« Meta Performance Art | Main | The best mid-sized chunk I read today »
Sentences of...something or other
If those of us who profess to value public schools and the principle of democratic access they uphold cannot find the courage or the motivation to fight in their defense, we may soon wake up to find that they have been replaced by wholly owned subsidiaries of McDonald's, Burger King, and Wal-Mart.
That is Jonathan Kozol, writing in the August 2007 issue of Harper's. Note that while there are some good (though in my view not decisive) arguments against vouchers, Kozol instead focuses on reminding us that corporations are greedy profit-maximizers. Nor does he mention that in America's inner cities, "democratic access" to good french fries far exceeds democratic access to good schools. And might not Louis Vuitton join Wal-Mart in educating some of our children?
Kozol does (correctly, but without explanation or analysis) describe the results of U.S. voucher experiments to date as "very mixed." You might think that means our attitude toward vouchers should be "very mixed" but alas not.
Impeach Jonathan Kozol, impeach him now.
Addendum: Believe it or not, this post isn't Alex.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 15, 2007 at 07:38 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
Terrific post.
In a sense, Tyler is wrong is about there being greater "democratic access" to good french fries in the inner cities, because what Kozol really means by "democratic access" is statification.
See the quotations pp. 15-16 from ABC of Communism in the following paper of mine:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_10_1_1_klein.pdf
The authors Bukharin and Preobrazhensky make is plain that what it's really all about is that social activities be "statified."
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Jul 15, 2007 8:11:31 AM
Education, more than any other service, needs to be delivered by people who are sincerely motivated by affection for children and who face very weak incentives. If we ever get to for-profit schools, expect to see nonsense in the classrooms and corporate billboards on the walls.
Posted by: David J. Balan at Jul 15, 2007 9:36:32 AM
Last year we got a grant that paid us cash money to do various things to increase our students' math knowledge. I'm not proud of it but when the grant rolled out I found myself doing a lot of little extra things so get that cash. I was at the school 7 days a week before that and would like to think I was dedicated to my students. (I was the first high school teacher in over a decade to come back for a second year...) But I'll admit that extra money motivated me to do more than I might of otherwise. Seven grand is seven grand, after all. So David, I have to say that while teachers do need to be motivated by affection some other incentives don't hurt.
Posted by: Mike Russell at Jul 15, 2007 10:28:16 AM
Also, if parents saw that their voucher paid privately run school was full of nonsense and billboards they could, you know, take their kids somewhere else.
Posted by: Mike Russell at Jul 15, 2007 10:30:16 AM
Balan, is there any REASON why "more than any other service" education cannot be provided by suppliers acting from their regard to their own self-interest? Or is it just proof by assertion?
Posted by: Eli at Jul 15, 2007 10:34:29 AM
"Education ... needs to be delivered by people ... who face very weak incentives."
What?
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Jul 15, 2007 10:50:32 AM
Long ago I read Kozol's book "Savage Inequalities" that shows how large funding differences because of property taxes are the cause of terrible schools for the poor. I was full of outrage and indignation.
Then I learned the facts that Kozol had *hugely* exaggerated the funding inequalities by focusing on the most extreme cases, that most states greatly equalize funding between districts, and that some of the highest spending districts have the worst schools. Now I know you can't trust anything Kozol says.
Posted by: ed at Jul 15, 2007 11:02:10 AM
Current conditions in urban America are best described as educational Apartheid. In Nashville 70% of public school students get free or reduced lunch. In one high school 52% of students live with neither biological parent. The mere threat of competition and the low attendance and graduation rates have prompted the public system to innovate - a new "Middle College" program where students attend many community college classes and get graduate with nearly two years of college credit and "Big Picture" schools that employ intensive internships. All doubters and skeptics of market competition need to ask themselves this question:
If you were a single parent with a household income of $30,000 - the same person you are now but in that condition - what kind of a system would you prefer? Would you be satisfied with being assigned by the district to the local school or would you rather get a voucher, have access to a charter school?
Posted by: Martin Kennedy at Jul 15, 2007 11:28:04 AM
I peopose that we cut teacher salaries to subsistence level and make them work the year round, thus making their incentives as weak as possible.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at Jul 15, 2007 11:42:17 AM
To appropriate a David Friedman quote about healthcare: some say that education is too important to be left to the free market. I say it's too important not to be.
Mr. Balan would prefer a world in which education is provided entirely out of love, rather than motivation for profit. So would I. I would also prefer a world in which food, shelter, medicine, and laptops are provided the same way. But the communists tried this experiment, and it didn't work. Human nature just doesn't work that way.
Posted by: Nathan Benedict at Jul 15, 2007 11:48:04 AM
what nathan said.
Posted by: kid mercury at Jul 15, 2007 12:23:57 PM
Education, more than any other service, needs to be delivered by people who are sincerely motivated by affection for children and who face very weak incentives.
And not summers off, zero-deductible health care coverage, defined-benefit pension plans and iron-clad job security (once tenure and some level of seniority have been achieved)?
In fact, you are much more likely to find teachers who are "sincerely motivated by affection for children" in private schools, since private schools pay less and don't provide all the gold-plated fringe benefits -- but DO tend to offer opportunities to teach unencumbered by mindless bureaucracy.
Posted by: Slocum at Jul 15, 2007 12:28:36 PM
yeah, megan mcardle made the point that with most public teachers current benefits (very average/subpar salry, but summers off and tenure), the job likely attracts a lot of slackers.
Posted by: thehova at Jul 15, 2007 12:51:19 PM
The "public schools" vs market debate is stale on both sides. Perhaps Walmartization would have certain advantages. Walmart has been a powerful force in nationalizing retail business. Perhaps public schooling would benefit from being nationalized on a European model. Local school boards dominated by good old boys certainly hasn't done anybody any good in my part of Kentucky.
Moreover, a great deal of Walmart's success was connected to efficiencies in delivery and inventory. Perhaps an innovative central management system would benefit education as well.
Posted by: Ric Caric at Jul 15, 2007 1:13:52 PM
The "public schools" vs market debate is stale on both sides. Perhaps Walmartization would have certain advantages.
But given that existing private K-12 schools (like existing private colleges and universities) are both independent and non-profit, I can't think of any good reason to assume that the blossoming of privates K-12s that would follow widespread adoption of vouchers would not similarly be dominated by independent non-profits rather than the educational equivalent of 'big box' stores.
In point of fact, we already DO have exactly the envisioned voucher system in higher-education where students are free to use need-based government grants at either public or private colleges & universities.
So it strikes me that the only reason to put forth 'Walmartization' as the inevitable result of vouchers is...well...fear-mongering.
Posted by: Slocum at Jul 15, 2007 2:28:24 PM
Mike Russell -- interesting comment. But did your students learn more?
I would hope so and that you didn't say so because you though everyone would assume that.
Posted by: spencer at Jul 15, 2007 3:57:34 PM
Spencer, yeah I think they did learn more. Test scores went up, but there could be a dozen reasons for that. I guess the best outcome of the grant was the teachers that were doing what they should be (individualizing instruction, helping students after school, working with their peers, seeking professional development) got rewarded for the extra effort. And teachers there were doing the minimum there was extra incentive to use best practices.
Now Slocum will say that I already was rewarded with benefits and overpaid and didn't deserved the extra money for doing my job, but that's okay. That is one area where Balan is sort of right, if you are not motivated by affection for children or whatever you'll get pretty sick of the assumption that you're a leech on society pretty quickly.
Posted by: Mike Russell at Jul 15, 2007 4:25:36 PM
Education, more than any other service, needs to be delivered by people who are sincerely motivated by affection for children and who face very weak incentives.
Oh, absolutely. I also prefer to get my medical care from doctors at the lowest end of the pay scale, so I can be certain they're motivated purely out of regard for my health. Same for legal representation - if an attorney is making money at it, how can I trust them? At least I know I can trust the daycare providers, since there's no way they're in it for the money.
Posted by: brenda m at Jul 15, 2007 4:33:09 PM
David Balan, that was pretty weak. Perhaps your conclusion is correct, but you need to muster some support for it.
Posted by: TGGP at Jul 15, 2007 4:39:38 PM
I am opposed to voucher schemes because I don't think they could, in the actual political world in which we live, be correctly implemented. What I believe would happen is that voucher amounts would be too low, with the more affluent assuming they would subsidize their own children and no longer need to pay the subsidy once they were out of school. Moveover, I'm doubtful that crucial anciliary costs, such as transportation and day care, would be included.
In practice, what I see happening is triage, with the poor abandoned even more than they are now.
Posted by: Skeptic at Jul 15, 2007 5:49:11 PM
I find it interesting how many college students I talk to talk about how much better going to college is than high school was. But then they also seem to feel that any action to make funding and incentives work a little bit more like college would be totally disastrous.
The US has one of the best (if not the best) higher education systems in the world, but one of the worst precollege systems in the world. It's odd that I never hear anyone ask the question "Why does one system work so well and the other work so poorly?"
Posted by: Lucas at Jul 15, 2007 6:41:01 PM
What is the basis for saying that the US has one of the worst precollege systems in the world anyway? I wonder if this isn't something that gets said so often that everyone believes it.
I've remember reading an interview with an education minister from Singapore saying he was worried about a "creativity gap" with America. I think there was also a recent EconTalk talking along these lines. So maybe our math scores might be lower but is that what is really going to be what helps our students have success in the future?
I also wonder about international rankings. For example, Germany has a stratified system so when I hear that their "high school" students perform better than ours in the USA does that mean just the students at Gymnasium or from all four levels. On the other hand our rankings include all students. Sounds like a recipe for selection bias to me. I honestly don't know the methodology of those studies you see in USAToday so I could be talking out of my behind here.
Posted by: Mike Russell at Jul 15, 2007 7:31:14 PM
What a terrific lot of shallow, fact-free posting. Recycling all the right-wing/libertarian talking points.
For opposing views by people who've actually studied these things, you can check out my index Public Schools, Education, and Vouchers.
It's part of my Critiques of Libertarianism web site.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Jul 15, 2007 8:47:48 PM
Can I have affection for children and good incentives? That would be really excellent. Because right now, the lack of incentives in my field is a source of deep frustration to me.
Slocum: I dunno. The invention of charter schools has led to the existence of companies which have franchise charter schools all over the place; I expect widespread vouchers would lead to a similar deal. It's not easy to set up a school and it would make a lot of sense for that startup knowledge to be available on a consultancy basis through an umbrella organization. Also, it's not cheap to run a good school -- I'm sure vouchers, were they widely implemented, would never come close to the tuition at my school, for instance -- so I suspect you *would* see some kinda Walmarty schools that could exist on the budgets vouchers provide. If there's an area where the vouchers are $x/year, you're going to see a lot of people figuring out what product you can deliver on $x yearly per-pupil spending...and there's a lot of corners you have to cut if x gets too low.
Posted by: Andromeda at Jul 15, 2007 9:06:19 PM
Are you the same Mike Huben who went to David Friedman's blog a few hours after Milton Friedman had died and told David that his "family business" was working for murderous dictators?
Because if you are, why the hell should anyone go read your g****** website?
Posted by: Wondering at Jul 15, 2007 9:28:34 PM
