Introduction
The idea of running a school base on the choices made by school districts is not new. In his research on the effects that the principle of voucher system has had on the U.S. schools, Friedman identifies low diversity rates and the resulting impossibility for schools to meet the needs of the students as a result of the policy promoting government intervention into the school curriculum, standards, and strategies.
Though Friedman seems to overlook some of the beneficial aspects of government supervision of schools, he still has a valid point by claiming that the introduction of general policies for schools to comply with leads to the lack of flexibility and, therefore, the impossibility to adjust to the needs of students with different ethnic, cultural and social backgrounds.
Friedman’s Argument in a Nutshell
According to the existing evidence, specifically, the argument that Friedman provides, the key issue that modern schools have to deal with, the lack of diversity should be the top priority at the today’s agenda of the American education.
Consequently, Friedman makes I quite clear that the lack of diversity cannot be possibly addressed once the restrictions of nationalized institution are imposed on its members, particularly, educators: “Our problem today is not to enforce conformity; it is rather that we are threatened with an excess of conformity” (Friedman 97).
Once the schools’ decisions and policies are regulated by school districts, and once the school authorities become highly dependent on the choices that are made by the people that are quite detached from the processes occurring at schools, the premises for maintaining even higher conformity levels are created.
The fact that distanced regulation of schools leads to the inevitable reduction of diversity rates among the students, as well as the impossibility to create the environment for satisfying the individual needs of students with different backgrounds, therefore, makes it obvious that local regulation of schools and other education establishments must be allowed.
The Few Benefits of State Intervention
While the state government intervention has a negative influence on the education in general and the public school’s environment in particular, one must admit that certain positive effects can be observed with the reinforcement of the governmental supervision of schools (Chafe 104).
To a certain degree, the power of the state authorities may improve the current landscape of public schools; specifically, the standards for a more appropriate set of principles for interpersonal relationships among the students, as well as between the students and the teachers, must be mentioned.
The famous Brown procedure, which incorporated the principles of equality and civil rights, allowed for promoting desegregation procedure in the U.S. schools, therefore, contributing to the introduction of equity principles in the public school’s environment. Regardless of the lack of a direct impact on the relationships within the U.S. schools, the act “may still have been tremendously important because of its indirect effects” (Klarman 85).
The Final Decision: Enhancing School Autonomy
In light of the aforementioned facts, the importance of school autonomy and its independence from the state government is obvious. Though the latter may inflict certain positive consequences on the stakeholders in question (i.e., teachers, students, and the latter’s parents), the ensuing negative effects are far too strong to neglect them.
The unavoidable reduction in the school diversity rates is bound to set off the chain reaction of discrimination based on the grounds of race, ethnicity, family background, sexual orientation, social status, etc., and launch a backlash against the minorities that attend public schools.
Still, the significance of the court decision passed for the Brown v. Board of Education case cannot be denied; therefore, the state government should not be banned completely from affecting the organizational behavior principles adopted in the U.S. schools, as well as the structural specifics of the latter. Instead, it can be suggested that a delicate balance between the effects of the government authorities and the decisions made by the local school districts, should be maintained.
Hence, the idea of isolating the U.S. schools and the decisions taken by school authorities from the U.S. government and its influence does not seem acceptable.
Incorporating the democratic principles established by the state and the rules and regulations created by the school districts and the school board seems the most legitimate choice Naturally, conflicts may arise in the specified scenario; however, such conflicts should be solved on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the radical idea that Friedman articulates does not seem valid within the present-day U.S. educational environment.
Conclusion
The argument presented to confront the idea of the government taking additional measures in order to control schools and the issues related to U.S. education is, therefore, quite impressive.
One could argue that Friedman’s research lacks objectivity; however, the negative effects of state supervision of schools in terms of equity in. education institutions have been outlined in a rather impressive manner. Therefore, it can be assumed that Friedman makes a very reasonable argument about the necessity to restrict the influence of government on U.S. schools.
Works Cited
Chafe, William Henry. Civilities and Civil Rights: Greensboro, North Carolina, and the Black Struggle for Freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1981. Print.
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Print.
Klarman, Michael J. “How Brown Changed Race Relations: The Backlash Thesis.” The Journal of American History 81.1 (1994), 81–118.