Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek wrote this letter to the New York Times:
While applauding government-imposed national standards for schooling, you give no credence to the argument that each set of parents – rather than government – is in the best position, and has the strongest incentives, to determine whether or not their children are being educated well (“National School Standards, at Last,” March 14). Indeed, the only persons you mention as being parties interested in the successful education of children are school superintendents, state governors, and members of Congress!
Not a single mention of parents or families – an omission that’s more than passing strange.
With genuine school choice, procedures to determine if any school is performing well or poorly would be no more complicated, and every bit as effective, as is the procedure we use today to determine if, say, any particular supermarket is performing well or poorly. That procedure is competition among private, unsubsidized suppliers for customer dollars. If consumer choice and competition serve well to maintain the quality of supermarkets (and of restaurants, and churches, and hotels, and…), then why do you think that tweaking, with national “standards,” the subsidized and largely monopolistic government schools that haunt the land today is the best way to transform these dysfunctional institutions into effective ones?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
I agree.
Many do not share mine and Professor Boudreaux’s trust in people to make their own decisions. Yet, many parents already do. While government fiddles to find an way to determine education success, and hold schools accountable, parents make choices about their kids’ education everyday.
For example, parents consider the quality of the school district and local school when choosing where to live. My parents moved to change my school district. Part of my decision of where I chose to settle was based on the quality of the schools.
These choices are also reflected by parents who choose to pay to send their kids to private schools or to home school.
Where there’s more choice and competition among schools, like middle and upper incomes, there’s generally better schools.
Where there’s less choice and competition education is worse. Consider lower income neighborhoods where people do not the financial flexibility to move or send their kids to private schools. They may not be able to readily afford more expensive housing in districts with better schools or they may not be able to afford the extra transportation costs that comes with living further from work. Yet these parents have very limited options, often stuck in the middle of abysmal school districts.
I see no reason for limiting educational choices for parents with low income.
Nice letter Don.
No comments:
Post a Comment