Representative responds to constituent concerns …

A Spectrum, by Rep. Vic Kohring

Sarah Welton wrote a piece printed in the Frontiersman last week criticizing me. She dissed my ideas on cutting the government bureaucracy and particularly on bringing competition to public [government] schools. Her ideas were cutting edge for liberal thinking of the 1950s. But we've since moved on. Each and every one of her notions has been carefully dissected by free-market economists and educators and found to be wrong. For example:

(1) She wrote "cutting funds for social services shows greed…" She doesn't say how or by whom, but instead leaves the statement hanging there so anyone she wants is automatically guilty of being "greedy."

Suggesting people earn their own way is not greedy. It's noble. Desiring a society that creates private charity to help the needy is noble. Demanding taxation for government social programs isn't.

(2) Ms. Welton stated I'm not thinking clearly about the consequences of vouchers for private schools. I question the clarity of her thought when you consider the fact that government programs, including public schools, are paid for by people's taxes who's homes are seized if they can't pay, where students are ordered to attend by compulsory attendance laws and where the NEA Union is the real boss.

(3) She wrote that "taking funds out of public education to create more private education creates a 'we and they' society." This is another liberal myth perpetuated since the 1940s without one shred of evidence. Of course private schools have acceptance criteria. That's why they work so well. But they don't try to be everything to everybody. Instead they say, "We specialize in foreign languages. We don't teach students to feel good or criticize Western Culture, U.S. history or creationism. We teach languages, period." They operate with money from willing students who get what they pay for. It has nothing to do with "separation" as Ms. Welton states, or race or religion or wealth. It has to do with competence and quality, which is the result of competition.

Or -- and this point gets to the heart of the matter -- private schools teach very smart, blind or other special needs students to excel. There are specialty schools for each of these categories. Harvard for the brainy. The Hadley School for the Blind for blind people. And so on. And regular schools for average children. Each private school sets its own criteria for admission. Each has to compete for students and thus tends to do a better job than public schools because of the incentive competition fosters.

(4) Ms. Welton said "Private school education is an option for those who want it for their children….This is freedom of choice in education." Sounds good. But then ask her if you can kindly pay for your child to go to the local Baptist or secular private school, but not pay the taxes that fund public schools at the same time. Then see what happens to your alleged "freedom of choice." The market notion of getting exactly what you pay for and when you want it, does not apply to Ms. Welton's theory. Her concept of having the freedom to choose applies only after parents have paid their taxes to the government.

Do the simple math. Public schools would perform better if they had to compete for students and parents' money. Since they don't compete, they aren't able to perform to their maximum potential.

I believe education is too important to leave entirely in the hands of government. I see this simply from my own personal observations. It's reinforced in Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose," or "Education" by Thomas Sowell. I've never sought to hurt public schools, but rather improve them by encouraging competition. True freedom requires that people be allowed to place their tax dollars where they wish to, not where Sarah Welton and the union demand. Under this scenario, the many good teachers and students would ultimately be better off.

If we want an educational system we can really be proud of, teachers with the means to excel and modernize, and students who can conjugate verbs and know what present tense is, then we must have a market place of autonomous individuals who voluntarily decide where they wish to spend their education dollars. Our students and teachers deserve the dignity that freedom provides.

If we don't move forward into a free market system, we are condemned to many more years of the 1950s liberal mindset that somehow an education monopoly is a good thing.

Vic Kohring is a Republican who represents Wasilla and Peters Creek.