9 Alyssa Luebbering – Fortress vs Frontier:  The Parallels of financing religion and financing schools

Alyssa Luebbering is a senior from Jefferson City, Missouri.  In this work, Alyssa immerses herself in the dynamic realm of economics while indulging in her passion for numbers. While finishing a major in mathematics and a minor in economics, Alyssa delves into the intricate interplay between markets, policies, and human behavior.    This work was prepared for Feler Bose’s numerous economics courses.  Professor Feler Bose notes, that her “writing tied in the academic literature very well.” Beyond her academic endeavors, Alyssa finds immense joy in the company of her three beloved dogs who fill her life with warmth and laughter. Her dedication to unraveling economic phenomena extends far beyond the classroom; she actively engages in research projects, demonstrating her commitment to making a meaningful impact on the world around her.

Fortress vs Frontier:  The Parallels of financing religion and financing schools

McConnell makes an argument for the disestablishment of government-funded education based on the results of the disestablishment of government-funded churches in America. The first part of McConnell’s argument is how the schools are serving the public. Similarly, in a government church, the church will only be able to support the beliefs and traditions of one group. With a monopolistic hold on schools, only one education option is open to the public. McConnell argues that this one school will create a curriculum that either serves one set of beliefs or create a curriculum that is watered down to not offend anyone. McConnell’s second argument is that an education system in a monopolistic market will be ineffective. The schools will not be able to provide a comprehensive worldview. As religious vitality and belief increased outside of a monopoly, McConnell believes that students would have a more coherent worldview if the education system was not monopolized by government education (McConnell, 2003).

Gatto, similar to McConnell, also believed the government interfered with the current educational system. In an “Underground History of American Education,” Gatto argues that the current forced educational system was created by the government to create obedient future workers. Part of his argument is that the current government school system restricts children from learning to become adults. He believes the answer is to have parents take more responsibility for their children’s education. One of Gatto’s arguments is that both teachers and students are bored with the curriculum being taught in schools. Disinterest keeps students from learning and growing. It is mentioned that success is currently closely linked to school and that those who do not graduate high school are believed to be less successful than those who do. Gatto believes options such as homeschooling or community schools will ultimately be better for students (Gatto, 2000).

Gatto’s views on the government’s influence on the educational system are like Iannaccone’s study of the disestablishment of government-funded churches. With the government providing funding for the church, they will also influence the content provided by the church to consumers. The government will influence the religious content provided by the church to be profitable to their own goals of funding and political status. Due to the government using these public churches to support their indoctrination, the range of opportunities available to consumers decreases. One church providing for a large variety of consumers will not be able to offer the opportunities of a competitive market. One church cannot offer the practice of a range of religions. Instead, one position will be chosen by the funder of the church, the government, who will use the opportunity for self-gain (Iannaccone, 1991).

Iannaccone and Bose have made some observations about the funding of religion. This includes the theory that a state-funded church will create a close relationship between the church and the government that will repress competition. In contrast, churches that are funded by consumers will need to rely on monetary gifts from consumers or membership fees. When churches are working to convert to attract more consumers they “will heavily subsidize the provision of goods and services, especially to newcomers” (Iannaconne & Bose, 2011). This is similar to how some schools will offer students scholarships to increase market share. Finally, they address the observation that having a more competitive market will lower costs for consumers (Iannaconne & Bose, 2011).

In the paper, “Religion Education Development”, the idea of the consequences of mass public schooling is discussed. The findings reflect the findings of Iannaconne and Bose. One event noted in the paper is how religious schools were not pushed out by public schools. Instead, religious schools were altered to focus more on religious teachings and religious content in their curriculum. They used this difference to compete with public schools. Many catholic churches create their own schools in order to avoid the more protestant ideals taught in public schools. The paper shows the preference for different types of education by the public (Bazzi et al., 2020).

Hood argues “A school cannot successfully impart the needed skills, knowledge, and perspective to its students,” due to modern government school’s focus on reputation. Hood believes that because of this focus on reputation, they only care about creating an environment where many students can reach average achievements. Public schools are not concerned with helping students excel and reach their full potential. Hood believes that since World War II, public school standards have been set low for students. Hood believes that the school system takes from individuality trying to apply a one size fits all curriculum. The low expectations of schools are met with the low performance of students. With more educational choices, students would be more successful due to more options (Hood, 1993).

Kipnis explains in his work some of the downfalls in the current educational system. Specifically, he considers the effects of the restraints of the lack of freedom of educational choice and the current public school system. Kipnis explains that the current public school system is a monopoly of education. Currently, there is no formal decision on what the public school system should be preparing children for. The current school system leaves most unsatisfied. One of the main problems with the current choice of private schools is that despite the education being cheaper, families must pay twice for it. Kipnis believes that having options such as vouchers and credits equivalent to what was going to the public school system would lead more families to choose different educational programs (Kipnis, 2020).

Homeschooling is one of the current popular alternatives to government-funded schools in the US. Kerry McDonald writes about the new homeschooling culture in America. What originally began primarily as an alternative education option for those whose religious beliefs did not align with the public school systems has expanded. Homeschooling now includes a far more diverse group of families. The new families choosing this education option are doing so for more personalized learning systems for their children. The states that have more freedom of educational choice have higher numbers of homeschoolers. McDonald believes that with the continuation of more education freedom of choice, families will further explore educational alternatives to replace the current publicly funded school systems (McDonald, 2019).

The modern and bipartisan revival of the homeschooling movement began in the 1970s. The uproar of the 1960s sparked widespread resistance against conventional culture from both the political right and left. The political, economic, and institutional regularity of Vietnam-era American society was subject to growing skepticism from both liberals and conservatives. In response, they came up with alternatives that, despite their notable ideological differences, displayed striking similarities as well (McDonald, 2017).

During the 1970s, homeschooling was prohibited in the majority of the United States. In the present day, homeschooling is legal in all states. The families who made the decision to homeschool were considered cultural radicals in various aspects. According to journalist Matthew Hennessey, homeschooling used to be perceived as an extreme, progressive choice for education. It was primarily associated with a limited group of devoted Iowa evangelicals and nonconformist Mendocino hippies (McDonald, 2017).

Finding alternatives is important as the failures of the public school system are being demonstrated. Blumenfeld considers how school was made compulsory to help stop illiteracy and delinquency in children. Unfortunately, since the laws were created, Blumenfeld writes that illiteracy and delinquency in children have increased. Therefore, having compulsory schools is not a solution to this problem. Blumenfeld believes that without compulsory laws, students will have the opportunity to learn more than they currently do in public schools. With the use of the internet and educational media, children can learn more at home than in a public school (Blumenfeld, 2000).

In Blumenfeld’s article, High School for Freedom, Blumenfeld argues homeschoolers are given an opportunity students in public school systems are not given. Homeschoolers are given the opportunity to plan for their future during the last four years of school. Whereas a public high school will prepare students for a college education, many homeschoolers use school to prepare for work-based opportunities as they do not plan to attend college. Homeschoolers are given the opportunity to explore different options and prepare for the careers they want. Blumenfeld argues that this flexibility makes adults better prepared for their future careers (Blumenfeld, 1995).

When public schools have a monopoly on education, it creates room for inefficiency in the educational system. Part of the issue is the lack of control the consumers, and the families, have over the system. With few to no options available, public schools are free to control what is taught and where the money goes. In the monopoly, the money for the schools comes from taxes or an outside source. The schools are going to give the most control over to whoever is paying them. Since the government controls the school’s income, the school may push for things such as smaller class sizes per teacher (Iannaccone, 1991).

The government offers this system protection. Until the churches began to separate from the state, they were in a similar situation. The consumers did not control the church’s funding. Due to this, the church did not need to supply what the consumers believed was worthwhile. The church received government funding and did not need to use its resources efficiently. Only needing to please the government for funding, the church could push for overspending on staff and resources with little concern (Iannaccone, 1991).

Without the government providing income and protection from competitors, many new options will begin to take place. When religion is a choice, churches can offer what the consumers want. They spend their funding efficiently to offer consumers the best option. Schools being funded and managed by the government protect education from competition. Without competition, schools must teach based on what the government chooses. If schools were no longer protected by the state, educators would work to provide consumers with beneficial skills. Educators would need to provide schools that would bring in consumers. They would need to provide an education that employers believe to be useful. This would attract consumers to spend their time and money attending (Iannaccone, 1991).

If the school were to get its money directly from the consumers, then the school would try to offer whatever they believe to be beneficial. At the same time, educators would try to keep the cost of attendance down. The schools would have to compete with other education options with cost versus the output of successful students. Without compulsory education, schools would be offering skills employers look for. Because they will be competing for attendance to remain profitable, they would be attempting to encourage students to stay to finish the curriculum. When schools are paid enough to remain open by the government regardless of their output, they do not have the motivation to retain students to the end of the curriculum or offer skills desired by future employers (Iannaccone, 1991).

Currently, some countries allow alternatives to public education. Options such as homeschooling and private schools hold the opportunity to offer a superior education. However, even with these alternatives the government still controls education. The private schools are still controlled by the government meaning they are not a true alternative. This means the countries that offer private schools as an option are still in the fortress. In many places, the state may try to control what private schools can teach, and homeschoolers are required to teach a similar curriculum to the local public school to be allowed this option. This shows that currently, even with a few alternatives, the government still controls education through alternative means. This leaves consumers without the choice of what skills they will spend their time learning. This leaves the country with a new generation of workers without the skills desired by employers.

High schools should equip students with the necessary skills and knowledge to thrive in the professional realm. Considering that numerous homeschoolers will take different paths in life, such as establishing their own businesses or services, it is evident that their ongoing learning and experience will continue to flourish as they progress in their pursuits. The homeschooler’s thirst for knowledge persists even after surpassing the age of compulsory school attendance. Curriculum should provide a wide range of courses in high school since it is a period where students can explore their genuine interests (Blumenfeld, 1995).

Public schools are rarely the only available choice to families. Often, there are private schools available at a cost to families. Though, in some cases, private schools are considered elite as they come at a high cost, this is not always the case. In many places, private schools are offered at a low cost to families. These private schools are generally for profit even if everyone is making low wages. However, despite the cost of attendance, families often prefer to send their children to private schools. This could be due to the dedication of the teachers who provide better education, the distance from their homes to their schools, or the familiarity of the teachers with the lives of their students. The teachers at the low-cost private schools are often local to the community they teach. This means that they have a connection and understanding of the students, and the students do not have to deal with the same biases they may have in a public school as they come from a poorer community (Tooley, 2022).