Background: Setting the stage for market-based reforms

In 1965, Congress passed the first major piece of federal education legislation–the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)–with the intent of “improv[ing] education for children from poor families” (Cohen & Moffitt, 2009, p. 2). Since then we have tried various approaches to public school reform–more money, greater accountability, and higher standards, among others–all to no avail. The crisis in public education that John Dewey wrote about in the early 1900s and that A Nation at Risk (ANAR) captured in 1983, persists to this day as we worry about high dropout rates, low achievement in reading and math, a persistent achievement gap, and our fall in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) international education rankings. According to Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation (2009):

After decades of political inaction and ineffective reforms, our schools consistently produce students unready for the rigors of the modern workplace. The lack of preparedness is staggering. Roughly one in three eighth graders is proficient in reading. Most high schools graduate little more than two-thirds of their students on time. And even the students who do receive a high school diploma lack adequate skills: More than 33% of first-year college students require remediation in either math or English. (Center for American Progress, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Hess, p. 7)

Similarly, the Journal reported in 2010 that “[d]espite nearly two decades of policy and investment focused on closing academic achievement gaps and improving overall student achievement, reading scores on the NAEP 2009 assessment among fourth- and eighth-grade students have barely budged since 1992” (Nagel, 2010). As the first edition of the Leaders and Laggards report (2007) put it, in our public education system “student achievement has remained stagnant and our K–12 schools have stayed remarkably unchanged” (Center for American Progress, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Hess, 2009, p. 9). In light of these findings, it is reasonable to fear now, as we did in the 1980s, that “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).

It is against this dismal backdrop that marketization has arisen as a viable solution to our education problems. While the idea of marketization in education is over a century old, “charter schools, the private scholarship movement, and pilot voucher programs all emerged after 1990, creating a wealth of empirical data on how parents, when given a choice, go about selecting their children’s schools” (Walberg & Bast, 2003, p. xxii). The late 20th and early 21st Centuries have seen a marked increase in market-based solutions to education problems. For urban areas in particular, market-based reforms have become the new norm. This year, 13 states enacted school choice legislation; an additional 28 states have legislation pending (Gardner, 2011). The latest reauthorization of the ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) served as a major impetus for increased privatization and marketization of public schools. NCLB, with its focus on testing, accountability, and in particular turning around failing schools, has “led to an increased willingness to explore other alternatives, including solutions previously considered radical, such as the privatization of K-12 education” (Solomon, 2003, p. 1283). As Patricia Burch (2009) explains in Hidden Markets: The New Education Privatization:

In some areas, the connection between NCLB and the market model is very explicit. The obvious links include statutes that require schools to make test score targets under strict timelines. The market model also is explicit in NCLB choice provisions. After two years of not making test score targets, schools must offer parents the option of transferring to a non-failing school in the district. After three years, the school must make after-school program vouchers available to families, paid for with NCLB funds. Over time, schools not making test score targets may be closed and their staff fired. They may be reopened as charter schools and taken over by for-profit private firms. (p. 6)

In some ways school choice movements have benefited from components of federal legislation. Burch (2009) further explains, “[u]nder NCLB, Federal education policy becomes a vehicle for stimulating and protecting the market” (p. 6). In fact, NCLB set a precedent for policy as a vehicle for market-based reforms that has continued to be supported by the Obama Administration. Like NCLB, the Obama Administration’s Blueprint for Education Reform and the pending re-authorization of NCLB also highlight school turnarounds–a major opportunity for privatization. Furthermore, the Adminstration’s key education reform tool thus far, the Race to the Top (RTTT), advocates other market-based reforms including removal of caps that limit the numbers of charter schools within a state and the creation of state and district environments that are more friendly towards school competition. With the support of the federal government, privatization, choice, and competition have quickly spread across the nation, promising to raise student achievement and improve efficiency in public education. Ironically, as I will discuss later, the same legislation that promotes choice as a solution to our education problems, also inhibits choice from working effectively. How does choice function in current markets for public education? Will market-based reforms be effective at improving public education? What does the future have in store for our systems of public education? To answer these questions we need to understand the structure and key components of the market for public education and examine market-based reforms from the standpoint of supply and demand.

Sources:

Burch, P. (2009). Hidden Markets: The New Education Privatization. New York: Routledge.

Center for American Progress, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Frederick M. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute. (2009). Leaders and Laggards A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation. Available at http://www.americanprogress.org/ issues/2009/11/leaders_laggards/report.html. (14 December 2011).

Cohen, D.K. & Moffit, S.L. (2009). The Ordeal of Equality: Did Federal Regulation Fix the Sechools? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gardner, W. (2011, December 16). Read the Fine Print About School Choice. Education Week. Available at http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/           2011/12/read_the_small_print_about_school_choice.html. (17 December 2011).

Nagel, D. (2010).  NAEP: Reading Scores Flat at Grade 4, Up Slightly at Grade 8. The Journal. <http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/03/24/naep-reading-scores-flat-at-grade-4-up-slightly-at-grade-8.aspx>. (14 December 2011).

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/members.html. (14 December 2011).

Solomon, L.D. (2003). Edison Schools and the Privatization of K-12 Public Education: A Legal and Policy Analysis. Fordham Urban Law Journal. Vol. XXX: 1281-1340. (30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1281 2002-2003).

Walberg H.J. & Bast, J.L. (2003). Education and Capitalism: How Overcoming Our Fear of  Markets and Economics Can Improve America’s Schools. Stanford: Hoover             Institution Press.