Teachers and Parents Should Run Their Own Schools

Government officials actually had a decent idea in Lansing. Instead of working on raising taxes, letting go dangerous prisoners, or outlawing behaviors they don't like, some senators actually got to work trying to improve a real problem in our state- education. Senators in Michigan introduced a plan today to allow teachers and parents to convert their local schools into independently run schools with more flexible rules.

These new 'neighborhood schools' would still have to comply with strict state standards and would have to be sponsored by a mayor, city, county or township, although they could not be affiliated with a church or religious organization in any way, because apparently that would be bad.

Neighborhood schools could hire non-state certified teachers (like lawyers, businessmen, or doctors) and could offer merit pay to their teachers (like raising MME scores or having a slew of 5's on an AP test). The schools would be funded in the same way current charter schools are funded, with an annual state grant that’s based on enrollment.

As I understand it, these schools would be governed locally and would cut out the many layers of middle-management that make schools so inefficient, and could employ any other innovative practices that they think would help their students out.

This is a good idea- but it won't go anywhere. Other Senators are working on another plan for school improvement that will involve dumping more money into the system and put in place more restrictions on the free-market and parents, and this is a bad plan, and that system is closer to being passed than the 'neighborhood schools' idea.

The good plan is sponsored by Republicans, the bad plan by Democrats. Vote appropriately in future elections.

UPDATE: Some people have emailed me and accused me of selling out to the teachers union with this one- they want to know how this squares away with my usually free-market bent. Well, these types of schools create yet more competition, and they will be run by local companies (composed of teachers and parents), so as I see it, this is a very free-market based approach to education.

UPDATE II: Okay, did a little bit more research on this idea, and I like it more and more. Turns out there is a book out on this very premise: Can Teachers Own Their Own Schools- New Strategies for Educational Excellence, By Richard K. Vedder. Here is a review of it online:

Vedder presents a bold plan in which teachers, administrators and others involved in the educational process would become the owners of schools, acquiring an attractive financial stake in the process. Such privatization reforms could empower those directly involved and affected by school performance and end interest group barriers, paving the way for new, cost-effective means of improving educational outcomes. As a result, schools in which teachers, administrators, and parents have a significant financial stake would foster vibrant school communities with increased parental involvement and the innovation and efficiency essential to produce educational excellence.

Look, there is no way teachers would ever go for any sort of privatization scheme- to them, this is code for job layoffs and lower pay. I don't agree with that mentality- I think privatization can be a useful means of protecting jobs and even increasing teachers pay- but that is the way it is. The key is to put in place free-market schemes that are teacher-friendly.

Selling teachers on competition and privatization by letting them run their own schools and have an ownership stake in them is a great idea. This is not like GM or Chrysler where we are giving unions an ownership stake in a private company to encourage them to work harder and be more efficient- this is giving unions an ownership stake in a government-run enterprise to make them work harder and be more efficient. And that is a great idea.