Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Opinion


EDITORIAL: Free market schooling outdoes compulsion

In comparison of 100 international studies

Would a free market in schooling -- one free of "intrusive regulation of the curricula, methods, and personnel decisions" of the schools, one in which schools compete for the tuition money of parents exercising free choice over where to send their kids -- produce better results for America?

There's no such thing as "free schools." The question is whether kids do better when they are assigned a tax-funded school to attend or when parents can pick and choose where to spend that money.


Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: Stood her ground
  • LETTERS: A moral obligation to not bankrupt the country
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'Allowed' to carry for self-defense
  • LETTERS: Nursery did the right thing with laborers
  • EDITORIAL: Numbers stink?
  • LETTERS: Teachers not most important learning variable
  • LETTERS: Agassi remains a good citizen
  • EDITORIAL: Clunk, clunk
  • EDITORIAL: Gotta have faith
  • LETTERS: Put aside re-election interests for nation's good




  • Andrew Coulson, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Education Freedom, looked at the numerous purported "school choice" programs now operating in this country and concluded none of them provides a useful comparison, because "None has created a purely free and competitive education marketplace."

    In a Cato report released earlier this month, Mr. Coulson cites economist John Merrifield, who found the American school choice programs "lack most or all of the key elements of market systems, including profit, price change, market entry, and product differentiation. ... In essence, researchers have drawn conclusions about apples by studying lemons."

    To understand how genuine market forces can affect school achievement and operating efficiency, the Cato scholar decided to gather and tabulate more than 100 existing studies comparing private versus government compulsory schooling from Chile to Nigeria to Sweden, from India to Germany to the Netherlands.

    Furthermore, he specified that his goal was to compare the level of private school regulation "actually enforced," rather than the regulatory burden "expressed in law," since "many developing countries have extensive regulatory codes for private schools, but do not enforce those codes in practice."

    His findings?

    "The private sector outperforms the public sector in the overwhelming majority of cases. Moreover, that margin of superiority is greatest when the freest and most market-like private schools are compared to the least open and least competitive government systems (i.e., those resembling a typical U.S. public school system). ...

    "These results discredit the notion, prevalent in both conservative and liberal political circles, that the content of schooling must be overseen by the state in order for schools to achieve optimum performance. It is in fact the least regulated market school systems that show the greatest margin of superiority over state schooling," Mr. Coulson found.

    While that's no great surprise, the question is what course of action these findings should recommend.

    What this means is that lawmakers should endeavor to "provide universal access to minimally regulated education markets in which parents, whenever possible, directly pay at least some of the cost of their children's education."

    Which could include education tax credits, Mr. Coulson says.

    But only if we want our kids adequately prepared to compete in the global marketplace, of course.

    We feel certain our elected representatives will get right on that, Mr. Coulson -- boosting both funding efficiency and academic achievement. Just as soon as the teachers union signs off on your plan.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 23 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    kdr81 wrote on September 26, 2008 09:40 AM: Patrick,

    If only all that were true.

    Liberals and regulator wannabies can point to ONLY ONE instance of deregulation while forgeting about the host of financial regulations in place that totally and utterly failed...let alone helped contribute to the atmosphere.

    Too much regulation reduces competition, it complicates things, and it encourages greed to be used in breaking rules and gaining unfair advantage.

    In a free market, competition itself regulates actions. Greed will always be there but with open and fair competition that occurs in the free market these companies end up working for the best interests of their consumers because that also happens to be their best interest.

    Government regulation, on the otherhand, means they usually don't have to worry about consumers as much.

    You completly discount the role of competition and you conflate free market with "less regulated market" as many have done.


    Report abuse

    hss46 wrote on September 25, 2008 02:22 PM: Free Market, Schmree Market. We're going through the worst economic problems in 3 generations because we allowed the faith in the "free market" to dictate how we manage our money. And the fault lies as much with the consumers/borrowers as with banks/lenders.

    And now we have another 'expert' telling us to trust business and consumers regarding the education of our children. Do we not learn from history. I know I'm spitting into the wind becuase the 'free marketers' will win in the short term and claim that gov't education is socialism and bureaucracy and a waste of taxpayers money. But print out this entry, put in your drawer and take in out in 10 years and we'll see how learned from history and who didn't.


    Report abuse

    patrick wrote on September 25, 2008 12:15 PM: kd:

    If you agree that man is inherently greedy; which to me is not subject to debate, the freer the market is, the more people are encouraged to live what they are, i.e. greedy. The more regulations restrain a free market, the more the greed is restrained. It is a fine line between restraining greed and restraining initiative and at times the line is crossed both ways.

    Recently, since ronnie raygun, the push to "deregulate" the free market has been winning the hearts of minds of people. This deregulation attitude has only been continued by bush and it has resulted in the pendulum swinging too far in the wrong direction. Obviously, the nation is now suffering the consequences and is "swinging" the other way.

    Its always strange to hear republicans claim that we need "tougher" criminal laws, read "more and differnt" because criminals will not be restrained in their behavior otherwise, yet believe that an unregulated "market" will result in "good" behavior or a good result. Man's inherent nature, pushed at times by his environment, is what "causes" a man to violate a law and commit a crime, and this is no differnt when it comes to how a man conducts himself when his economic interests are at issue. Yet republicans would have society do away with the laws that regulate a man when it comes to the economic interests.

    Makes no sense or at least is hypocritical.


    Report abuse

    Jen wrote on September 25, 2008 12:09 PM: Yes, Brian - there are magnet schools my daughter was fortunate to get into one this year - there were 260 kids chosen out of over 1200 applicants though, not much of a "choice" for many.


    Report abuse

    KDR81 wrote on September 25, 2008 11:21 AM: Patrick,

    No, the free market does not encourage greed. Greed exists with the free market and without it.

    The free market forces greed to be focused on providing goods and services people want because the only way to satisfy your greed is to convince people to buy your good or service.

    They can buy anything else and do not have to buy yours.

    You have to convince them that your product is better, safery, more advanced, and or cheaper.

    Government regulations tend to minimize the positive side of free markets by restricting competition, alowing greed to work without having to get folks to voluntarily pay the greedy corporate CEO and his company.

    In this case, regulation gave greedy individuals to easy money who thought the government would bail them out. Government fueled risky investment, not the free market.

    Again, greed exists with or without the free market. The question is do you want greed to exist with volunteerism or coercion. The free market is volunteerism, the government is coercion.


    Report abuse

    patrick wrote on September 25, 2008 11:03 AM: kdr81:

    Arguing that it was the government and its regulations that "caused" the collapse is like arguing that the government and its "regulation" of the space program that caused the Space Shuttle to blow up, or arguing that this country's criminal laws (regulations) thta caused the crime rate in this country to increase.

    I will repeat, it is only UNRESTRAINED GREED that "caused" this crisis. Free market capitalism ENCOURAGES greed that is inherent in man. Regulation is designed to curb man's inherent greed through laws which inhibit man's desire to do whatever he can to pursue ALL that he can get. Unfortunately, man is ever consumed with finding ways around regulations to accomplish what he believes is necessary to get all he can (just sit down with Exxon one day and its accountants during tax time to see this demonstrated)

    Free markets are truly wonderous things at encouraging and incentivizing human accomplishment, HOWEVER without regulation man's inherent nature takes over. Bringing that inherent nature to things necessary in this country like education, healthcare, or the military for that matter, without regulation is just begging for a result like is currently being experienced on Wall Street (for the umteenth time)


    Report abuse

    kdr81 wrote on September 25, 2008 11:02 AM: Not buying it,

    Spending more money does not produce better student achievement.

    If Nevada was ranked #1 in the nation for per pupil spending this would be the result.


    Report abuse

    kdr81 wrote on September 25, 2008 10:58 AM: Claudia,

    here is the effect of spending more on public schools with poor children:

    Spending more hurts poor students

    Poor students do worsea the more money is spent. Middle to upper class students do better. That said, there is a weak and non significant relationshp between spending and student achievement but it suggests spending more helps wealthier students and hurts poor students.

    Note however, that poor students do considerably better when school choice and other reforms are added.


    Report abuse

    kdr81 wrote on September 25, 2008 10:55 AM: Brian,

    Actually public schools are very picky. When it comes to voucher programs for mentally disabled students a private school is considerably more likely to take the student than the public school.

    When vouchers are set at a price comparable to what the public school gets for that student private schools are more than eager to take any student thrown their way.

    That is because it is actually more expensive to educate a student, on average, at a public school than a private school.

    The average public school today costs about $10,000 per student while the average private school is somewhere around $7,000-$8,000.


    Report abuse

    Kdr81 wrote on September 25, 2008 10:51 AM: Patrick,

    If only...Wall Street was regulated before and during the colapse. The biggest failures came from the most regulated banks. On top of that the regulators didn't even forsee, let alone try and stop the failure before it started.

    The government created easy money thanks to the fed and everyone rightly assumed that if a colapse happend there would be a bailout. Those two things alone give a strong enough incentive for Wall-Street to make risky investments.

    So no the free market did not cause this collapse the government did.


    Read All Comments