Have you ever considered that there are conditions under which the market can't effectively address a given issue? For example, if there's no or little profit to be made.
What does that have to do with the matter of programs that don't work, or that are on collapse track?
Besides, market forces aren't always about profit. School choice isn't about profit - it's about introducing competition and therefore incentivizing school runners to do better or be culled.
You are presenting market forces as an alternative to government programs. Profit is not irrelevant when it comes to school choice. If a school doesn't make enough money then it will close. That's why these charter schools are asking for monies from the state. From your perspective, should the state even be involved in education?
Public education will not be going away in your or my lifetime. Even the Great Man, Milton Friedman, knew this, which is why he and his wife created a foundation to school choice rather than arguing against public education.
So, school choice is a way of introducing market forces to a government program.
In the backpack funding model, kids' parents choose where they go, and those schools get the dollars allocated to that student. Schools that don't perform will indeed close, but that doesn't hurt the students, because they will go to other schools. All it hurts is the people who wouldn't or couldn't make that school competitive. Would you underwrite a lousy business just to keep it open, when other businesses provide better service to consumers?
There's the disruption to the students' education for one thing if a school good or bad closes. A lot of good schools have closed because the parents could no longer afford the cost. Nor is there any guarantee that there will be a school available to take them. However, I take it from your reply that you would like to see public education disappear. I am also assuming that you would also repeal requirements that children attend schools. Right?
I think that you aren't understanding what school choice is about.
In its various forms, it's about giving parents a decision as to where their kid attends school, with the money allocated to the kid going to the school being chosen.
In NYC, charters are publicly funded (but they get half the dollars that are spent per-student by the system, so that other half actually means more money per student for those in the traditional schools). They are lottery-based, so there's no selectivity or cherry-picking.
In a voucher system, or its fuller implementation backpack funding, the "money follows the kid" to wherever. Schools then compete for kids, with parents being the arbiters. The Scandinavian countries, widely extolled by Bernie and others, have this sort of system - and, yes, the money can be and is used in some cases for private schools.
So what? If it shakes out that 20% of kids go private, then the system will simply size itself to the 80% that remain in the choice-driven public school system. Again, the kids aren't hurt by this.
As for disruption? Kids change schools all the time, and you also *have* to compare it to reality and not to an ideal where monopoly public schools suddenly work.
Your last two sentences are irrelevant to the matter. I've already noted that public education won't go away, so I don't argue that it should. This isn't about ground-up libertarian theorizing, it's about fixing a long-broken problem.
If I am unhappy with the food or service at a local restaurant, I don't circulate petitions or attend board meetings; I simply choose another restaurant. This system works pretty well. New restaurants open and old ones close all the time, and there are lots of good eating places to choose from.
Isn't a child's education at least as important as finding the best hamburger? Shouldn't education benefit from the same system of competition, choice and accountability?
If you think that education is comparable to a burger joint then we already have a chasm in how we view the situation. Would you have any problems with public vouchers being used for a school run by Muslims which tries to turn the kids into jihadis?
Interesting article. Can I assume, though, that you are against the state providing any funds for schools? In addition, would you be against a set of common standards which would have to be met by all schools to ensure that the kids are being educated and not just being warehoused? Why not just give public school administrations the right to fire under-performing teachers?
Our posts crossed, so see my other comment about your first question.
As to common standards, there's some peril there, but it's also part of the existing system - private schools in many (most?) places must abide by standards, as do home schoolers. That's an aside.
Sure, being able to fire bad teachers is a start, but there's little pressure to do so if a school's enrollment is guaranteed by the system's monopoly. You're trying to bandaid a fundamentally broken system - broken because it is a government monopoly that's insulated from market forces. You're proving the point of my article, by the way.
Excellent. Change is scary for us humans and more often than not it's easier to keep choosing that which doesn't work over the unknown. That goes on until there's a big enough hurt that happens that effects a reason to change. I fear this will happen regarding SS and Medicare - keep voting for the status quo until it hurts too much to not change/ fix it. But then, of course, it'll be too late
Have you ever considered that there are conditions under which the market can't effectively address a given issue? For example, if there's no or little profit to be made.
What does that have to do with the matter of programs that don't work, or that are on collapse track?
Besides, market forces aren't always about profit. School choice isn't about profit - it's about introducing competition and therefore incentivizing school runners to do better or be culled.
You are presenting market forces as an alternative to government programs. Profit is not irrelevant when it comes to school choice. If a school doesn't make enough money then it will close. That's why these charter schools are asking for monies from the state. From your perspective, should the state even be involved in education?
Last question first. No, but.
Public education will not be going away in your or my lifetime. Even the Great Man, Milton Friedman, knew this, which is why he and his wife created a foundation to school choice rather than arguing against public education.
So, school choice is a way of introducing market forces to a government program.
In the backpack funding model, kids' parents choose where they go, and those schools get the dollars allocated to that student. Schools that don't perform will indeed close, but that doesn't hurt the students, because they will go to other schools. All it hurts is the people who wouldn't or couldn't make that school competitive. Would you underwrite a lousy business just to keep it open, when other businesses provide better service to consumers?
IOW, so what if a bad school closes?
There's the disruption to the students' education for one thing if a school good or bad closes. A lot of good schools have closed because the parents could no longer afford the cost. Nor is there any guarantee that there will be a school available to take them. However, I take it from your reply that you would like to see public education disappear. I am also assuming that you would also repeal requirements that children attend schools. Right?
I think that you aren't understanding what school choice is about.
In its various forms, it's about giving parents a decision as to where their kid attends school, with the money allocated to the kid going to the school being chosen.
In NYC, charters are publicly funded (but they get half the dollars that are spent per-student by the system, so that other half actually means more money per student for those in the traditional schools). They are lottery-based, so there's no selectivity or cherry-picking.
In a voucher system, or its fuller implementation backpack funding, the "money follows the kid" to wherever. Schools then compete for kids, with parents being the arbiters. The Scandinavian countries, widely extolled by Bernie and others, have this sort of system - and, yes, the money can be and is used in some cases for private schools.
So what? If it shakes out that 20% of kids go private, then the system will simply size itself to the 80% that remain in the choice-driven public school system. Again, the kids aren't hurt by this.
As for disruption? Kids change schools all the time, and you also *have* to compare it to reality and not to an ideal where monopoly public schools suddenly work.
Your last two sentences are irrelevant to the matter. I've already noted that public education won't go away, so I don't argue that it should. This isn't about ground-up libertarian theorizing, it's about fixing a long-broken problem.
If I am unhappy with the food or service at a local restaurant, I don't circulate petitions or attend board meetings; I simply choose another restaurant. This system works pretty well. New restaurants open and old ones close all the time, and there are lots of good eating places to choose from.
Isn't a child's education at least as important as finding the best hamburger? Shouldn't education benefit from the same system of competition, choice and accountability?
If you think that education is comparable to a burger joint then we already have a chasm in how we view the situation. Would you have any problems with public vouchers being used for a school run by Muslims which tries to turn the kids into jihadis?
I wrote this a year and a half ago:
https://therootsofliberty.substack.com/p/school-choice-and-market-forces
Interesting article. Can I assume, though, that you are against the state providing any funds for schools? In addition, would you be against a set of common standards which would have to be met by all schools to ensure that the kids are being educated and not just being warehoused? Why not just give public school administrations the right to fire under-performing teachers?
Our posts crossed, so see my other comment about your first question.
As to common standards, there's some peril there, but it's also part of the existing system - private schools in many (most?) places must abide by standards, as do home schoolers. That's an aside.
Sure, being able to fire bad teachers is a start, but there's little pressure to do so if a school's enrollment is guaranteed by the system's monopoly. You're trying to bandaid a fundamentally broken system - broken because it is a government monopoly that's insulated from market forces. You're proving the point of my article, by the way.
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” - Milton Friedman
Excellent. Change is scary for us humans and more often than not it's easier to keep choosing that which doesn't work over the unknown. That goes on until there's a big enough hurt that happens that effects a reason to change. I fear this will happen regarding SS and Medicare - keep voting for the status quo until it hurts too much to not change/ fix it. But then, of course, it'll be too late