An editorial in the school paper for the University of Texas at Arlington provides an interesting example of the types of conclusions that can result when one drops context. The editorial, which opposes school choice, argues that without education standards imposed by government officials, parents will be given the responsibility of holding schools accountable.
Without any kind of educational standards, the only thing that will keep schools accountable for academic standards would be the parents, and the only leverage that they have is the ability to pull their child from the school.
Apparently, the editorial staff doesn’t think that the ability of parents to change schools is sufficient for holding schools accountable. Apparently, they support the current system which gives parents virtually no leverage. Currently, students must attend the school to which government officials assign them.
The implication that freedom of choice degrades accountability drops context. We can easily hold accountable our grocer, our mechanic, our doctor, and nearly anyone else we do business with. If they desire our continued business, they must continue to satisfy our needs and desires. That isn’t the case regarding education.
The editorial goes on to argue:
Parents should not be responsible for fixing the issues within the education system; it is the responsibility of politicians to provide their constituents with good, safe schools.
We aren’t told why politicians have a responsibility to provide good, safe schools. More importantly, the editorial drops context when it ignores the fact that politicians have been in control of government schools for more than 150 years. In other words, the same legislative bodies that created the current problems with the state’s education system are expected to remedy those problems.
Not surprisingly, the editorial tells us that the way to fix government schools is through more funding. This argument evades the fact that Washington, D.C. spends the second most per pupil, but ranks in the bottom five in terms of student achievement. Clearly, money is not the solution. However, such a conclusion is impossible if one drops context and looks only at isolated facts.
If we truly want to make the best decisions regarding education and school choice, then we must consider the full context. We must examine the pros and cons of each policy, as well as alternatives. To look only at the pros of one policy or the cons of another is intellectually dishonest. Dropping context is an attempt to pretend that certain facts do not exist. Such pretension is doomed to failure.