Connect with us

Education

Is School Choice a Free Market Solution?

School choice does not create a free market, but rather a public-private partnership that raises tuition and skews schools left.

Published

on

Empty K-12 classroom sign of zombie school

Proponents of school choice often use the term “free market” to woo conservative voters and politicians. I’ve been helping families choose other education options for decades. One of the first things we teach in debate class to tens of thousands of students each year is that a proper definition of terms is critical to success. Understanding the definition of a free market is vital in evaluating if state-sponsored choice will achieve its goals. Is school choice a “free market” solution or something else?

What kind of market does school choice produce?

School choice activists have defined a free market as when the government gives everyone the same amount of money to spend at any provider. I was taught that a free market was free from government intervention. Merriam-Webster defines it as “an economic system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and are not controlled or regulated by a government.” These are two conflicting ideas.

What School Choice proponents are describing in vouchers or education savings accounts (ESAs) is a quasi-market. Julian Le Grand, Professor of Social Policy at the London School of Economics, defines “‘quasi’-markets: that is, markets where the provision of a service is undertaken by competitive providers as in pure markets, but where the purchasers of the service are financed from resources provided by the state instead of from their own private resources.” In other words, the government gives everyone money to spend at their chosen provider. Quasi-markets mimic some market mechanisms, but it is a different economic worldview.

Quasi-markets in education result in ever-higher tuition

Research from other countries on quasi-markets found troubling results. In Sweden, research on quasi-markets in education found that prices tend to rise over time based on the value of the voucher or incentive. The voucher system has “generated unintended consequences that are detrimental to service quality and run counter to policy goals.” We should judge policy on its outcomes, not the hopes and dreams of the policy framers. Even current school choice evangelist, Corey DeAngelis, found in his 2018 study, “Lower-quality private schools are more likely to accept the voucher offer, regardless of the strings attached, because they are the most desperate for cash.”

School choice cannot be a “free market solution” while advocating for a system where the government collects taxes, sets funding levels, regulates providers, and distributes money to chosen schools. This is akin to claiming that food stamps represent a free market approach to grocery shopping or that Medicare exemplifies free market healthcare. The contradiction becomes clear when we examine what constitutes a free market—a system where prices for goods and services are determined by voluntary exchange between private parties, free from government intervention. By contrast, school choice programs depend entirely on government intervention—from funding collection through distribution and oversight. In his cautionary tale 1984, George Orwell said, “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

Advertisement

Financial aid, higher education’s school choice equivalent, turned colleges left

This corruption has real consequences for future policy if the school choice lobby wins. In marketing, there is a phrase, “The medium is the message,” meaning how you deliver something is even more important than the message itself. How does this apply to vouchers? You can have an institution that teaches the message that “free markets are best,” but when they don’t operate under one (medium), then that is what the students will learn. Why should students believe a teacher who doesn’t operate under their own stated worldview?

Higher education provides a cautionary tale of quasi-market outcomes that should inform our K-12 policy decisions. Conservatives rightly lament when we see that nearly all college professors are left-wing, but should it be surprising? Their salaries are almost exclusively paid for by state funding and federal student loans. They don’t compete in the free market. Should we be surprised college graduates continue to vote left? Higher Education is a particularly apt example of a quasi-market. Prices have skyrocketed, quality has plummeted, and our college graduates are saddled with debt. My Dad could pay his entire college bill with a summer job when he went to Michigan. Now Forbes reports, “The national average balance of federal student loan borrowers is $35,210.” Is this the system we want to import into the K-12 education sphere?

Use the proper terminology

Misusing “free market” terminology in education policy sets a dangerous precedent. Consider how this logic could extend to other sectors: Universal Housing and Universal Basic Income are both forms of quasi-markets that use the same underlying mechanism—government redistribution of funds through individual choice. To have a consistent worldview, we should expect the next generations to embrace these as free market solutions.

The stakes in this debate extend far beyond semantics. Voters and politicians must know proper economic terms to make informed decisions about education policy. Using accurate terminology isn’t just about academic precision—it’s about honestly evaluating the trade-offs and consequences of policy choices. If we start with an ignorant or deceitful definition of “free market,” we’re already lost. I would kindly ask school choice advocates to use the proper term in the future. If it is the truth we seek, we must begin with truthful definitions of terms. Of course, there is another option George Orwell pointed out in1984: “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”

This article was originally published by RealClearEducation and made available via RealClearWire.

Advertisement
Robert Bortins
CEO at  |  + posts

Robert Bortins is CEO of Classical Conversations.

Advertisement
Click to comment
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Trending

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x