Building a Competitive Education Industry
A Weekly Column by Myron Lieberman

In last week's column, I tried to make the point that the issue of competence is frequently ignored in controversies over academic freedom. As luck would have it, my mail recently included an issue of the Phi Delta Kappan that highlights the neglect of competence issues in controversies over school choice. I am referring to an article by Kenneth Howe, Margaret Eisenhart, and Damian Betebenner, entitled "A Case Study of School Choice." The article purports to show that a school choice plan that has been operative in the Boulder Valley, Colorado School District (BVSD) since 1961 resulted in ethnic and economic stratification and only the "most modest and equivocal gains for participating students." The authors conclude that their study shows that school choice is at best a marginal reform. What the article really shows, however, is the incompetence of the authors to discuss school choice issues -- and it does so even if every one of their conclusions about the effects of BVSD's school choice plan are correct.

Let me begin with a few comments that command universal agreement among competent writers on the subject. One is that "school choice" is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide variety of specific plans. For example, school choice plans differ on what kinds of school choices are available, what students (or parents) can exercise choice, the arrangements governing the impact of choice on sending and receiving schools, the funding for transportation, the availability of classroom space in schools of choice, whether vouchers are part of the school choice plan, the amount of the voucher - the list of differences in both theory and practice goes on and on.

Because these differences affect or may affect the outcomes, it is essential to avoid generalizations about "school choice" that apply only to specific versions of it. I do not claim that every difference among school choice plans is always critical; some are and some are not, depending on the context.

One critical additional point. The idea that competition would improve education first received scholarly attention as a result of publications by Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman in 1956 and 1962. However, as Friedman and many other economists have repeatedly pointed out, certain conditions are essential to allow competition to materialize. There must be ease of producer entry into the market, and consumers must have freedom of choice to switch to different service providers if they wish to do so. Prices are necessary to enable producers and consumers to make intelligent decisions about costs and benefits. Furthermore, no producer or consumer must be able to control the market.

With these Economics 101 considerations in mind, let us review what Howe et al have done. Essentially, they have cited the results of "school choice" offered by a public monopoly as evidence that a competitive education industry would have dire consequences without any redeeming features. In my opinion, to regard the outcomes of choices offered by a government monopoly as evidence of the outcomes of school choice in competitive markets illustrates incompetence. Sad to say, some, perhaps most of the proponents of "school choice" also fail to understand this point.

Although no additional evidence on incompetence is needed, the evidence of bias in the article is as solid as the evidence of incompetence. The 19 references cited by Howe et al include publications by Alex Molnar, Martin Carnoy, Amy Stuart Wells, and other long-time warriors in the jihad against a competitive education system. In contrast, the references do not include a single publication on the same issues by advocates of a competitive education system, such as Andrew Coulson, Milton Friedman, or John Merrifield. And this brings me to a basic issue concerning the Phi Delta Kappan.

The Kappan is an avowed opponent of a competitive education industry. In recent years, it has repeatedly published professionally pathetic articles like the one under discussion in efforts to defend the public school monopoly. It has every right to do so, but such an editorial policy undermines Kappan claims to be a "professional" journal. In theory at least, a professional journal tries to bring the best evidence and analyses to the points in dispute. In contrast, the Kappan is a propaganda arm of the public school lobby. Nothing evil with that, but there is a world of difference between a journal whose raison d'être is to support an interest group and a journal intended to provide readers with the most competent analyses of controversial issues.

There are several, but two of the best are Andrew J. Coulson, Market Education, (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1999); and John Merrifield, The School Choice Wars, (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2001).