USA Today columnist Hemal Jhaveri began the call with an article calling for the ban because ORU follows “an archaic religion” and that “the university’s deeply bigoted anti-LGBTQ+ policies can’t and shouldn’t be ignored.” Jhaveri then calls for any university with such language to be banned from all NCAA activities. Jhaveri didn’t call out #1 seeded Baylor for having similar language or Creighton, Gonzaga, or Loyola Chicago for being Catholic institutions which do not support LGBTQ+ policies either. Just ORU so why? I’ll circle back to it.

ORU’s student handbooks specifically ban homosexual behavior in 2 locations. It also bans alcohol, drugs, gambling, dancing, skateboards, roller skates and water balloons. ORU never had a football team because Dr. Roberts found it to bring unsavory elements on campus. As a former Tulsan and having known people who were in Oral Roberts’ inner circle, this may be shocking to you but it isn’t a surprise to any of us. Dr. Roberts’ brand of Christianity was very fundamentalist. His ministry carried over into much of Tulsa’s political and social life during the 1970’s and 1980’s. I can tell you it had an impact on economic development. Tulsa lost many oil and gas company headquarters to Houston and Dallas during this time and they cited a lack of ability to attract talent as one of the reasons to leave. When the first ministry scandal occurred in the 1980’s, it broke the spell of the ministry’s hold on the city. The city council was reformed, economic development wasn’t subject to a moral veto and Tulsan’s began to plan for a future without Dr. Roberts. The Roberts family’s continued malfeasance with ORU funds in the subsequent years hasn’t been much of a surprise to many Tulsans.

So, why pick on ORU and make them the example? For one, their conservative philosophy and prior scandals make them an easy target. Second, they are small. The school’s enrollment has always been between 3,000 and 6,000 students at any particular time. This means the institution carries outsized influence within the NCAA.The NCAA rules are promulgated with every member having equal weight. The Ohio State with an enrollment of nearly 70,000 has just as much say on the rules of the tournament as ORU with 4,100. While the larger members certainly decide what rules are voted on, the votes themselves require many of the smaller schools to agree with them since they can, and do, out vote them. The third is likely more likely. It’s the attention the school gets from upset wins in the tournament. People learn the school exists and may see a university founded by a Native American and actively pursues students from impoverished communities as being diverse and tolerant. The media wants to dispel that belief as quickly as possible and serve as a reminder to other people of color that the “new” tolerance is the only tolerance for them.

What is a surprise is to what lengths the “new” tolerance is intolerant of any policy or institution that doesn’t kowtow to it. For example, a recent bill passed the House called the Equality Act. The Bill’s synopsis:

This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.

The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services.

The bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.

While this all sounds well and good, there is no exclusion for religious facilities or institutions. By holding assemblies and gatherings, every church and religious facility will be determined to be a public accommodation and subject to the bill’s ban on discrimination. Remember the LGBTQ+ event last year where Elizabeth Warren and a number of other Democratic presidential candidates promised to punish churches for not being on the LGBTQ+ bandwagon? Well, here’s the effort to do so under the guise of making it so the trans community can use a bathroom.

This is a bona-fide case to eliminate the First Amendment prohibition on the establishment of a government religion. Religion being that all churches in the United States answer to the Government, not a higher power. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious buildings will be required to follow government rules and implement the government’s priorities. It reminds me of Cromwell’s confiscation of churches in the 1649 or the dissolution of churches during the French Revolution.Cromwell may be more apt as religious activity was allowed as long as it was the Government’s version (Protestant) and ministers were government approved. This was specifically what our Founders sought to avoid when they banned a government church.

If you have never called your senator or written them a letter, now is the time.The Equality Act is one of the bills being cited as a reason to remove the filibuster and make the Senate operate just like the House. The Equality Act will actually take us to the brink rather than promote harmony. What observant Catholic wants any President to dictate who can receive communion? Why should an Orthodox synagogue be forced to house those who are not Jewish? Why should a conservative masque be forced to have co-ed services? Religious bodies have always been held in separate regard in our society as being able to deem who is fit or unfit to use their facilities. The closely held beliefs of deeply religious people should be allowed in church, where they are most dear to them. It is wrong and cruel to force beliefs on others and call it “Equality.” There is a competing bill called the Fairness For All Act and is supported by many church leaders of all different faiths. I would encourage you all to contact your senator and have them support this legislation rather than an “Equality” bill that is creates more inequality than ever before.

The post The New Tolerance appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

Social media has fractured every aspect of our lives, both socially and politically. People are more confused and polarized than ever. What’s it like to grow up in a fractured, polarized, and confused world? In our interview, Larry spoke about these, and other ideas.

Why This Matters to Larry

Larry’s generation grew up in classrooms and on playgrounds. The children and adults in his life were mostly constant, with a few people moving in and out from time to time, but his world felt reasonably static and stable. Finding love, respect, and purpose in a static community was already difficult before the Millennium, but today things have changed in deep, and apparently permanent, ways.

The root of happiness is respect, love, and purpose, and you find those things in your community.

Larry Sharpe

People’s social lives change so rapidly today that the traditional sense of community has been shattered. We change jobs more often, our workplace stretches across continents and cultures, and we are more likely to move thousands of miles away from where we grew up. What happened?

The Rise of Big Tech

Social media happened. The Internet and the Information Age have revolutionized our personal networks. The unintended consequences of making it easier to connect has completely changed the paradigm of personal relationships. On the one hand, it has opened up the whole world to us, on the other, the vast access to people and information has become a flood of chaos.

I asked Larry how kids can even survive, let alone be happy and find their way in such a complicated world. His response was illuminating:

My daughter was watching PewDiePie, and I asked ‘why are you watching this’, and she said ‘because I feel like I’m with him.’

Larry Sharpe

PewDiePie is one of the most popular personalities on the Internet today, and he is popular because he gives kids today a sense of community. The root of happiness is respect, love, and purpose, and if you find those three things you’re quite likely to be happy. But once you have them you have to maintain them. It’s like what the Red Queen said in Through the Looking Glass (Lewis Carroll). You have to run as fast as you can just to say in one place.

Personalities online, streaming services, and online gaming platforms give the participants a sense of community, but only as long as they deepen and strengthen their relationships with the individual. People are forging their own unique personal identities out of the fractured pieces to today’s social landscape.

Watch the interview with Larry Sharpe to learn more.

The post Fractured Communities and the Path to Happiness appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

Small Business Ownership

Larry said that there is a systemic lack of ownership that’s noticeable in lower-income, Black and Brown communities and among immigrants. Business-minded people come to the United States with a high level of enthusiasm, and visions of a better life than the one they left. People everywhere imagine owning their homes and starting businesses. Yet, our system of governance puts major obstacles in the way of their success.

Here in New York, they are faced with a wall of regulations and occupational licenses for everything you can imagine, from braiding hair at a whopping $20,000 required spend on education and other prerequisites, to its crackdown on unlicensed dog-walkers. Seriously?

How is a person expected to respond to such entrepreneurial spirit-killing over-regulation? Unsurprisingly, Larry says that with limited choices, these impoverished people begin looking at high-risk activities and crime. Those people who turn to crime will prey on their neighbors, where these crimes often go unreported, particularly in immigrant communities where undocumented people fear deportation, or where previously incarcerated individuals don’t want to increase their own risk of recidivism. According to Larry, this endless cycle continues, increasing incentives for human trafficking, the illegal drug trade, protection rackets, and sweatshops.

Larry believes that one approach to reducing poverty in these communities is by creating incentives for business ownership. For example, licensing requirements can be replaced with non-compulsory credentials. A hair-braider can just braid hair if they want to, without a license, or they may take the courses necessary to qualify for credentials in which some people may find value. This is especially true for low-risk jobs that do not involve dangerous activities. In this regard, a hair braider or dog-walker may get to work right away to earn an honest living, and they may also choose to get credentialed after they have the necessary funds in hand. As a result, consumers have more choices and can make rational decisions. They may choose the lower-priced, non-credentialed dog-walker, or they may choose to pay more to the dog walker who took a 12-hour class on animal care.

Home Ownership, and Poverty

According to Larry, wealthy, and often middle-class people are able to give their children an edge with the savings they accumulate through homeownership, but impoverished people have no corresponding equity. This leaves their children in a cycle of dependence and poverty, where money spent is money lost, as is the case with rent,  and a community that encourages the use of government programs that are funded by taxpayers.

Larry wants to see these communities thrive. People from every background are eager for homeownership, business ownership, and self-ownership. Yet because of barriers to ownership, people stay on welfare and stay poor.

Larry believes that public housing should have a path to ownership, too. Renting housing to low-income families is a bandaid, even when rental costs are low. Instead, Larry believes that we should give people the chance to purchase their public housing units. Instead of throwing away money on rent every month, people can invest in their property. In addition, when people own their property, they take better care of it. This is a win for society, and for the new homeowner. London already has a similar model for homeownership, where low-income families can have shared ownership in property, without investing the full market rate.

Fixing Families and Prison Reform

Larry Sharpe applies this concept to the idea of taking ownership of your life. This is most apparent in Brown and Black populations, where men are incarcerated at a considerably high rate. These people–predominantly men get convicted for nonviolent crimes like drug-related offenses, resulting in fatherless homes. The other people in these populations who actually have productive lives are incentivized to work for the government, where their lives aren’t self-owned, either.

Larry believes that we can do a lot of good by eliminating the fear among potential employers when it comes to hiring less-skilled, minority, and immigrant employees. Presently, employers may be targeted by the government if they fail at complying with any number of regulations, and so they hire the “safer” employees.

Want to know more? Watch the video, below:

The post How to Decrease Poverty in America appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

New York state’s centralized education policies are expensive, mandatory, . . . and not working.

by Dan Smith

Every year, Albany grabs more power over New York’s pre K-12 schools. Every year, costs go up. Every year, student performance remains stagnate or declines.

Why must it be this way?

New York State’s Education Department (NYS ED) gets many things backwards. Instead of empowering teachers, they box them in with more rules and more testing. Instead of decreasing the state education budget to match New York’s declining population, they increase their spending every year.

The facts are clear. According to the US Census Bureau, New York state spends more per pupil than any other state on K-12 public education—more than $21,200 per pupil.  We have 12.7 students per teacher (which is eighth best in the country); and we’re paying our teachers most, at an average salary of $79,200. Yet, despite these high costs and small class sizes, New Yorkers are getting a poor value. US News & World Report/McKinsey consultants say New York’s K-12 education ranked 33rd in both math and reading, 31st overall.

Money Wasted, Children and Taxpayers Suffer

The problems stem from Albany’s ever-growing centralized control, which requires too much testing and enforces too many silly, one-size-fits-all rules through unfunded mandates which give Albany unchecked power and an unlimited checkbook. That’s because all of the costs and obligations get pushed onto local school districts.

Costs go up and innovation is destroyed.

Our teachers are highly educated (including degrees in education and Master’s degrees) and trained. We’re paying our great teachers the most in the nation. So why not set these talented professionals free to address their classrooms’ unique needs?

The waste is seen most clearly in the amount of testing Albany requires, despite the lack of evidence that such testing improves students’ learning, much less prepares them for work and life.

The NYS ED requires seemingly endless testing of children in grades 3 – 8 and requires the Regents exams for high school students. This contradicts studies cited by education experts and President Obama himself that students are vastly over-tested and studies and experts which conclude that such testing doesn’t measure educational quality.

The NYS ED require the controversial Common Core education standards, despite New York parents leading the national charge to opt-out of its rigorous testing program. NYS ED tweaked its program slightly, but largely ignored the pleas of several hundred thousand New York parents, and kept the tests and Common Core program rolling along.

New York’s huge volume of testing yet low performance should clearly demonstrate that there’s a real problem. But nothing ever changes.

Perhaps the worst feature of centralized school control in Albany is unfunded mandates—expensive rules which Albany requires of local schools, but for which no funding is provided from the state budget. Unfunded mandates’ power creates all kinds of perverse incentives—Albany pays no price for the rules they require local schools to fulfill.

One school district compiled a list of the many dozens of unfunded requirements—the list is astounding.

With loads of rules and unfunded mandates, the amount of administrative spending at schools has grown dramatically. This answers a mystery which has confounded people for decades: if school spending has risen so sharply, why have class sizes not come way down and/or teacher pay risen sharply? It’s because the money doesn’t make it to the classroom–centralized rulemaking increases the need for overhead in the form of administrators who push around paper.

Worse, the spending always goes up, despite our population going down. The budget for the NYS ED is $35.7 billion in 2018—its sixth straight year of increases, despite seven years in a row of New York state losing about 100,000 people per year.

Time to Send Albany Home from School

We’ve all heard countless proposals to fix the existing education system. But you can’t fix the system when having the system IS the problem.

The best way to stop the madness is by eliminating the centralized rulemaking.

We need much more (if not all) control at the local level. Local school boards can address local needs—something Albany cannot possibly do. Local school boards can look try new things and pass the best ideas on to other districts, while quickly abandoning bad ideas—something which Albany has proven it cannot do, either. Better yet, each teacher can adapt their plans to fit the children in his or her classroom. After all, who knows the children better than a teacher working with that child and his or her parents?

Decentralization allows parents to have a greater voice in their children’s education and allows taxpayers to better hold local officials accountable. Local school boards will no longer be able to hide behind the excuse of a draconian Albany rules. If local schools are performing poorly, parents will vote with their feet, as well, sending a signal to local government that they need to change or get voted out.

When you pin down teachers and administrators, they express extreme frustration with the divergence between what they know they should be doing and what Albany requires them to do. They’re frustrated, which has led to teacher shortages. Several high school guidance counselors recently admitted to me that they were certain that New York’s Regents exams were an utter waste of time and money. When I asked why they still exist, they shrugged and said it’s always been this way—that you can’t change Albany.

But we can change Albany:

• We can elect state officials who put more control back to the local level.
• We can eliminate unfunded mandates—and require Albany to fund all of its rules and requirements themselves, thereby incentivizing fewer rules.
• We can foster innovation in teaching and encourage sharing of ideas of what works and what doesn’t—and allow those changes to be implemented.

The best way to make Albany more effective is to reduce the number of things it’s doing poorly. Mismanaging education has got to be near the top of that list.

The post Albany Should Be Suspended From Schools appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

Some legislators in Albany think so.

I recently learned of Bill A10428 which would ban archery, rifle and all other shooting sports from New York public schools statewide. Assemblywoman Rosenthall (D-Manhattan) believes this will make children safer by never teaching them anything about shooting sports and will reduce school violence. This is horrible policy and this bill should be tabled immediately.

People fear what they do not know. If children are never introduced to shooting sports such as archery or trap shooting, they will instinctively fear bows, arrows, guns and bullets. All existing school curriculums focus on teaching respect for these things and how to use them properly such as “Never point a weapon at a person.” Isn’t this something that should be taught in schools? Banning this educational moment from PE classes is a missed opportunity. Shooting sports also provide a way for children to see mathematics and physics in action. An arrow shot into the air is going to land somewhere. Kids’ can use math to figure this out and dispel the notion that they always hit their intended target. We need to find ways for children to see why math and science are so important to everyday lives. This bill takes yet another avenue away from educators trying to reach students.

The biggest reason of all to table this bill is it is yet another mandate from Albany telling local schools and communities what they cannot teach. If NYC public schools don’t want to teach children shooting sports or have competitive teams, that’s fine. I will not force them to. However, some Upstate districts do and have competitive teams at the middle school and high school level. This legislation takes away their opportunity to compete. Lower income students may not have other ways to participate in sports outside of school so these competitions provide another outlet for them. Shooting sports such as archery and air rifle are Olympic events and some colleges even offer scholarships in these sports. Mandating a ban from Manhattan and Albany will deprive kids of the opportunity to improve their skills, learn teamwork and possibly a route to a collegiate scholarship and the Olympics.

New York State needs to provide students with more opportunities, not less. Students need the opportunity to learn, hands on, that bows and guns must be properly handled and treated with respect. Let’s let local communities and school districts decide how students learn best, not yet another bad decision made in Albany. Bill A10428 asserts a false truth that not teaching children about bows and guns in school means they won’t be able to use them. It actually ensures that mass media, video games and YouTube videos will. Who do you want your children learning from?

Like what you see here and want to support the campaign?

Donate

The post Should we ban shooting sports in schools? appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

The Excelsior Scholarship is the state-wide program Governor Cuomo recently established, which offers families who earn up to $125,000 per year free tuition for any CUNY or SUNY two- or four-year program. To be eligible, a student must take 30 credits per year, and then stay in New York state after graduation for as many years as he or she took advantage of the program. The scholarship converts into a student loan if the student fails a class or moves out of New York before the required in-state residency time is up. The scholarship is only for tuition, so it does not cover the cost of books, housing, fees, etc. This program is a bad idea for a number of reasons.

Bribing Students Increases Corruption

As Larry Sharpe explained in an interview on Live It Up with Donna Drake, Cuomo is essentially bribing people to stay in New York after graduation. Indeed, Governor Cuomo himself said the concept of the program “is that you’re going to stay here and be an asset to the state,” but if “you don’t stay here, then go to California and let them pay for your college education.” Cuomo looks at students as sources of tax revenue he needs to bribe into staying in state, not as individual humans with their own dreams and aspirations and families to feed.

The Excelsior Scholarship will trap people in state even if they can’t find a job after graduating. And it will also force people who are offered a great opportunity out of state into either foregoing the opportunity or being suddenly saddled with an incredible amount of debt they didn’t expect to have to pay back when they signed up—all so Cuomo can use them for their tax dollars. Worse, Excelsior incentivizes graduates to lie about living in New York on paper to avoid the pitfalls that are built into the system, adding yet another layer of corruption to a government program.

Free Bad College is Still Bad College

As Larry has said, free bad college is still bad college, if nothing is being done to address quality. The offer of free tuition will increase class sizes, which almost always decreases quality. Spending money to give individuals a poor education that does not prepare them to enter the workforce is a waste of taxpayer money.

Schools need to have skin in the game in order to have incentive to do better. By innovating and building better educational programs, universities can court students and earn the tuition dollars that students choose to spend. Giving colleges a guaranteed income in the form of millions of taxpayer dollars only rewards underperforming schools and makes them complacent. Just like in life, money doesn’t solve all problems. Yes, schools need funds to operate, but throwing money at the problem is never a good solution.

Target Students Aren’t Reaping the Benefits

On the surface, it seems like the Excelsior program benefits the poorest students who would otherwise be unable to attend school. But the scholarship doesn’t really help the people it’s claiming to. It might be a good deal for the middle- and upper middle-class students who can afford the other costs needed for school without also working a lot, but it doesn’t benefit the lower-class students who still need to work full-time (or close to) to afford housing, books, and other fees. Moreover, if a busy poor student juggling work and school slips and gets an F, the student must pay back the scholarship as a loan.

Known as the “last dollar program,” the scholarship only applies after Pell grants and other financial aid options have been exhausted. Most students who qualify for those other programs need the money for books, housing, and other expenses. But because Excelsior only applies after those other grants, the poorest students get the least amount of money.

We see this in other states that offer free 2-year community college. In Oregon, middle-class students are receiving most of the money— about 60% of the total Oregon Promise budget— because they’re ineligible for Pell grants and financial aid. So oftentimes, students who could afford tuition on their own get free college at the taxpayers’ expense. This defeats the purpose of the program—middle- and upper-class students can already go to college regardless of whether it is “free,” and the economically disadvantaged students aren’t getting the help these programs claim to provide.

Excelsior Economics Belie the “Free” Claim

We all know that “free” college isn’t really free. The taxpayers foot the bill, and since we can’t expect current state leaders to cut spending elsewhere, tax increases are inevitable. Not only that, but these free college promises that are being pushed throughout the nation are far from economically sound.

NPR asked 22 economists about Bernie Sanders’ free-college-for-all proposal, and 20 of the 22 called it a bad idea because it is wasteful to spend money on students who can already afford tuition. Sanders’ plan is a bit different than the Excelsior Scholarship, but similarly, the benefits go to people who aren’t truly in need of the funds.

Let’s look at basic economics: if a service is free, the demand for it goes up; when demand goes up, the cost increases. This means that free college programs are creating more demand for higher education, which is driving up the cots of tuition and fees. So those who don’t qualify for the program end up paying more. We already see this pattern of rising educational costs reflected in the enormous number of student loans.

In addition, offering free college also makes the education market imbalanced. It is incredibly difficult for private schools to compete with “free.” Once private schools start losing students, thus losing tuition payments, they will begin to disappear from the market, which hurts the diversity of education and lessens choices for future students. The wide range of different schools is extremely important in a state as diverse as New York.

Free College Devalues Degrees

If tuition is free, it will no doubt attract more students to apply for college. Morley Winograd, an advocate for free college programs like Excelsior, told NPR that these programs have the power to get more students to apply for college, regardless of whether the free college programs are able to deliver on their promises.

But flooding the college system will only devalue the college degree, like we see with high school diplomas. In his 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama said, “I want to spread that idea . . . that two years of college becomes as free and universal in America as high school is today.” We all agree that college should be more affordable, but devaluing the degree the same way free high school devalues the high school diploma won’t necessarily help graduates get into the workforce.

To learn more about innovation in New York education, check out this past blog post and Larry’s video here.

The post The Price of Free College: How Excelsior Pushes Education Costs Ever Upward appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.

First, we need to recognize what the problems are. Is it a lack of accessibility to schooling? No. Regardless of where a family resides, they are in a school district where they can access public education. The problem is access to quality education.

Is another problem affordability? No. Again, we all have access to “free” public education. But like Larry Sharpe said about free college— it is still free bad college. So yes, we can go to a free public school, but many of them are free bad public schools. Often the only good education available is private, which is currently too expensive for many families.

Another problem with our current system is that it is a one-size-fits-all curriculum. The state often forgets that students are individuals who learn best by using various methods and at differing paces. They do not consider individual aspirations for future careers. This is especially evident in state colleges and universities, who do not currently offer many programs that the workforce needs.

Perhaps most importantly, we keep throwing money at ineffective schools that underperform and do not allow students to thrive. They are being rewarded for doing a bad job. In a free market, if a business is not doing well for their customers, they shut down and the customers move to a more successful business. The same should happen with education. If a public school is not teaching students effectively, funding should cease until the school finds a better way, or until they shut down. The idea of rewarding a bad job also applies to inadequate teachers. For example, job privileges are given to teachers who have been employed longest, not to teachers who are better at their job.

So what solutions can we put forth to make these problems go away? Should we continue to fund, fund, and fund some more? Governor Cuomo seems to think more funding (which requires significant tax increases) will increase higher education accessibility and affordability. With the new Excelsior Scholarship program, families who earn up to $125,000 per year are eligible for free tuition for any CUNY or SUNY two- or four-year program. The student must take 30 credits per year, then stay in New York state after graduation for as many years as they were in the program. It is popular, but there are some major problems with this so-called solution.

As Larry said in a CBS “Live It Up with Donna Drake” interview, the state is basically bribing students to stay. That’s not a very honorable way to keep New Yorkers from moving out of state. Suppose a recent college graduate can only find a job in NYC, but can’t afford to live in the city and must find a place to live in New Jersey. Or suppose a recent grad can’t find a job in the state at all. Do we expect them to give up a job opportunity to stay in the state, or risk having their scholarship turn into a loan they can’t afford? What would most likely happen is a new layer of corruption: the grad would leave the state and use an in-state address  to keep from owing tuition.

Another major problem with the Excelsior Scholarship is that a student must take 30 credits each year. This is a full-time load, which is doable, but it is extremely difficult for students who need to work while enrolled in school. After all, the scholarship only covers tuition, so the student still needs to foot the bill for housing, books, food, and other necessities. Those who need to work are at a disadvantage and may not be able to keep up with 15 credits per semester.

The program does not cover costs for failed classes. If a student is overloaded and consequently fails a class, they owe tuition to the school. So as attractive as “free” college sounds, it creates more problems for those it claims to help.

The same can be said for the free 3-K plan Mayor Bill de Blasio has been endorsing in NYC. It will add more seats to already crowded classrooms and make it more difficult to add funding for more teachers. The city will need a projected $700 million from both the state and federal governments to fund this.  Not to mention it would give funding to public schools, daycare centers, and religious centers. Many of the same people who are against school choice vouchers because it directs funds to religious institutions are trying to push funds to religious institutions for 3-K students.

The simple solution to fixing our education system is to relinquish the stronghold of the state education department. It has already proven it cannot competently handle your money. A few years ago,$356 million for special education funding disappeared. Recently, another $84 million budgeted for disability programs can’t be accounted for. And of course, school construction and renovation projects almost always go over time and over budget. Simply put, the department does not efficiently keep schools up to quality standards.

Ideally, under a libertarian government, educational institutions would be a segment of the free-market which would allow good schools to succeed (based on competition and profit incentives) and bad schools to close. Prices would be set by market supply and demand laws so there would be different schools at different price points, and charitable free schooling for those in need (much like charitable hospitals). But until we get government out of the education business, there are still ways to immediately improve our current system.

To make access to high quality schooling easier for every family, the state must empower families by getting rid of mandatory location-based school districts. A zip code should not determine what kind of education a student receives. If a family lives in a low-income neighborhood, their government should not force them to attend poor quality schools.

In terms of affordability, we need to bring back the option of school choice to New York state. Upper class families already have school choice. They can afford to send their kids to any school in the state. Families with less means have no choice in our current system. They live in areas where schools are not thriving, but they cannot afford to send their children elsewhere.

Think of school choice vouchers like food stamps. Instead of having government-run grocery stores where everybody can get groceries for “free,” the state gives food vouchers to needy families to buy groceries at any market store they want. The same would be true for school choice vouchers. Instead of being forced into government-run schools, the state returns tax dollars to families in the form of a voucher the can spend at any school of their choosing. This would lead to many more options for more personalized education, which is incredibly important for a state as wonderfully diverse as New York.

Indeed, personalization of education would be much easier if we empowered families instead of a bureaucratic education department.  If there were fewer regulations and blanket curriculums in all sectors of education (public, private, charter, home school, etc.), there would be more options for different programs. Some could focus on agriculture, arts, or STEM. Others could focus on different methods of teaching (hands-on, teamwork or solo work, varied levels of reading, etc.). This should apply to higher education as well. Larry has said that colleges should be trying harder to figure out which skills are needed in the workforce and applying that to what programs they offer.

Education is too important for the people of New York state to put up with inadequate, bureaucratic institutions. Families and individuals need the power of choice and the freedom of opportunity back in their hands.

Check out Larry Sharpe on education reform here: https://staging1.larrysharpe.com/issues.

The post Innovation and Change in Education appeared first on Larry Sharpe, Libertarian.