should be judged on their academic performance, not financial.
The reason for the Swedish voucher reform was both philosophical and practical. The philosophical argument was that since taxpayers have agreed to share the cost for a free and good education, then why should some have to pay for it twice — first with taxes and then in private school fees? The more practical argument came from Swedish experience with educational reforms and innovations in the 1970s that to a large degree failed. It not only caused high costs for society and generations of students who saw few improvements, but it also created an aversion against further innovations and pedagogical experiments.
As American state legislatures begin to convene this winter and again consider education reform, they should empower families and create conditions for entrepreneurship. And as school choice gains popularity among parents and taxpayers, particularly as this is National School Choice Week in the U.S., vouchers should absolutely be on the agenda.
When we designed the Swedish voucher system, we followed the Friedmans’ advice to keep it universal and simple. The answer was a system where funding follows the student regardless of their parents’ income. Under our system, every family has the right to choose a school that’s right for their child. And every student brings with him the same amount of per pupil funding as the cost of the public school in his or her home district.
But under our system, equal terms work both ways. If a school chooses to be part of the voucher system, it has to be all-inclusive, provide national standards and have its performance monitored. And it has no right to charge its students fees beyond the voucher. The purpose was to create equal financial conditions while protecting the ultimate right of the voters and taxpayers to create a budget for spending on schools. Since the public school still often is the default choice, that means that independent schools need to be more creative, productive or academically successful with equal funding in order to compete.
Mr. Odd Eiken is Executive Vice President of Kunskapsskolan Education, the largest private school provider in Sweden. He was State Secretary of Schools in Sweden 1991-94 and helped develop the nation’s voucher reform.
Francis Schaeffer points out how Communism is based on materialism which leads to repression while countries with a reformation base truly have a solid basis for law and the people enjoy freedom.
Max Brantley (Arkansas Times Blog, Dec 14) observes:
Is the U.S. “Special in the world, divinely blessed, better than the rest,” as Brummett defined the term? A reflexive yes ignores the reality of the specifics, however great a beacon of hope and freedom we have been, are and hope to be. Demonstrably — take education and health care — all the specific comparisons can’t be answered in the affirmative. After arrogance, this is the biggest problem with the exceptionalism argument. If you’re already perfect, what need is there to seek to improve or learn from others who might have a better idea?
My quick answer to the statement about the USA woeful education performance would be that our public schools have been a victim of a lack of free enterprise competition and an infiltration of humanism.
Third, the problem in the USA has not been the lack of funding. Caroline Hoxby, Ph.D., the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor of Economics at Stanford University has correctly noted:“The United States spends more money per pupil on public K-12 schooling than any other country in the world. Some of the school districts that are the most embarrassing for Americans like Newark, NJ or Washington D.C. are some of the most expensive in the world. So it is hard to make the case that the problem America has is just that it is not spending enough money… We have raised per pupil spending (in real inflation adjusted terms) every single year for the last 40 years… (Not having enough money) is not the source of the problem for American education.”
There are actually two reasons our public education in the USA has suffered. The first was because the free enterprise system has not been allowed to work its magic as shown above. The second was because of the humanistic elements that have been allowed into our schools. This goes back to the two principles that I talked about in the first installment of this series on “American Exceptionalism.
First, our country was founded on a reformation base.
Second, our country allowed free enterprise to flourish without excessive government controls.
Since I have already discussed this second point at length in regard to the schools, I will concentrate on this first point.
Notice in the video above is from the episode “The Revolutionary Age” from the film series “How Should We Then Live?” by Francis Schaeffer that a system like communism is based on a materialistic base, and must use internal repression to keep in power. Communism always comes in with promises, but what you end up with is a loss of freedom of the press and freedom of religion too. This can be seen even today in the 5 communist countries which exist.
However, when you contrast these communist countries to those countries that have a reformation base you find a large difference in protection of human rights. Francis Schaeffer has pointed out that in these countries (with the reformation base ) the biblical basis did give absolutes upon which to combat injustice. In contrast, the humanist has no way to say that certain things are right and certain things are wrong. This is because for the humanist the final thing that exists is the impersonal universe and that is silent and neutral about right and wrong and about cruelty and noncruelty.
Earlier I said that the schools in the USA are suffering because of a lack of competition, but they are also being hurt by the teaching of humanism in the area of moral choices. They are being taught that we all are a product of chance and there are no absolutes.
The Bible tells us, “{God} has also set eternity in the hearts of men…” (Ecclesiastes 3:11 NIV). The secularist calls this an illusion, but the Bible tells us that the idea that we will survive the grave was planted in everyone’s heart by God Himself. Romans 1:19-21 tells us that God has instilled a conscience in everyone that points each of them to Him and tells them what is right and wrong (also Romans 2:14 -15).
It’s no wonder, then, that a humanist would comment, “Certain moral truths — such as do not kill, do not steal, and do not lie — do have a special status of being not just ‘mere opinion’ but bulwarks of humanitarian action. I have no intention of saying, ‘I think Hitler was wrong.’ Hitler WAS wrong.” (Gloria Leitner, “A Perspective on Belief,” THE HUMANIST, May/June 1997, pp. 38-39)
Here Leitner is reasoning from her God-given conscience and not from humanist philosophy. However, I know how moral relativism works, and I expected that Mrs. Leitner would soon be challenged by her fellow humanists. It wasn’t long before she received criticism. Humanist Abigail Ann Martin responded, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?” (THE HUMANIST, September/October 1997, p. 2)
Do you see where our moral relativism has taken us in the USA?
I had a chance back in 1991 to visit with a gentleman by the name of Robert Lester Mondale while he was retired in Missouri. He was born on May 28, 1904 and he died on August 19, 2003. He was an Unitarian minister and a humanist. In fact, he was the only person to sign all three of the Humanist Manifestos of 1933, 1973 and 2003. In my conversation with him he mentioned that he had the opportunity to correspond with John Dewey who was one of Mondale’s fellow signers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto I.
I really believe that the influence of John Dewey’s humanistic philosophy has won the battle of the textbooks in the USA today (with evolution teaching being a key component). As a result, we have people like humanist Abigail Ann Martin who wrote, “Neither am I an advocate of Hitler; however, by whose criteria is he evil?”
I have been profiling State Lawmakers and today is Saline County’s Kim Hammer.
It is not a statement of rhetoric, but a statement of fact, that America is heading in the wrong direction. We are moving away from what our founding forefathers established this nation to be in principle, practice, and proper pride–all under the open practice of seeking God’s divine leadership. Without shame or apology, I openly state that I believe we as a nation have also drifted away from giving God His proper place in the decision-making process of the establishment of the laws that govern us. And we are reaping the consequences of our actions.
We who believe that “powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1) have a civic duty to come forward and help perpetuate what the founding fathers of America paid an ultimate price to birth.
We are at a crossroads in America’s history where those who believe in heart, not in lip service, that we are still “One Nation Under God” must rise to the occasion and not idly stand by and let America be dismantled one decision at a time. It is not so much a matter of party or person as it is a matter of principle and purpose. People and party affiliations have a tendency to be bartered away, but principles of value will withstand the test in the moment of decision and the end result will reflect that philosophy.
As citizens of Arkansas we must elect people into positions who are willing to stand by their convictions. Those convictions must rest in a belief that if we want to claim to be “One Nation Under God,” then we must allow God to be introduced into convictions that guide our decisions or else we have become a state and a nation where everyone does that which is right in his own eyes.
This is why I am asking you to vote for me to represent you in the Arkansas House of Representatives, District 28. I may not vote every way you want me to, but it’s not about you and me. It’s bigger than that. It’s about taking one issue at a time, weighing it out against how a decision will affect Arkansas and America emotionally, spiritually, and physically-one vote at a time.
I believe that there is still power in the vote and that this nation, one state at a time, one elected official at a time, can redirect America back onto the course that reflects we are “One Nation Under God”.
Respectfully,
Kim D. Hammer
Friday, 27 August 2010
Kim Hammer of Benton has worked his whole life helping people with their physical and spiritual needs. Now Hammer wants to help more people in the area by being a voice for District 28 in the state House of Repre-sentatives. He will face state Rep. Barbara Nix, D-Benton.
Hammer ran for the position in 2006 but did not make it, he said. Being that close to attaining the position has motivated him to run again, along with other incentives.
“I felt that for my life and where I am in my life and my convictions about the direction our country is going in, I felt like this was the right time to (run again),” he said.
Hammer spent the early years of his life working as an emergency medical technician and eventually earned the rank of being a nationally Registered EMT Intermediate — and he began only as a volunteer.
“I started because I wanted to give to the community. From there I had a conviction to keep doing it and I worked full time at MEMS in between churches. I let my license go in 1995, though.”
He now works full time as the chaplain at Saline Memorial Hospice House in Bryant. He is a graduate of Trinity College in Indiana and has served several churches throughout the state.
His Christian beliefs are something that he will not be afraid to bring into House discussions, he said.
“I think that there needs to be a conviction of appreciation for a place of God in government. I’m not an extermist, but I’m not going to apologize for what I believe in. I’m not going to apologize for thinking that God has been pushed out of the decision-making process,” Hammer said.
He added, “I have Christian convictions that I do not believe need to be imposed on anyone, but I do not believe it is right to back up from them. I believe there are Christian convictions that are represented in the decision-making process when it comes to the law, but that doesn’t mean I want to cram anything down anyone’s throat — but I’m tired of backing up.”
If elected, Hammer said he will take these beliefs to the House to help people in District 28, especially people with a palliative time of life and children in need. Hammer once worked for a school-based mental health firm and, as he said, “has a real conviction for helping children.”
If he wins the House seat, Hammer doesn’t have a firm agenda of things to get done, but he says he does have some ideals he will stand by firmly.
“I believe in strong, family values, beginning with protecting the definition of the union of marriage. I’m also strong on state sovereignty and believe that the state has to stand up against federal government that is going to impose hardships on us. We have to present a strong front as a state,” Hammer said.
One of his main objectives, he said, is to go through the checkbooks of the state government and see where money is not being spent wisely.
“There are a lot of good things that can be done with money that might be wasted. I want to scrutinize the budget and try to get funding for things such as non-profit and faith-based initiatives. I want to see where wasteful spending is happening and put it in the hands of those who need it,” he said.
Hammer plans to attend several local events, including the Salt Bowl Tailgate, the Saline County Fair and Old-Fashioned Day and would enjoy meeting any residents or answering questions. To find out more about Hammer, visit http://www.hammer4house.com.
(Milton Friedman shows in this 9 minute video below how inner city parents have lost their freedom to choose concerning schools and they have suffered because of it)
In Arkansas we call privately operated charter schools “open enrollment schools.” In reality, are these schools truly open enrollment? Does every child have an equal opportunity to enroll? The first ingredient is that the child must have a parent who truly cares and monitors his or her education.
Liberals condemn Charter and Voucher programs, but it seems it is undeniable that parents are a key part of the success of schools. The conservative Milton Friedman went even further when he noted that when parents lose control over the school then the education suffers:
To go back to the beginning, it all started with the fine idea that every child should have a chance to learn his three R’s. Sometimes in June when it gets hot, the kids come out in the yard to do their lessons, all 15 of them, ages 5 to 13, along with their teacher. This is the last one-room schoolhouse still operating in the state of Vermont. That is the way it used to be. Parental control, parents choosing the teacher, parents monitoring the schooling, parents even getting together and chipping in to paint the schoolhouse as they did here just a few weeks ago. Parental concern is still here as much in the slums of the big cities as in Bucolic, Vermont. But control by parents over the schooling of their children is today the exception, not the rule.
Increasingly, schools have come under the control of centralized administration, professional educators deciding what shall be taught, who shall do the teaching, and even what children shall go to what school. The people who lose most from this system are the poor and the disadvantaged in the large cities. They are simply stuck. They have no alternative.
Of course, if you are well off you do have a choice. You can send your child to a private school or you can move to an area where the public schools are excellent, as the parents of many of these students have done. These students are graduating from Weston High School in one of Boston’s wealthier suburbs. Their parents pay taxes instead of tuition and they certainly get better value for their money than do the parents in Hyde Park. That is partly because they have kept a good deal of control over the local schools, and in the process, they have managed to retain many of the virtues of the one-room schoolhouse.
Max Brantley noted on the Arkansas Times Blog on Thursday, Decemer 16th that “the Milwaukee school voucher program is cheaper than the cost of regular Milwaukee public schools.” This kind of evidence also encouraged the proposals concerning voucher programs throughout the country. However, Brantley is a very sharp critic of both the charter and voucher schools through out the country. Therefore, I want to start a series of articles looking at what the liberals in Arkansas have to say about these schools, and then I will take a look at the evidence out in the real world.
Today I wanted to share an article and video concerning what President Obama did to kill the successful Washington D.C. voucher school program.
“Obama’s Compromise on D.C.’s School Vouchers Program,” (Washington Post, May 10, 2009) was written by Andrew J. Coulson who is the Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. Below is that article:
President Obama’s decision isn’t much of a compromise. NEA President Dennis Van Roekel wrote to congressional Democrats demanding that they kill the D.C. voucher program, and they complied. Obama has merely tried to alter the manner of destruction — choosing attrition over summary execution.
During the campaign, Obama said that if vouchers worked he would support them. The Education Department recently revealed that students who joined the voucher program in 2004 are now more than two school years ahead of their public school peers in reading.
In his initial budget, Obama declared that when it comes to education, we cannot waste dollars on programs that are inefficient. Average tuition at the voucher schools is $6,620, while the District is spending $26,555 per pupil this year on K-12 education.
So contrary to his promises, the president has sacrificed a program he knows to be efficient and successful in order to appease the public school employee unions. If he will do this for the NEA, he will do anything.
America finally has an “education president,” and his name is Dennis Van Roekel (current President of the 3.2 million-member National Education Association).
We are at a crossroads in America’s history where those who believe in heart, not in lip service, that we are still “One Nation Under God” must rise to the occasion and not idly stand by and let America be dismantled one decision at a time. It is not so much a matter of party or person as it is a matter of principle and purpose. People and party affiliations have a tendency to be bartered away, but principles of value will withstand the test in the moment of decision and the end result will reflect that philosophy.
This is why I am asking you to vote for me to represent you in the Arkansas House of Representatives, District 28. I may not vote every way you want me to, but it’s not about you and me. It’s bigger than that. It’s about taking one issue at a time, weighing it out against how a decision will affect Arkansas and America emotionally, spiritually, and physically-one vote at a time.
The Daily Hatch 