(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
NRO’s Reihan Salam on the revolutionary potential of education savings accounts. Goldwater Institute proposal by yours truly and Nick Dranias coming soon…
Jay P. Greene's Blog
With Help From Some Friends
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
NRO’s Reihan Salam on the revolutionary potential of education savings accounts. Goldwater Institute proposal by yours truly and Nick Dranias coming soon…
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
Wouldn’t it be simpler to aggressively raise the cap on charter schools?
It would not be simpler to just raise the cap on charter schools. The infrastructure of private schools is already in place and has excess capacity to accomodate more students. Where there is not excess capacity, expansion of existing private schools (or the establishment of new ones) is easier than the beaurocratic process of establishiong new charter schools. Raising charter caps is a good idea in itself, but it is certainly not a simpler nor easier one.
I agree with Brian, and in addition- if we want a dynamic education system that encourages people to develop high quality new methods at a lower cost than currently provided, we must move beyond charter and voucher mechanisms.
Don’t get me wrong, I like charter and voucher mechanisms. I just like what Salam is talking about more.
But there’s a tension between those two, Matt – if private choice is easier than charter schools because you’re going to use “existing capacity,” then you’re not innovating.
Charter schools got hot and fashionable because they were supporting the emergence of new schools that were driving innovation. Just moving more kids from “existing” public schools to “existing” private schools is part of the problem you’re addressing with these ESAs.
Hmmm, since when did consumer choice not lead to innovation? Did we have to ban the notebook computer in order to develop smartphones and the ipad?
The notebook computer was not controlled by a ruthless government computing monopoly. If it had been, then making space for the emergence of new technologies that did the same job better might well have required a complicated policy process. Opening up space for “consumer choice” would require dismantling multiple dimensions of political, economic and cultural systems designed to protect the monopoly.
Now that you’ve vented, I am still wondering how keeping large numbers of families from excercising choice immediately, as we wait for new “innovative” schools to develop in large enough numbers to meet the demand for choice of the type the is preferable and innovative enough for you, encourages innovation. Asked alternatively, how is allowing large numbers of families to excercise choice immediately by taking advantage of existing private school options retarding innovation. Do you really want to limit choice and keep more kids in the public schools while we wait for these preferred innovative schools?
Not at all.
What I am suggesting that there are designs for school choice that are superior to either vouchers or charter schools.
For clarification, I wasn’t saying anything about what was preferable or not preferable. You were discussing not only which option was preferable but also which option was more “simple,” which is a different question. The more simple plan may not be the preferable plan. And all I wanted to point out was that your argument for the “simplicity” of the plan assumes it will mainly use existing capacity, whereas Matt’s argument for the desirability of the plan assumes it will not mainly use existing capacity, but rather spur the creation of new schools and systems.
and I still wonder how it is that you feel allowing more families choice, and sooner, even if it much of it uses existing capacity, will deter innovation. It is not possible that existing private schools will innovate to attract the newly empowered families?
“if private choice is easier than charter schools because you’re going to use “existing capacity,” then you’re not innovating.” Excuse me for assuming that statement implied a preference.