Is equal opportunity unamerican?

We like to pat ourselves on the back and say that we're the "land of opportunity." Even someone born in a log cabin can become president. Translation: We have no legal prohibition against a poor kid from the ghetto streets becoming president, or even just becoming rich.

Does that poor kid have an equal opportunity when compared with a child born into a wealthy family who can afford private schooling? Not even close.

I began to think about this a few weeks ago while writing about the schools of Finland. (See What does Finland know that we don't? and Finland: A bit more...). While writing these posts, Mitt Romney made a statement along the lines of "President Obama wants equal outcomes while I want equal opportunity." I began to think about whether Americans (both Republicans and Democrats) really want equality of opportunity.

Let's begin with education. In Finland, the world's model for an educational system that really works, there are no private schools. Every school, whether rural or urban has exactly the same resources. Any Finnish child who qualifies academically may attend college for free. Every student has an equal educational opportunity. Some will do better than others, but the starting line is the same for everyone rich or poor.

In America the educational starting line is different for rich and poor. It is impossible to argue that the child of wealth in New York City whose parents can afford the $40,000/year for private schooling has an equal educational opportunity compared with the poor child attending one of NYC's worst public schools. Checked college costs lately? Sure, there is financial aid, but most of it these days comes in the form of loans. College is quickly becoming available only for those who can afford it.

Does every public school in NYS have equal educational resources? Take a trip to Long Island--where most of the semi-finalists in the Intel Science Talent Search come from--and compare the science labs in their high schools with those in even our best WNY school districts.

The American model could be called "If you can afford it, you can buy your way to the front of the line." NYS provides the resources for a "basic" public education, then it allows taxpayers in wealthier districts to add to those basic resources while many rural districts must make do with the "basic" allotment.

Would Americans be willing to consider a system like Finland's? It's not likely. In 1994 and 1995, I served as president of the NY State Association for Computers & Technologies in Education, and was deeply involved with the introduction of computers into the state's schools. Parents from a well-to-do suburb of Buffalo complained loudly about the introduction of computer labs into their schools. Why? Because they could afford to provide a computer in their home and wanted their children to have an advantage over those families who could not afford a computer.

If you can afford it, you can buy your way to the front of the line. That's the American way.