Are the American Public Schools a Government Monopoly?

Kevin: It's clear to me that most American parents... who have a choice about where to work, where to shop for goods, and where to get most of the services they use, are, when it comes to educating their own children, forced into a government run monopoly.

Jim: Wait a minute. A monopoly? My dictionary says that a monopoly means having exclusive control over particular goods or services. What about religious schools? What about private schools? That doesn't sound like a government monopoly to me.

Kevin: It does to the millions of parents and students that are trapped in decaying, low-performing urban schools. It does to the millions of poor and minority parents who have no choice but to send their kids to these government-run "public" schools.

Jim: Let me guess here. You are proposing some sort of a capitalist educational system, turning the public schools over to corporations to run like little Wal-Marts or Taco Bells. Look, by all means and with all haste, those failing schools need to be reformed and revitalized, but this doesn't mean dismantling our public school system.

Kevin: Personally, I prefer the term "free market" educational system to "capitalist," but that is a small point. Essentially, the idea is, instead of giving the tax dollars collected from citizens to some government bureaucrat, some superintendent of schools, give the dollars back to parents to buy the educational services they believe are best for their kids. The current system is like the government collecting a hefty car tax from citizens and then telling them they can only choose a single brand of government-issued car.

Jim: We're not talking here about buying cars or soap flakes. We are talking about educating kids, preparing them to be successful human beings and good citizens. Our free, universal system of public schooling is one of the great success stories in our history. It has been copied around the world. Sure, it can and should be improved, but not by turning it over to corporations whose main goal is to make money. That is a recipe for disaster. Have you forgotten Enron!

Kevin: Listen, a lot of our public schools are Enrons, but they aren't being allowed to fail. We keep pumping money into them, keeping them afloat while generation after generation of kids drowns. What the public schools need is a healthy dose of competition, the same kind of competition that has given us such a vital economy and raised Americans standard of living to be the envy of the world. Nobody today is copying our noncompetitive schools.

Jim: Actually, that's not true. The Japanese, who excel in taking exams, are very dissatisfied with their educational system that promotes conformity and discourages creativity. They are looking at the American system for ideas. Besides, schooling isn't about competition. Administrators and teacher aren't in it for the money. We, the public, own the schools, like we own the military and law enforcement. What we need is greater public concern and involvement in our schools, not to sacrifice our kids on the altar of corporate competition.

For more information on the current status of school choice and privatization of public schools, visit these web sites, then reflect on the questions that follow.

Web Links:

Program on Educational Policy and Governance
Located at the John F. Kennedy School of Governance at Harvard University, this program issues numerous reports on school choice.

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
The Fordham Foundation is a conservative group that issues many papers and positions supporting vouchers and charter schools.

Privatization of Public Education
The weekly online publication, Education Week, has published this "hot topic" summary of current trends in corporate involvement in running public schools. The article includes links to many related current news articles, organizations, and further resources.

Clarifying ESEA School Choice Mandates
This Education Week article from July 2002 describes the options for students to leave low-performing schools that are required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Many Reject Vouchers, Return to Public Schools

This November 2002 article from the Miami Herald reports that, just two months after the start of the school year, about one-fourth of Miami students who received vouchers to attend private schools as an alternative to their failing public schools have opted to return to their old schools.

For Further Reflection:

1. How do the provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which require school districts to provide free transportation to alternative schools for students of low-performing schools, affect the "monopoly" position of public schools in American education?
   
   
2. What do you believe are the pros and cons of private corporations managing public schools? Do you think you would like to teach in such a school?
   
   
3. Do you believe that increasing the number of alternatives to low-performing schools will spur improved performance at those schools? Why or why not? If low-performing schools fail to improve, should they be "allowed to fail," as Kevin Ryan suggests?