Building a Competitive Education Industry
A Weekly Column by Myron Lieberman

Looking At School Choice In A New Light

The public school establishment contends that vouchers would help only a few students, and that we must focus on measures that would help all students. My belief is that a competitive education industry is the best way to help all students. I also believe that the school choice movement is adopting some dubious strategies if the goal is a universal voucher that can be used at any school, public or private. At the risk of criticism from supporters of school choice, let me explain why I think so.

First, I believe that for a long time to come, most children will be educated in public schools. This may not be true in all states, but enacting voucher legislation, raising the capital, planning and construction of new schools, employing teachers, support staff, and administrators, persuading parents and students to enroll, and doing all the other things necessary to educate tens of millions of students will be a huge task.

These developments will require more than a few years. There is an enormous amount of venture capital available today, but it is not going to be invested in launching tens of thousands of new schools in a few years. This is only one reason why the rhetoric about "failing" public schools plays into the hands of the die-hard supporters of public education, who frighten anyone they can by conjuring up the demise of public schools if voucher plans are enacted.

The constant drumbeat about "failing public schools" is counterproductive, at least with some audiences. First, the phrase antagonizes large numbers of public school employees. It also antagonizes many citizens who have fond memories of their public schools and do not like to see them referred to as "failures." My high school senior class graduated about 800 seniors. Their reunions evoke fond memories -- never once have I heard anyone in my class refer to the school (St. Paul Central) as a failure. Finally, the reference to "failing public schools" often seems to be unfair because it ignores the social forces that have a negative impact on student conduct and educational achievement.

Nonetheless, my basic concern about the phrase is that it misstates or at least obscures the basic argument for a competitive education industry. This argument doesn't depend on whether public schools are "failing" and it is not in the least affected by their "success," if that is how you wish to characterize their performance. I was a youngster in the heyday of the Model T. The Model T was not a failure; on the contrary, it was a huge success. No one would argue that carmakers should continue to make Model T's because they were successful for a long period of time. The reason they aren't made any more is that they were part of a system in which improvement was mandatory to avoid going out of business.

You might dismiss this point as hairsplitting over tactical matters, but I believe the issues are much more serious. Today, the supporters of "school choice" appear determined to find benefits, real, alleged, or nonexistent, in every project labeled "school choice"; meanwhile, the public school lobby is busily trying to publicize the deficiencies, real, alleged, or nonexistent, in the same school choice projects. The idea that the truth will emerge from this process is absurd. One side or the other will prevail politically, but the outcomes of existing school choice projects are irrelevant to the substantive argument for a competitive education industry.

Bear in mind that there are many versions of school choice, with different rationales and consequences. For example, the argument that school choice is necessary to protect religious freedom justifies vouchers for freedom of religion, but not for free market reasons.

One of the astonishing facts about the contemporary school choice movement is its failure to understand the argument for a competitive education industry. Milton Friedman, the leading proponent of school choice, argued as early as 1956 that free markets provide better services at a lower cost than government provision of the services. He also suggested that our political system cannot absorb the growing conflict over public education; far from being a unifying force, public schools are one of the most divisive social institutions that we have. Unfortunately, very few school choice proponents can articulate the conditions that are essential for market competition. I leave these conditions to a later column; in the meantime, I hope that the supporters of school choice reconsider their strategy and tactics. The measures required to achieve a competitive education industry require support from various groups who oppose it; for example, some of these groups are sympathetic to reducing the power of the teacher unions, albeit not for the purpose of promoting a competitive education industry.

It is essential to gain the support of these groups, not for "school choice" per se, but for the intermediate measures that are necessary to achieve it. We are not likely to elicit their support by labeling public schools as "failures." Indeed, school choice strategy has blundered repeatedly by its failure to offer tangible incentives to public school teachers to support school choice legislation.