Strickland: Ohio’s Narcissus
Sunday, July 27th, 2008 By James Nesbitt
Dennis J. Willard of the Akron Beacon Journal writes today that Governor Strickland’s “Conversations on Education” appear to be a sincere attempt to bring about meaningful reform:
It would be easy to dismiss Gov. Ted Strickland’s 12-city tour on education reform as a dog-and-pony show.
To do so, however, would be to prematurely demean the governor’s sincere intentions to seriously address Ohio’s woeful education funding system.
And we should at least give the governor an unimpeded path as he attempts to listen to Ohio.
On Tuesday, Strickland kicked off his ”Conversations on Education” in Columbus before an audience of about 200 people representing educators, parents, students, business owners and others.
The crowd talked about infusing students with passion, making school fun, crafting individual education plans to meet the student’s needs and talents, longer school years, all-day kindergarten, the return of the arts and physical fitness, and less emphasis on testing…
…Still, Strickland admitted afterward that he didn’t hear anything particularly new.
Indeed Strickland did not, because one subject not discussed was the beneficial role school choice through vouchers and charter schools can play in improving the opportunities available to Ohio students and parents. So why wasn’t this issue addressed? Because powerful union interests make it a political necessity for Strickland to dismantle alternatives (and indeed, he is attempting to do so); since the inefficiencies of the current system deliver relatively large benefits to a few while inconveniencing a great many relatively little, there exists a much greater incentive for the former group to defend the system than exists an incentive for the latter group to force its reform (Click here for development of this economic theory). In other words, Dennis, he isn’t really attempting to listen to Ohio if your definition of the word extends beyond the members of the Ohio Education Association.
The focus needs to be placed on incentives. The incentives facing students, parents, teachers, and administrators in our current public system are flawed, and the results have been predictable. Are charter schools and voucher programs perfect? Certainly not, but many of the problems with these alternatives are caused by poor incentives that result from ill-designed government regulation of these programs. The theory, however, is sound. We must design a system that provides the incentives for good schools, and that starts with choice and competition. Shutting down charter schools and voucher programs rather than changing the legal structure by which they operate is the wrong way to do it.
If Governor Strickland were sincere about meaningful, positive reform, he would consider the merits of school choice. Unfortunately, he fits the mold of the typical politician in attempting to please the special interests whose favor is required to retain power rather than effecting positive change. He’s not listening to Ohio voters, he listening to his own political backers. It should be expected; after all, he’s merely responding to his incentives.
Tags: Education, Health care, School Choice
July 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Perhaps Buckeye should let the governor come out with a plan before you trash it. If he is true to his word, we will see a redesigned from the ground up education delivery system. I admit it is unlikely, but it is surely possible that charters will play a role.
Almost any significant change will impact his political base. It would be impossible for the Governor to design a less efficient system than what already exists. Since his base benefits from this inefficiency, it is logical to assume that the impact to his base will be negative. My read on Governor Strickland is that he would take the political hit if he believes it would make a difference.
It is interesting that Buckeye equates “School Choice” with charter schools. The two are not the same. If the Governor breaks the connection between where you live and which school you attend, would that satisfy the school choice advocates, even if your choice of school is between public schools? Assuming the governor takes this step, and he must if he is to provide individualized learning, it is not that big a stretch to include charters in the mix.
Time will tell.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I agree that there is a small chance that Governor Strickland’s plan may result in some surprisingly positive results. However, his “Conversations on Education” are not a sincere attempt to solicit the input of the voting base in the development of that plan, as he wishes you to believe.
I am not critiquing his plan at all here, as one does not yet exist. However, I am criticizing the misleading tactic he is using to convince the voters their “voices are heard” and their suggestions are given weight and examining the motives behind his actions. The problems of incentives created by collective action have been detailed by many economists (most notably by Mancur Olson). I am merely bringing it to the attention of Ohioans that the theory applies to this case.
School choice indeed extends beyond the services offered by charter schools; this is why I refer to voucher programs as well, which would allow students to choose any school, whether charter, private, or another public program. Milton Friedman heavily advocated vouchers as a way to effect school choice. A combination of voucher programs and charter schools are the best transition given the current structure of our education system, but they should by no means be the end goal for truly free choice in education.