A Summary
The replacement of the existing system of publicly operated schools by a market of private ones-supported by government vouchers—would probably yield mixed results. On the one hand, some parents would have greater choices among schools and some schools would have to be productive in order to survive in the competitive framework. The increase in consumer choice and the resultant competition among schools would be likely to lead to greater educational benefits for many students and their families (private benefits) than those which they receive under the present monopolistic system.
On the other hand, the schools are also expected to fulfill certain social functions. It is in these that a market approach to schooling is likely to yield poor results. For example, basic schooling represents the primary device for equalizing opportunities among racial and social groups. Yet, advantaged children would probably receive far better schooling under the market proposal than would disadvantaged ones, and it is likely that this disparity would lead to larger future inequalities in opportunity between the children of the middle class and those of the poor. Further, it is not clear that a set of largely autonomous schools could provide the common set of values and knowledge necessary for the functioning of a democratic society. Finally, it is likely that the market proposal would increase racial and social stratification of students among schools. Whatever the success of the market in meeting consumer preferences, it would be offset by the market's failure to satisfy the social goals of basic schooling.
Fortunately, we are not limited to choosing between the traditional educational bureaucracy on the one hand or an unmitigated free market for educational services on the other. There are several ways to create competition within a public school system. Jencks, Sizer, and Coleman have suggested particular plans based upon the competitive framework, and the proposal for community schools represents a more general framework in which the competition of the market place might be used to advantage. The time is ripe to experiment with at least one of these plans for the children of the ghetto. Do we have any buyers?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Footnotes
A terse, but skillful, description of the “organizational sclerosis” that characterizes the slum schools is found in Christopher Jencks, “Is the Public School Obsolete?” The Public Interest,winter 1966, pp. 18–28.
Christopher Jencks has also endorsed the Friedman plan in the work previously cited. The fact that the "new left" (Jencks) and the "old right" (Friedman) can concur on the same educational palliative is reason enough to consider the market approach to education as a serious alternative to the present system.
Milton Friedman, “The Role of Government in Education,”in Robert A. Solo ed., Economics and the Public Interest,New Jersey:Rutgers University Press, 1955, pp. 124–125.
Ibid.,p. 127.
Ibid.,p. 129.
Ibid.
More specifically he staled that: The public can facilitate this acquisition (of reading, writing, and arithmetic among children of the poor) by establishing in every parish or district a little school, where children may be taught for a reward so moderate, that even a common labourer may afford it; the master being partly, but not wholly paid by the public; because, if he was wholly, or even principally paid by it, he would soon learn to neglect his business.(Emphasis provided.)
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, iModern Library Edition,New York:Random House, Inc., 1937, p. 737.
Friedman has suggested that under certain conditions it might be desirable to have a mixed system of both public schools and private alternatives. Parents who did not wish to use the public institution would receive a tuition voucher the maximum sum of which would be equal to the cost of educating a child in a government school. See, “The Role of Government in Education,” op. cit.,p. 130.
Jencks, “Is the Public School Obsolete?” op. cit.
See Joseph Kershaw andRoland McKean, Teacher Shortages and Salary Schedules,New York:McGraw-Hill, 1962.I have also developed an extensive set of data on this phenomenon which will be published in the future.
Friedman, “The Role of Government in Education,” op. cit.New York:McGraw-Hill, 1962 p. 127.
Ibid.,New York:McGraw-Hill, 1962 p. 130.
Leonard Downie, Jr., “FTC Chief Testifies the Poor Pay More,” The Washington Post,January 31, 1968, p. A1. Other evidence is provided in David Caplovitz, The Poor Pay More,Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963.
At the same salary level, the inner-city schools appear to obtain teachers of lower quality than do schools in middle-class areas. This phenomenon is probably the result of the fact that most teachers prefer middle-class schools to those in the ghetto. See my Recruiting Teachers for Large-City Schools(Brookings Institute, in process).
Compare this amount with the average estimated current expenditure per pupil for all educational services in 1967–68 (except capital) of $619. See Estimates of School Statistics, 1967–68,Research Report 1967-R19 National Education Association, 1967.
Jencks, “Is the Public School Obsolete?” op. cit.,p. 26.
Robert Collins Smith, They Closed Their Schools: Prince Edward County, Virginia, 1951–1964,North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1965.
Quoted from Robert C. Maynard, ”The Ultimate Solution Recommended for Schools,” The Washington Post,November 12, 1967.
Milton Friedman, “A Free Market in Education,” The Public Interest,spring 1966, p. 107.
For a discussion of the distribution of educational resources and equality of opportunity, see Samuel S. Bowles, “Towards Equality of Educational Opportunity?” Harvard Educational Review(forthcoming spring 1968).
Evidence which would appear to confirm this phenomenon is the fact that achievement levels of Negro students seem to be far more sensitive to differences in school resources than are achievement levels of white students. See James S. Coleman, et al. Equality of Educational Opportunity,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. Office of Education, 1966, Chapter III. This finding has been confirmed in reanalyses of the Coleman data by Samuel S. Bowles at Harvard.
Theodore Sizer, “Reform and the Control of Education,” 1967, p. 14. (Mimeo.)
James S. Coleman, ”Towards Open Schools,” The Public Interest,fall 1967, pp. 20–27.
Ibid.,p. 25.
Ibid.
The Coleman Report's extensive analysis of the determinants of verbal achievementis based upon the standardized tests of verbal ability provided by Educational Testing Service. See Coleman, et al., Equality of Educational Opportunity, op. cit.,pp. 292–295.
Reconnection for Learning—A Community School System for New York City,Report of the Mayor's Advisory Panel on Decentralization of the New York City Schools, 1967, p. 16.
Ibid.,p. 18.
Both Jencks and Sizer have endorsed this approach.
Additional information
Henry M. Levin is a research associate with the Economic Studies Division of the Brookings Institute. He has written on economic and educational matters in the Saturday Review, the Journal of Human Resources,and other publications. He is currently organizing a Brookings conference on the community school.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levin, H.M. The failure of the public schools and the free market remedy. Urban Rev 2, 32–37 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02223251
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02223251