Accountability and School Choice
Opponents of school choice argue that private schools are not ‘accountable’ because they are not subject to detailed regulatory oversight by the state. School choice supporters respond that parents hold private schools accountable through the choices they make in the education marketplace.The real issue for policymakers when considering school choice policies is: does the ability of parents to choose their school hold those schools accountable as effectively as the rules and regulations promulgated by the state?
Regulatory accountability has the advantage of employing multiple monitors to ensure compliance with the goals we value in our education system. Regulators have the authority to investigate, audit or punish a school for non-compliance.
However, there are significant drawbacks when the state relies on regulatory accountability mechanisms. The success or failure of attaining any goal is largely dependent upon the motivation of those who carry it out. In K-12 public education, motivation for compliance is not imposed by parents who have a stake in the results, but by bureaucrats with few incentives beyond altruism to ensure the system functions or to respond in a timely manner to areas of concern.
More importantly, regulatory accountability, by its very nature, must follow formal procedures that are the result of political compromises and legal interpretation. Because the rules that govern regulatory accountability are largely shaped by politics, they often reflect interests other than what is best for children. Regulations are in large part determined by the relative strength of various political actors, by the outcomes of elections and court cases, and by compromises in negotiations with self-interested organizations.
In the case of self-interested groups, the collective bargaining power of teachers’ unions helps them install procedural obstacles to regulatory accountability aimed at ensuring the operation of effective schools. When parents and students have serious issues with how their schools are being run, coming to an acceptable resolution is time-consuming, exceedingly cumbersome, and at times expensive as well, under this system.
On the other hand, the strengths of market accountability essentially mirror the weaknesses of control by regulation. Creating accountability through an education market results from the decisions of parents, as they are more strongly motivated than even the most well-meaning regulator. Parents are much more likely to err on the side of protecting their child or standing up for the child’s best interest, since their decision-making processes are solely their own and solely concerned with the well-being of their child. A parent with choice has the ability to withdraw their child from a school that is failing to meet their expectations, at any time, without being forced to endure a long and tedious legal process.
In a 2007 Friedman Foundation report, Greg Forster and Matthew Carr compared market accountability and regulatory accountability, specifically concerning the issue of teacher misconduct. Their study concluded that the “evidence supports school choice proponents in their claim that parents are just as good at protecting their children as a government bureaucracy.”
In short, market accountability is superior to bureaucratic control in at least five key areas: teacher misconduct, academic achievement, fiscal responsibility, teacher quality and fairness or lack of discrimination.
• Teacher misconduct: The Friedman Foundation study revealed that market accountability is associated with fewer incidents of teacher and staff misconduct in the private schools when compared to public schools.
• Academic achievement: Private schools and charter schools graduate a greater percentage of their students and send more of those students on to college.
• Fiscal responsibility: Both charter schools and private schools can be closed if there are fiscal irregularities, and private schools can be sued.
• Teacher quality: Government educators regularly claim that private school teachers are not as qualified; but again, the private schools graduate more students and send more on to higher education.
• Discrimination: It is important to note that neither charter schools nor private schools that are participating in voucher programs are permitted to discriminate in any way among incoming students. Opponents of choice have regularly claimed discrimination, but the facts are against them.
The market accountability created when parents are allowed to choose the school their child attends has proven to be an effective mechanism for creating more responsive, more efficient and safer schools. The track record for state control through a patchwork of rules and regulations is far less convincing.
Matthew Carr is the education policy director at the Buckeye Institute. Beth Lear is an education policy analysts at the Buckeye Institute.
