Rick Hess's recent piece in The American is finally online. As you might recall, this article--"After Milwaukee"--was the subject of a spirited Howard Fuller speech a few weeks ago, and is likely to put Hess in the school-choice doghouse, where he can hang out with Sol Stern.
His critique of the Milwaukee voucher program is two-fold. First, its competitive pressures haven't led to systemic improvements in the public schools, as some free-market advocates had expected. And second, it hasn't led to "innovation or excellence" in the private school market, either.
Hess, for one, isn't surprised about either development:
In the school choice debate, many reformers have gotten so invested in the language of "choice" that they seem to forget choice is only half of the market equation. Markets are about both supply and demand--and, while "choice" is concerned with emboldening consumer demand, the real action when it comes to prosperity, productivity, and progress is typically on the supply side.
Simply put, market reform is not just about choice; it is also about enabling market mechanisms to channel human energy and ingenuity into solving problems and satisfying needs. Dynamic markets require much more than customers choosing among government operated programs and a handful of nonprofits. Unfortunately, given an often casual faith in the power of choice, little has been done to eliminate the ways in which state regulations, licensure requirements, and funding systems stifle entrepreneurial ventures.
Private schools in Milwaukee and elsewhere may not face many constraints by way of regulation, but paltry funding is certainly a barrier. And that's one reason why so many philanthropists seem to be increasingly interested in making investments in the charter school sector, where "dynamism" is a possibility, but ample public funding is, too.??
If private school choice is unlikely to unleash productive "competitive effects," and to date has failed to develop excellence or innovation, at least at scale, why continue to support it? For me, the most compelling argument is about maintaining America's stock of high-quality private urban schools, particularly parochial schools. "Save the Catholic schools" may not be as attractive a slogan as "transform the education system," but for the voucher movement, this more modest approach might also be more honest.
