The Market in Education

We have come to a crossroad for the question of how we should educate our children. Do we continue with the American system of public education that has served us well or allow an educational market to perform the task, which some believe will be superior? It is a question with far-reaching consequences and much disagreement. There is a way to combine the two approaches, however, that may hold the key – creating a student-centered market. The problems and shortcomings of our present public school system are well known and seemingly insolvable. As a result, a push to make schools more accountable through market forces has gained momentum. It would seem that those who promote charter schools and/or vouchers do so because of their confidence in market forces. That these market forces will inevitably and inexorably lead to the outcomes they envision – a good education for every American child at a reasonable cost (i.e. cheaper than currently). It is a faith that markets are inherently better at everything than non-market approaches. It is also a faith that envisions that the outcomes are knowable and predictable because it is the “market” that is being allowed to determine the mechanism by which these outcomes are achieved. It is a faith professed without any basis grounded in knowledge or indeed an understanding of exactly which market is operational. The outcomes the market proponents envision for their programs are just that – their visions of how the markets will work. None of it is based on empirical evidence of how markets work or what outcomes these markets will produce given how they are operated and what resources are used. The proponents first envision their outcomes and then attribute the market approach as achieving them without fail. It is nothing more than wishful thinking since there is no way to effectively know what outcomes will be produced by a market. It may be as well that the proponents are not even focusing on the correct market, that the ones they are promoting – school vouchers and charter schools – are too nebulous and broad to achieve their stated goals. The promotion of vouchers and charters appear not to operate on the educational achievement of students, but rather on who operates the schools and how much they make. Far too many of the charters and vouchers end up enriching the school operators and not educating students, especially those with more needs than the average. There currently is not sufficient information available for most parents to make an informed decision about which school is best to apply their resources to. The school operators hold most of that information and are often reluctant to make it available. Parents must choose with insufficient information, which allows the school operators to attract students by means other than their real successes. The governing market in this case is not parental choice or educational achievement, but the school operators. Even a voucher program does not target the right market. Parents may have the monetary means to choose a school, but they still do not have sufficient information to make prudent choices and students are still not the focus. In addition, in many areas of the country these are not viable solutions since there are not many educational options. The best market, the one that most directly affects those who are being targeted - the students – is the one that allows market forces to work directly for and with students. We have given money for charters, for merit systems, for vouchers, and other things when it is the students that we need to target. We have tried using market forces everywhere but where it will be the most effective. It is time that we do so. It is the students we are expecting to meet the goals we are setting and it is only they who can achieve them. There is an objection to this in that we prefer to promote the idea that students should be filled with the desire to learn and not turn learning into a clone of the rest of the economy. That love of learning should be an end in itself. But the fact is, that will be the only thing in their lives not market driven, not subject to the forces that will drive the rest of their days. It also does not preclude a student from loving learning. Many will anyway, but for those who do not initially, a market approach can motivate them to learn. How should this be done? There are two possible approaches – pay students as they go or pay the money into a savings account they can access after graduating high school. The pay as you go method has the advantage of an immediate payoff, which can motivate the students. It is a real, tangible reward for the efforts made to learn and do the schoolwork. It can also help support families with low income. Depositing funds into a savings account does not have that immediate payoff, but can provide long-term motivation for wanting to stay in school and continue to learn. It combines, to a certain extent, the love of learning approach and the market approach. It also helps reinforce the concept of delayed gratification that has been shown to be very helpful for success. There are obviously many issues that need to be addressed – how much do you pay students, when do you pay them, how is it financed, who holds the funds, who has access to the funds at the end of high school, and many more. Which method is more effective has to be determined as well. It is still a more direct market approach than the ones proposed and has the added benefit of not having to blow up our educational system to implement it. We can just add it to schools as they exist today. Our current educational system represents a huge investment in resources and talent that can be leveraged for the student-focused market. A lot of times, those proposing charters/vouchers appear to have more than educating children as their goal. Privatizing education, getting rid of teacher unions, or controlling the curriculum all seem to play a more significant role than they should if the goal is educating children and not controlling education. This is the only market where people are trying to pay less and expecting to achieve higher quality. That by paying teachers less, making their jobs less secure, and giving them less flexibility we will get a better outcome. No other business would expect that result. They would raise pay, provide stable jobs, and give them more freedom – what one would think of as the rational market response. America has a long, proud tradition of public education that has promoted a democratic, inclusive spirit to the country and we should preserve our system of public schools. There is no need to dismantle our current system, as attractive as that may be to some, it needs to be refocused. We can do that by using the power of the market at the appropriate point of the system – the students.