We count healthcare costs twice
in policy discussions, once when talking about per capita health care costs and
again when talking about any costs of government which have an employee health
care component. A prime example is education funding: in calculations of per
pupil spending there is a substantial component of healthcare costs for education
workers and their dependents. By double dipping, and counting these costs once
on the health care ledger, and again on the education ledger, we are inflating
the costs of government and distorting the policy discussion.
This distortion plays into the
radical right's push to "shrink government until it can be drown in the
bathtub." If we debate public
policy on the basis of funny numbers, if we don't even acknowledge how the
books have been cooked, we are not going to have decent outcomes.
How can we compare ourselves to
countries like Finland, which pays for universal healthcare from a healthcare
budget and universal education from an education budget? Of course their per-pupil spending is going
to be lower! They don't use revenue
raised for the purpose of educating children to pay for private health
insurance for education workers and their dependents. They don't use schools as a mechanism for
keeping employees and their families healthy.
That makes so much sense.
As Pasi Sahlberg explains, you
can't understand Finnish education outside of the context of their wraparound
social democracy. And a corollary must
be that you can't understand American education and its successes and failures
without taking into account our context. This includes the growing momentum of the
neo-liberal program which is systematically dismantling government and
consigning public good to the for-profit sector.
There is another subtler
distortion. When you have a childhood
poverty level approaching 25% (which no other advanced nation tolerates) the
effectiveness of every dollar spent on education is diminished. When children arrive at school suffering
health, food, transportation, or housing insecurity, or when they arrive from
families stressed by the threat of those things, they are not going to be as
ready and able to learn. Families under
economic stress lack the capacity to effectively support children as learners.
A nation which heaps the
inefficiencies of its own injustice onto its education system is going to have
to pay a lot more for any type of educational outcome. It doesn't mean that education has failed,
just that we are asking unreasonable things.
You have to use the right tool on the right job. You don't plow fields with a family
sedan. You don't cut boards with a
hammer. Yes, we need great public
schools. But we also need to provide
those schools with comprehensive institutional supports so that children arrive
ready to learn.
That would require acceptance of
a concept of public good. It would
require us to accept that the health, education, transportation, nutrition and
housing of individuals in our society is not just a matter of private interest
to them, but also a matter of great public interest, because societal failure
is the sum of vast numbers of personal tragedies. JFK put it in positive terms: "A rising
sea lifts all boats."
Just want to say your article is striking. The clearness in your post is simply spectacular and i can take for granted you are an expert on this field. Well with your permission
ReplyDeletehealth and physical education