Menu
» Next Entry (newer): Placing the blame for school failure
Free Market Triptych (part one): Parental Choice
March 31, 2004We are convinced that if K-12 education were to become more like the rest of the world--that is, if it were to join the free market--many of the problems we now face with failing schools (and the wild pendulum swings of governmental mandates in response to failing schools) would disappear in short order.
While there are several different aspects of freedom in the free market for goods and services as it exists today, today we'll focus on the consumer side of things. (Future installments will cover the employment aspects of the free market.)
Consumer Choice: If people are not given a choice, there is nothing to guarantee the quality of the goods or services provided. Competitive market pressures make it difficult for a company with an inferior product to stay in business. But here's the catch: there's nothing to force any company with an inferior product to maintain that inferiority!
Thus, in the real world, if a lackadaisical business has been "the only game in town" and suddenly is faced with a competitor, it will usually improve to match the competition. If not, it risks going under.
The comparison to schools should be obvious: enabling parental choice in where to send Johnny (or even to send Johnny to school at all) would give our school system a boost.
Why is it that, with a fraction of public school budgets, we don't hear of the rampant failure of private and parochial schools? When we say "rampant failure" we don't mean closing doors--many public and parochial schools close every year with declining enrollment in certain neighborhoods, especially as urban populations decrease.
Rather, we mean schools which show a chronic inability to teach children, especially elementary schools which graduate kids who can't read, and high schools which graduate students who are hopelessly unprepared for college. Aside from the occasional rarity, we don't hear of private or parochial schools matching those descriptions, for the simple reason that if they were to exist, no parent would send their Johnny there.
Parental choice is the key.
We see four ways to enable parental choice in the educational marketplace:
- Public school choice: In areas with multiple schools serving the same age ranges (especially districts with an existing transportation network), the parent should be able to choose. (This is not a terribly effective means of offering choice, for some public school districts suffer from systemic problems.)
- Charter Schools: While it is true that many states authorize independent operators to open charter schools, the per-pupil allotment is always significantly less than the local public schools, with the additional burden of having to pay for facilities. To compound the problem, many states have significant lengths of red tape to prevent operators from even opening a charter school in the first place.
- Vouchers: Billions of dollars are collected as tax monies each year, for the purpose of educating children. It only makes sense to take a portion of these funds and give them to parents as a voucher, redeemable at any private or parochial school of the parent's choosing. It matters not that the school may be religious, what matters is the parent is doing the choosing. Nothing unconstitutional about that.
- Homeschooling: Parents should be free to homeschool their children, period. They should not be forced to comply with any regulations whatsoever--a simple declaration of intent should be sufficient.
(Future entries will cover two other aspects of the free market: the freedom to work and the freedom to hire.)
| ↑ top ↑ | « previous entry | next entry » | ReformK12 home
While I'm a big fan of the free market system there are some things that should not be run as such. Police and fire departments come to mind. Education is another. The state is expected to provide a minimum level of education just as they provide a minimum level of security and fire protection. Of course, if you want more, you can always hire a private organization to provide it. You still have to pay for police officers and fire fighters. You can't take your "police dollars" and go shopping elsewhere for private security.
You lament not having parental choice when in truth parents don't HAVE to send their children to public schools. They can send them to private or charter schools or homeschool them themselves. (I know because we choose to homeschool our two.) What you seem to be complaining about is not being able to redirect your education dollars towards the school of your choice. Since states have the obligation to see to it children are educated, it must provide the schools.
There are many ways public education can be improved. Free enterprise is not one of them.
Jack April 7, 2004 04:54 PMJack, with all due respect, you're out of your mind. Yes, while I certainly have the choice of sending my kids to a private school (which I do), or have the choice of homeschooling (which is a better choice for some kids), why can't my tax dollar get a better "bang" for its buck?
First, allow me to shatter some of your myths. You say that can't take your "police dollars" and shop somewhere else. As I recall, a number of years ago the city of Sacramento did exactly that, their entire "police force" was a private company. Another example are "government" entities such as prisons and wastewater plants; there are many, many examples of private companies buildling and/or running these facilities much more efficient and at less cost than what the "government" can and does.
Government schools run pretty much how they want because for the most part, they know they are the only game in town (either money or time constraints hamper most folks from homeschooling or private schools). Free enterprise is the only chance that will FORCE a change on those schools.
You are correct, the states have an obligation to provide a minimum level of education, but they are not providing that - why? Because there is no competition and there is no accountability. The administrators have a HUGE interest in making their schools, their ideas and their "so-called" reforms look like they are working. It is a case of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, rather self serving.
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that the state schools don't do a good job of teaching because there is no reason to do so. One of the main ideas of turning to free enterprise is to help provide the incentive of REALLY providing a good job of minimum education.
Mike May 1, 2004 04:06 PM