[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
Innovation in the School Choice Debate
The lack of attention paid to innovation in school choice
controversies is remarkable. Innovation plays a key role in
enhancing the productivity of companies and industries, and
there can be no doubt that the approaches to innovation in
market systems differ drastically from those in governmental
institutions. Since it is very unlikely that the costs and
benefits of innovation would be the same in both systems, it
would appear that the partisans on one side or the other are
missing a great opportunity to highlight an advantage of
their proposals.
Any perusal of professional education journals reveals a
never-ending stream of innovations. Indeed, considering the
plethora of educational innovations, it seems surprising
that there are any problems left to be resolved in public
education. Nevertheless, one overriding fact overshadows the
steady torrent of innovations. If we look behind the
semantics, K-12 education today is essentially no different
from what it was a very long time ago. To understand the gap
between the rhetoric and reality of innovation in public
education, we need to consider the circumstances.
First of all, innovation in public education is dependent
upon political processes at every critical juncture. This
contrasts sharply with research in the private sector, which
is overwhelmingly profit oriented. For example, some
pharmaceutical companies devote over twenty percent of their
revenue to research and development. These expenditures,
accounting for billions annually, are made in anticipation
of discovering a drug that will help millions avoid or
overcome illness. Hopefully, the anticipated purchases make
up for the R and D expenditures and will show a profit in
addition.
This pattern contrasts sharply with the pattern in public
education. Most research that is intended to lead to useful
innovations in education is conducted by academics and it is
not proprietary. The differences between academic research
and private sector research have a huge impact on the
outcomes. In the pharmaceutical field, the researchers are
looking for drugs that will be widely sold, hence their
research is focused upon medical problems that affect large
numbers of persons. Research on a drug that will be used by
millions is preferred over one that can help only a few
thousand persons. There is no need for political direction
to ensure that the research that is conducted will be
broadly applicable.
In education, professors typically decide what research
to conduct. There is no economic or political pressure to
conduct research on the more significant problems. Of
course, the numbers may not dispositive concerning the
importance of the research, but there is no pressure on
academic researchers to conduct research on the most
important educational problems.
There are also striking differences in the quality of the
research. In the pharmaceutical field, all of the research
conditions must be stated precisely; for example, if a
control group is involved, the number in the control group,
how it was selected or identified, the dosages and reactions
&endash; all must be noted very precisely so that the
research results can be tested by others, and the drug
eventually approved by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) for use. None of these conditions are necessarily
present in educational research. Consider the research on
school choice. Some of the most critical conditions, such as
distance from school, costs, and instructional quality are
typically ignored in comparisons of students in choice
schools and control ones. Thus, differences in achievement
are attributed to school choice, whereas one group may have
had much better instruction than the other.
The differences in dissemination are dramatic. As soon as
a drug appears to be effective, the results are disseminated
and discussed at professional meetings. When a drug is
approved by the FDA, the pharmaceutical companies distribute
free samples to physicians who might prescribe it. In
addition to articles in professional journals, the companies
spend substantial amounts to advertise the drug to
physicians and, in some cases, to persons who must obtain a
prescription to obtain the drug. The company selling the
drug has only a few years before other companies can market
generic drugs based on the same research, hence it is
extremely important for the drug companies to put their drug
on the market as soon as possible.
Again, there is a dramatic contrast with educational
research. Suffice it to say here that educational research
is replete with lamentations that teachers don't know about
the research or don't use it when they should. Inasmuch as
the research is not proprietary, nobody has the motivation
and the resources to bring it to the attention of teachers;
teacher terms and conditions of employment for it are not
affected by whether or not the teachers use research. Most
teachers have no incentive to read the research journals,
and do not receive funds to attend conferences in which the
research might (or might not) be disseminated. In public
education, researchers and the practitioners live in two
different worlds that cannot be united.
There are exceptions to every one of the foregoing
statements; for example, professors of education are
sometimes paid to conduct proprietary research. By and
large, however, the above analysis is an accurate comparison
of the differences. Perhaps because it suggests the
superiority of R and D for profit, the issues are seldom
raised in educational journals. It also suggests that some
of the strongest arguments for a competitive education
system receive the least attention.
|
Building a Competitive Education
Industry
