Henry Levin elaborates two possible systems of school choice: market choice, and public choice. In practice, this basically translates to a voucher system (market choice) versus a public, charter-based system (public choice), but when people talk about school choice, the metaphor always seems to slide toward the market. We tend to focus on the idea that choice provides incentive for competition, but as Chubb & Moe point out, “not all schools in the market will respond equally well to these incentives,” and “those that falter will find it more difficult to attract support, and they will tend to be weeded out in favor of schools that are better organized" (1990).
Competition creates incentive for quality, and the nature of the market system predicates that some competitors will fail to measure up, at least in the initial conversion from our current system, in which a certain sector of popular opinion holds that schools “have almost no incentive to actually make sure that kids are actually learning. As long as they are passing the SOL's and graduate then they accomplish their goal. They get the money from state and federal gov’t and do their thing.” (I claim this as popular opinion because this statement was made by a friend of mine in the midst of an impromptu facebook debate about education policy. Yes, impromptu debates about education policy apparently can be had on facebook.)
Chubb and Moe also proclaim most existing reform attempts insufficient because they still rely on control “from above” and leave “traditional institutions” in place. They say that current attempts free up the demand side of parent choice but not the supply side; that "schools do not emerge in response to what parents and students want." This was written in 1990, but it seems that not much has changed other than the introduction of a few interesting charter school models. I may be underestimating the significance of that change, but I think the questions I am inspired to ask by this article are still important.
I see at least two major obstacles/questions that arise from the competition/market metaphor, which none of the authors we read for this week have really addressed.
1. What will become of the schools that “falter” as they head toward “weeding out”? What will become of their students in the meantime?
2. From where will new schools “emerge” to meet market demands?
Thoughts on the first question: Gill et al. propose including existing private schools in a new charter system as a way to avoid some of the poor outcomes that we see from brand-new schools, but what can we do about the schools that are already failing and may not ever be equipped to catch up? How long will failing schools be allowed to languish? What will happen to the students who remain there? The “clientele” of schools cannot simply transition smoothly to another provider at the very moment service becomes unsatisfactory. Even if the system allowed for relatively instantaneous transfers, students would be disrupted by the sudden change in coursework and environment. I must be exaggerating this potential problem, because I haven’t heard anyone else talk about it. Are there arguments about this? I can think of one, but it’s a weak one: perhaps the schools that will ‘fail’ under the new system will not in fact worsen, but simply fail to improve at the same rates as other schools, so there’s no net loss in school quality, even in the faltering schools. But if we assume that other schools are “cream-skimming,” even unintentionally, I doubt this would be the case.
Thoughts on the second question: Schools do not “emerge.” They are built, in many senses of the word. If we propose to take the idea of school choice beyond choosing between current options, who stands to benefit from becoming a builder of new schools? Presumably, most non-profit organizations that perceive a potential benefit to their communities/constituencies have already created private schools to serve their needs. Gill mentions new for-profit models, but I’m not totally clear on what this would look like. Manhattan's District No. 4 in East Harlem certainly provides a provocative model (see Chubb & Moe, p. 212). But just like we saw with many Deweyan/progressive schools, the creation of these teacher-run “schools” are “entirely dependent on the visionaries themselves and their hold on power." Furthermore, as Chubb & Moe point out, the stakeholders in this system “are [still] subordinates in the hierarchy of democratic control, and what authority they have been privileged to exercise to this point has been delegated to them by their superiors--who have the right to take it back."
Can we consider the implications and possibilities of scaling up such a system? What about adapting the model to one in which teachers can start new schools without relying on their bureaucratic superiors’ revocable grant of power?
I see a lot of question marks scattered throughout my entry; I would love to hear tentative answers or challenges to any and all of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Nicole asks: What about adapting the model to one in which teachers can start new schools without relying on their bureaucratic superiors’ revocable grant of power?
Humm… well I believe there are two worlds—the world we live in and the ideal world that we would like to live in. In my ideal world, teachers and students would guide the schools while taking advice and new techniques from professional consultants. My idea of an ideal consultant would be a retired teacher or a partnership with a university which has immediate access to innovative teaching methods. New teachers would have mentors and all schools would have a supportive and collaborative learning and teaching environment. O-and there would be an unlimited budget for the buildings, supplies, salaries and such.
But, sadly, we do not live in my ideal world. If there is anything that I have learned this semester through my foundation courses, it is that there is no simple answer to the education system. Some ideas will solve a few issues and disregard others or even worse they may create more problems. However, it is important that we keep trying. So, how does this relate to Nicole’s question? It does in only that I think this would be an ideal and unfortunately that ideal is not a reality.
Nicole, you raised some interesting questions about a competitive market system as applied to education which I would like to touch on briefly.
You asked, “How long will failing schools be allowed to languish? What will happen to the students who remain there?”
Market advocates would argue that the schools will disappear and the students will choose a better school that is more efficient and effective. In a true market system, the school would not “languish” very long because parents and students would recognize its inefficiency and move to a school that provided a superior service.
We are both clear illustrations of how market advocates see this process working. If I have a favorite restaurant that I always enjoy visiting, yet it begins to make me sick when I go, I will stop patronizing that restaurant and take my money elsewhere. If my old favorite restaurant continued to provide terrible food, it would eventually go under and the better restaurants would flourish. Substitute the restaurants for schools, and myself for students, and you have a clear picture of how advocates claim the system would work.
The market system however is based on the premise that, ceteris peribus, individuals make logical choices that benefit themselves. Logical choice may be the place in which this theory of educational provision fails due to the fact that choosing a school to patronize is much more complicated than choosing a restaurant to eat at.
Second, you asked “where will new schools ‘emerge’ to meet market demands?”
Market advocates would simply argue that the “invisible hand” would provide it through some available means. As long as a legitimate need exists that individuals can supply, and if in providing that need the providers are also benefited, the market model would argue that the need would be provided. It may be from entrepreneurs, non-profits, or the people exercising through the federal government or other collectivities, but it will be supplied. The complication in the theory arises if no one is able to meet the demand or if the supplies are not benefited—if either of these are absent, the theory falls apart.
I am myself an economic conservative and see how submitting the educational system to market demands could be very effective in relieving many of the problems we now see, but I also believe that there are many factors that would come into play that are not found in the economic realm that may not allow this system to function effectively.
Thoughts. Comments. Opinons.
Matthew, thanks for your thoughts. You frame the market advocate side of the argument very clearly. I think I have a decent understanding of how the market model theorizes that it should work. But my feeling is that schools are fundamentally different from, say, restaurants. My questions are more specific in nature--who, specifically, might open these new schools? (Obviously we saw one example in class on Tuesday). Do you all agree that schools just don't work the same way as other "businesses"?
When a restaurant closes, its employees are clearly disrupted, but its patrons have a thousand other options nearby, to which they can take their patronage without severely affecting their lives. A change in schools is not so easy for students, as anyone who has moved around a lot knows. Not only is your day-to-day life disrupted, but your curricular experience may change--you may find yourself ahead, behind, or just not on the same track at all in a new classroom.
I wonder what the criteria would be--how many students would have to leave, etc.--for a school to close, and how easy or hard the transition would be for students and families who, for whatever reason, stayed until the end. You are exactly right that people do not always make the most informed choice. There's a great book called "Nudge" by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein that talks about how this tendency shapes our lives (shameless plug; I worked on this book when I was at Yale Press, but it IS a really great book, and very relevant to the issue of "choice" on important matters like education).
I would like to briefly address the criteria for shutting down a school in a market system. The school no longer has enough funding to support the current operating budget. Colleges and universities operate on a similar system. Money follows the students to the school of their choice. Students can choose a public, private, vocational, or liberal arts. This system has their set of issues but it is wildly regarded internationally as one of the finest, if not the finest, in the world. The government can offer the cost of attending per child the school of their choosing and then it is up to the parents to find the rest. Competition will keep increase efficiency and quality.
Like any service- provider, one is able to approach a school's existence in economic terms, even if broad and limited. I agree with Matthew's view that supply of students will result from the demands of new, efficient schools. Like survival of the fittest with Darwin, inefficient service providers, that is to say schools, will be weeded out in a market-based world.
I also agree with Nicole that the weeding out will be so detrimental to the students that have to transition to new schools. It would be beautiful if we could somehow "fix" the poor schools, but we all now that it is easier ( and more conducive to the typical American's desire for choice in an indivivualistic society) to exercise choice to move to a better school over fixing the real problems of the current school. If we want to fix the poor schools, we have to fix the mind-set of most Americans.
I realize that I wasn't in class on Tuesday so my comments may not be entirely helpful or relevant. BUT . . . Does no one else see a fundamental problem with viewing schools in terms of economics? I think Nicole suggested this when she said that "schools just don't work the same way as other 'businesses.'" I understand the argument that school choice promotes competition among schools, which forces schools to improve. But does competition among schools even make sense? It seems to me that each school should serve the particular needs of its community. Maybe what I'm speaking of only takes place in the ideal world that Erica mentions, but I think we've seen in our past readings that schools work best when they are community-centered and community-supported.
Nicole's question #1 articulates my biggest concern about school choice - what happens to the schools no one wants to go to? It seems like the kids will suffer, the kids whose parents don't have enough information or don't feel comfortable moving them to a different school.
I think it's pretty clear that I am in favor of Levin's other system - public choice. It just doesn't make sense to me to see schools in economic terms. Schools are not businesses. Children are not products. Education is not about money, but about people, and people have messy things like feelings and needs that just don't fit into a market-based system.
I, much like Lindsey, am primarily concerned with what happens to the schools no one wants to go to.
I understand that the notion of choice is a very appealing and important belief rooted strongly in "American" ideals . I believe fully in opportunities for students to receive quality education, but I am also concerned for the schools that struggling to get working toilets and roofs that don't leak, or the schools with little technology or instructional support.
By taking away money from the system that could support basic needs as well as instuctional support seems to be giving up on the children that are in these schools. What happens to the children in the schools whose parents didn't choose an alternative means for them?
There are many instances when failing schools have been turned around because of strong leadership, supportive community, and qualified teachers. Instead of looking for alternative systems, why can't we help change the one we have now?
This not to say that there are not benefits from charter schools and voucher programs. But I fear we are walking on dangerous territory when we treat schools as businesses. Reform models, like charter schools, do not hold public interest but rather the interest of the private investors, which is why a market-based education system seems somewhat of an oxymoron.
Being from Milwaukee, the place of the fist Voucher program in the United States, I have grown up with a vested interest in school choice. The program originally started with only 341 students, today the number has risen sharply to 20,000.
I attended a public school where students were able to use vouchers, and I unfortunately did witness a sort of in-school segregation that I believe is unavoidable amidst a segregated community outside of the school doors.
While it is great that students who do not attend a quality school are able to go to a very nice public high school, I, like much of the class, worry about the reprecutions of such programs after seeing what has happened in Milwaukee.
Dropout rate is still incredibly high, and test scores prove that student achievement has not improved. As far as the market system goes, it is important to note that choice is only half of the equation. There is both supply and demand...I believe in order for there to be real change, quality schools, teachers and curriculum must be laid into place. For these reasons, I, like kate question, "why can't we help change the systems we have now" by supplying more quality educational institutions?
Here is a great article if any of you are interested on the current state of the Milwaukee voucher program:
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/september-october-magazine/after-milwaukee
As the universe would have it, my mother just sent me an article from the Denver Post regarding school choice. Most school districts in Colorado follow a policy of choice in the hopes that "students will take an active interest in their own education", and encourage students to attend a highschool that suits their academic desires. It is an interesting approach, once the children reach the 8th grade (the final year in middle school), since all 8th grades have presentations about the various highschools in the city that they may choose, since now it is up to the student not the parent.
I am glad that the schools focus on the children, making it easier for children with less active parents to still have a choice, but again there is an issue about schools that are failing. I don't think that a market-model is appropriate in a school setting, it does seem to focus too much on money and less on what is actually important (that is, the children, their education, their "destiny" as the Denver Post puts it), but it is interesting that failing schools in a choice system are drained of students, making reform in those schools less likely to happen. It seems to me like all the publicity a failing school receives should be enough motivation for a board or district to want to fix the school, instead of just letting it continue on its failing trajectory until it is just shut down.
(Denver Post, "Help Kids Make a Choice" by Amanda Lueck Grell, Nov. 9 2008)
School choice is a tough topic I think and I agree with most everyone here in that a market model is a bad idea for schools.
It's tough to think that schools would not to continue to improve, as that is there base situation. I think that the issue is not giving the parents more choices, but having the parents be more active in their current schools.
Thats all I got, cause most everyone has said what I would have said, either direction.
I, like many of you, am weary of how school choice effects currently failing schools. I would like to say it would bring attention to those schools and motivate them to adjust what they are doing. But reality is the students who are “stuck” at the failing schools will continue to go to those schools no matter if they change or not. Our system needs to take the time and efforts to better those schools as well. How this is done, I am not sure, but I doubt school choice is the whole option.
I do like the idea of allowing students to have ownership over their school choice. I would be curious to figure out if it leads to higher retention and better performance by the students. Something to follow as the years go by.
"What will happen to the faltering schools?" I think this question and the idea of how to "save" these faltering schools is one that is woven throughout many of the comments.
Charter Schools is one model that works toward providing quality education to the "students" that are faltering. Last week we heard from the school director of LEAD Academy. It was clear that at LEAD teachers are seen as more than just the educators...they are required to truly be there for the students. More importantly, the parents and students were asked to sign a contract to promise to be involved in the child's education. Parents were being forced to take a more active role in their child's education. Daniel mentioned that parents need to be more involved and I think LEAD Academy was taking an active role in requiring that participation.
However, it was also clear that the teachers AND the school directors get quickly burned out in these settings. What is the middle ground? If we are looking toward the "ideal" model for schools...and charter schools require too much from the teachers...what would the ideal schools look like? Nicole asks where will the new schools emerge from. I think charter schools have the right idea of providing teachers with more power and incentive to be there for the students. The question though is: is it possible to apply a less extreme model to all public schools?
I agree with Julie that burnout is a big problem with the current charter school system and that possibly taking some of the extreme requirements off of the teachers may alleviate that, however although burnout and turnover rate may be high in charter schools, the results do not seem to falter as a result.
They say the star that burns brightest, burns quickest, however the charter system of using young and motivated teachers who go above and beyond for a few years and then leave to be replaced by younger and more motivated teachers in turn may work best for the students. I would agree that this is not an ideal situation for a teacher, and obviously since most of us in this class are in or going into the teaching profession the idea of using young talented teacher for a few years may not seem like a great idea for our careers, but if it proves to have good results for these students that are harder to teach, then maybe it is a good idea. This will sound weird, coming from me, who is not a fan of organizations like Teach For America, but using TFA as a feeder to charter schools seems like it would be a great idea from a managerial perspective. You would have a ready supply of young, motivated college grads to feed into the charter school system, you would use them for a few years, and once they moved on you would bring in more. Again this is NOT good for the teaching profession, but it may be good for the students, if young and motivated teachers work best for charter schools.
It would be tough to take the same kind of work that a charter school requires of its teachers and put it towards public education. The main reason is that the union would never allow it, and once teacher reached tenure their would be little incentive left to maintain that high level of work ethic. And while is still do not like Teach For America when it comes to public education, perhaps in charter schools, I can accept the organization as a worth-while endeavor.
All that being said, I find the prospect of working in charter schools to be very intriguing, and perhaps it is only because I am still idealistic about what I can do in the teaching world, but it seems like a great place to go for teacher who just have that unrelenting passion to improve the lives of children through their teaching
Post a Comment