"Dismal Science: The Shortcomings of U.S. School Choice Research and
How to Address Them," by John Merrifield, Policy Analysis no. 616,
April 16, 2008
Pressing questions about the merits of market accountability in K-12
education have spawned a large scholarly literature. Unfortunately,
much of that literature is of limited relevance, and some of it is
misleading. The studies most widely cited in the United States used
intense scrutiny of a few small-scale, restriction-laden U.S. programs=97
and a handful of larger but still restriction-laden foreign school
choice expansions=97to assert general conclusions about the effects of
"choice," "competition," and "markets." The most intensely studied
programs lack most or all of the key elements of market systems,
including profit, price change, market entry, and product
differentiation=97 factors that are normally central to any discussion
of market effects. In essence, researchers have drawn conclusions
about apples by studying lemons. To address the need for credible
evidence on the effects of genuine education markets, economists
should look to simulation models, indirect evidence such as outcomes
in similar industries, and school systems abroad that enjoy varying
degrees of market accountability
pdf is at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-616.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3D9326
|
