If grocery stores were like public schools

[William Wallace]

https://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704436004576299571015982098-lMyQjAxMTAxMDAwNjEwNDYyWj.html

Teachers unions and their political allies argue that market forces can't supply quality education. According to them, only our existing system—politicized and monopolistic—will do the trick. Yet Americans would find that approach ludicrous if applied to other vital goods or services.

Suppose that groceries were supplied in the same way as K-12 education. Residents of each county would pay taxes on their properties. Nearly half of those tax revenues would then be spent by government officials to build and operate supermarkets. Each family would be assigned to a particular supermarket according to its home address. And each family would get its weekly allotment of groceries—"for free"—from its neighborhood public supermarket.

No family would be permitted to get groceries from a public supermarket outside of its district. Fortunately, though, thanks to a Supreme Court decision, families would be free to shop at private supermarkets that charge directly for the groceries they offer. Private-supermarket families, however, would receive no reductions in their property taxes.

Of course, the quality of public supermarkets would play a major role in families' choices about where to live. Real-estate agents and chambers of commerce in prosperous neighborhoods would brag about the high quality of public supermarkets to which families in their cities and towns are assigned.

Being largely protected from consumer choice, almost all public supermarkets would be worse than private ones. In poor counties the quality of public supermarkets would be downright abysmal. Poor people—entitled in principle to excellent supermarkets—would in fact suffer unusually poor supermarket quality.

How could it be otherwise? Public supermarkets would have captive customers and revenues supplied not by customers but by the government. Of course they wouldn't organize themselves efficiently to meet customers' demands.

Responding to these failures, thoughtful souls would call for "supermarket choice" fueled by vouchers or tax credits. Those calls would be vigorously opposed by public-supermarket administrators and workers.

Opponents of supermarket choice would accuse its proponents of demonizing supermarket workers (who, after all, have no control over their customers' poor eating habits at home). Advocates of choice would also be accused of trying to deny ordinary families the food needed for survival. Such choice, it would be alleged, would drain precious resources from public supermarkets whose poor performance testifies to their overwhelming need for more public funds.

As for the handful of radicals who call for total separation of supermarket and state—well, they would be criticized by almost everyone as antisocial devils indifferent to the starvation that would haunt the land if the provision of groceries were governed exclusively by private market forces.

In the face of calls for supermarket choice, supermarket-workers unions would use their significant resources for lobbying—in favor of public-supermarkets' monopoly power and against any suggestion that market forces are appropriate for delivering something as essential as groceries. Some indignant public-supermarket defenders would even rail against the insensitivity of referring to grocery shoppers as "customers," on the grounds that the relationship between the public servants who supply life-giving groceries and the citizens who need those groceries is not so crass as to be discussed in terms of commerce.

Recognizing that the erosion of their monopoly would stop the gravy train that pays their members handsome salaries without requiring them to satisfy paying customers, unions would ensure that any grass-roots effort to introduce supermarket choice meets fierce political opposition.

In reality, of course, groceries and many other staples of daily life are distributed with extraordinary effectiveness by competitive markets responding to consumer choice. The same could be true of education—the unions' self-serving protestations notwithstanding.

Brilliant. This highlights the absurdity of the monopoly on education, in my opinion. Any thoughts?

[Chino]

I think it's spot on.

[XJDenton]

I think that children aren't groceries.

[El Barto]

And we'll just pretend that affluent white people don't get nice, Tom Thumb flagships to shop at while the inner city types are lucky to get a 7-11 and a variety of liquor stores for their shopping needs.  

[lordxizor]

I think that children aren't groceries.

I think there are some good points. However, there are states (Minnesota included) that allow students to go to any public school they want to go to (if there is room for them after all the students living in that district) without paying an extra cent other than finding a way to get them there.

The assumption in the article is that 100% of the problems with our children's education is the school's (and thus the government's) fault. I tend to believe that a good chuck of it is the parent's fault. Parent's these days seem less likely to take the side of the teacher. They are less likely to play a large role in their children's education, due to indifference or to busier work schedules. I'm not placing all the blame on the parents, the school definitely have their faults, but if parents truely took an active role in their children's education and held their children accountable for their performance in school, our schools would be much more successful.

[Cool Chris]

I will forward this to my wife, the teacher, for her thoughts.

I know she is not against private schools, though would prefer we don’t send our kids to one. She really believes in the public school system and every kid’s right to a free *cough* education. But it isn’t because she is an ardent union member, only interested in padding her pension. She readily admits her union has just as many disadvantages as it has advantages, and she has to accept one if she accepts the other. She is one of those ‘it takes a village’ types who think ‘we are all in this together.’ While I argue I’d take a pair of concerned, proactive parents over a village any day.

Also, if we are advocating the abolishment of all public schools, I am not sure the demand in some areas would be the same as it is for groceries. In line with Barto's comment, people are content with the mini-mart to get their Doritos, and the stores will oblige. But what is going to ensure these privately operated schools are going to be cost-effective for everyone? Those pesky 'market forces?'

[PraXis]

  that's a great article.

Choice improves quality because it forces competition.

[AcidLameLTE]

Choice improves quality because it forces competition.

If only the world was that black and white.

[lordxizor]

Anyone wan to venture a guess what percentage of kids would get zero education if their parents had to pay for it out of pocket?

[7StringedBeast]

I suggest that everyone watch Waiting for Superman.  If you even feel inclined to post in this thread, then you really should watch that documentary.

[Durg]

Yep.  I'm paying for a public supermarket with my property taxes.  However, I get all of my food from a private store 45 minutes away from my house.  I love the analogy.

[El Barto]

Choice improves quality because it forces competition.

If only the world was that black and white.

No doubt.  Choice only improves quality if there's enough profitable demand to create competition.

Anyone wan to venture a guess what percentage of kids would get zero education if their parents had to pay for it out of pocket?

You don't get it.  They'd be able to spend all their proper tax money on their kids instead of crack, lottery tickets, Doritos and solid gold rims for their Buic Regal.

[lordxizor]

Choice improves quality because it forces competition.

If only the world was that black and white.

No doubt.  Choice only improves quality if there's enough profitable demand to create competition.

You'd end up with the same problems you have now. Crappy schools in the inner city and in rural areas, and great schools in affluent suburbs.

[GuineaPig]

Guess the author's never heard of the term "food desert."

[7StringedBeast]

The biggest change that can be made is to be able to fire teachers that don't perform and pay teachers that perform better/put more into their work more money.  A great teacher can be the difference between excellence and failure.  Also, parents need to be involved.  It's part of the parenting process. 

[lordxizor]

The biggest change that can be made is to be able to fire teachers that don't perform and pay teachers that perform better/put more into their work more money.  A great teacher can be the difference between excellence and failure.  Also, parents need to be involved.  It's part of the parenting process. 

This.

[PraXis]

You tie the money to the kid and you give parents choice. Each kid is $10000 to the school (for example) If little Joey's parents choose school B over A then school A doesn't get that $10,000. School B gets $10,000 because Joey is going there now. It will force schools to improve because they won't get money otherwise.

[El Barto]

You tie the money to the kid and you give parents choice. Each kid is $10000 to the school (for example) If little Joey's parents choose school B over A then school A doesn't get that $10,000. School B gets $10,000 because Joey is going there now. It will force schools to improve because they won't get money otherwise.

OK, now you're on to something.  However, nowhere in Braveheart's analogy was there mention of handing everybody a Kroger's card.

Now, that said, they've experimented with Charter schools down here and other places, and the results were less than encouraging.  Aside from the fact that the motivation is different in the schools, you still have the problem that pros/cons of various schools aren't obvious enough to promote honest competition.  Competition is great for things that are plainly obvious to see,  like a car,  but not so much for things that subtle and slow to observe. 

[PraXis]

That's true too... but where were the charter school results bad? In D.C...in a very VERY rough district, they had a very successful charter school system, but the unions helped kill it last year.

[7StringedBeast]

That's true too... but where were the charter school results bad? In D.C...in a very VERY rough district, they had a very successful charter school system, but the unions helped kill it last year.

Have you seen Waiting for Superman?  It talks all about that whole debocle.

[XJDenton]

According to a study by Stanford 17% of charter schools perform better than public schools, 46% the same and 37% significantly worse. I think the film is also on record stating that they focused primarily on the succeeding ones.

[rumborak]

BTW, the voucher system was declared a failure by Sweden, which implemented it extensively.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Choice improves quality because it forces competition.

If only the world was that black and white.

No doubt.  Choice only improves quality if there's enough profitable demand to create competition.

Anyone wan to venture a guess what percentage of kids would get zero education if their parents had to pay for it out of pocket?

You don't get it.  They'd be able to spend all their proper tax money on their kids instead of crack, lottery tickets, Doritos and solid gold rims for their Buic Regal.

The assumption that poor people are stupid assholes, as you know, drives me up the wall. There will always be people that neglect their children. But I'm willing to bet that most poor people aren't that way. Furthermore, if opening up education to competition improves the system generally, I don't think we should put the brakes on reform efforts because the minority (numerically speaking) will make bad decisions. Catering national policy to accommodate a handful of idiots is a route to guaranteed failure.

[El Barto]

I agree with everything you said there.  But throwing education to the free market won't improve things. 

[William Wallace]

I agree with everything you said there.  But throwing education to the free market won't improve things.  

Do you even consider the changes that would take place before you whip out the impracticality card? The only major change in this instance is that parents would get to choose where their children attend, and the teachers unions would get to fuck off. What could possibly be wrong with that?

[El Barto]

Did you read all the preceding posts?  The problems have been discussed, and the major changes are more than just choice and no more unions. 

Just to clarify, are you going along with Praxis's charter school/voucher program, or suggesting that parents just keep their tax money and spend it on whatever school they want (or other things)?

[7StringedBeast]

Good schools would be too overpopulated so their price would go up.  Poor people won't be able to afford a good education.  Oh shit we are back to exactly how it is now.

[Riceball]

Theoretically speaking, if the market for 'education' - or more specifically 'school education' was allowed to operate as any other market, the steady state equilibrium would likely be similar to the current arrangement in terms of market concentration, although with higher prices for everyone.

I could explain my rationale, but I think you are all smart enough to work it out lol

[William Wallace]

BTW, the voucher system was declared a failure by Sweden, which implemented it extensively.

rumborak

Do you have more info about that? I'm curious to see exactly why they think it failed. There's a lot research on school choice and much of it suggests that giving people options, like they have with almost everything else, improves education.

Good schools would be too overpopulated so there price would go up.  Poor people won't be able to afford a good education.  Oh shit we are back to exactly how it is now.

The other side of the equation is that the demand for better schools would lead to...more of them. Oh shit. And let's remember that people won't be deprived of money for education. The money per pupil that is normally handed over to the school administration would be attached to each child.

nowhere in Braveheart's analogy was there mention of handing everybody a Kroger's card.

The analogy was to illustrate how miserable the public school system is, not why public schools should operate like grocery stores. Subtle difference. And, yes, I think vouchers are one viable way to reform education.

Now, that said, they've experimented with Charter schools down here and other places, and the results were less than encouraging.  Aside from the fact that the motivation is different in the schools, you still have the problem that pros/cons of various schools aren't obvious enough to promote honest competition.  Competition is great for things that are plainly obvious to see,  like a car,  but not so much for things that subtle and slow to observe.

Would you elaborate on this? How is the motivation different? What makes education different from other services that are improved by competition? And remember, our education system is awful. Dropout rates are high, schools are incredibly expensive and the unions are corrupt. We can't leave the system the way it is now, and I don't see why programs like vouchers shouldn't be seriously considered. 

[tjanuranus]

I think the last line in that article shows blatant bias by the creator. Also i think it's asinine to compare education to supermarkets. Lastly the harder a teachers job is, the less they get paid. Teachers in the inner city get paid less than teachers in wealthier neighborhoods. If pay was based on test scores this discrepancy would get even worse. Which means the poor people get fucked again because no good teacher would want to go somewhere that odds are, they are going to get paid way less. Also teachers and police officers should be making more money, not less. Politicians should be making less money than they do.

[PraXis]

If you want to know about the truth of the American public school system, read The Underground History of American Education:

https://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/

[El Barto]

TJ:  In many places it's the opposite.  Rougher schools in the DISD pay teachers much better than nice, upper class neighborhoods.  Think of it as combat pay.  A friend of mine spent the first few years of his teaching career in a fairly unpleasant school because he needed the extra dough. 

Would you elaborate on this? How is the motivation different? What makes education different from other services that are improved by competition? And remember, our education system is awful. Dropout rates are high, schools are incredibly expensive and the unions are corrupt. We can't leave the system the way it is now, and I don't see why programs like vouchers shouldn't be seriously considered. 

Whether they suck at it or not, the motivation of a public school system is to educate kids.  The motivation for a privately run school is to make money, and educating kids is merely one possible byproduct.  I say possible because, as we've found down here, it's just as likely that they cut every corner that they can that will still allow them acceptable test scores.  Remember, most people (and this includes the governing bodies, as well) don't like to do any more research than necessary.  They'll look at the one or two best indicators and price, and then make a decision.  Making a spreadsheet showing the eventual outcome of a 10 year sampling of students isn't going to happen.  Sorting the chart by test score is.  All of the charter schools down here have waiting lists to get in, despite that they don't actually do any better or worse than the regular public schools.  The simple fact that they are charter schools give them a leg up. 

The bigger issue is still that if the education system is entirely privatized, you'd see a huge difference in the quality based on affluence of neighborhood.  To use your analogy, there are some very good and well-achieving schools in the shakiest parts of Dallas.  There aren't any grocery stores worth a shit in the entire Southwest region of Dallas. 

[rumborak]

Do you have more info about that? I'm curious to see exactly why they think it failed. There's a lot research on school choice and much of it suggests that giving people options, like they have with almost everything else, improves education.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/feb/09/swedish-style-schools-wont-raise-standards

He said: "This competition between schools that was one of the reasons for introducing the new schools has not led to better results. The lesson is that it's not easy to find a way to continue school improvement. The students in the new schools have, in general, better standards, but it has to do with their parents and backgrounds. They come from well-educated families."

much of it suggests that giving people options, like they have with almost everything else, improves education.

Honestly, the vast majority of "research" I have seen on this was heavily biased and supposed to show the result the author wanted to see. The Conservatives want less gov't involvement in education, that is the starting point. After that "research" was created to show that it's better to do so.

rumborak

[eric42434224]

The single biggest factor in bettering a childs education is the family.  The educational background and views on the importance of education of the parents....and the direct involvement they have in their childs education.
As an example: when my 5 yr old goes to bed, I read her a book....then she reads ME a book.  I dont think many parents do anything even close to this.  They drop their kid off at school, and pick them up, and that is where the learning stops.
The schools system is not the biggest problem.

[lordxizor]

The schools system is not the biggest problem.

I wholeheartedly agree. I just read a book that said fi you read your children 3 books a day basically from the day they're born, they will read sooner, often without any complicated teaching method, and are overall quicker to learn than other kids. It takes like 10 minutes a day to read 3 kids books. Parents have twice the influence on a kid's education than the school does.