Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Schools and monopolies

Imagine that you went to a shoe store and after you asked a clerk to try on a certain pair of shoes he punched you in the face. Suffice to say you probably wouldn't be shopping there anymore. Now imagine that your child attends a public school and is beaten by a teacher -- what do you do then? Well, you can complain to the school, but since they are a government monopoly they really don't have to do anything about it. They have little reason to treat you like a valued customer since they are the only game in town.

Think I am being ridiculous? Check out this story about abuse in Chicago public schools. Kids were beat up, investigators decided they were telling the truth -- and teachers were given a slap on the wrist.

Can anyone imagine a private enterprise operating this way and staying in business?

This really shouldn't come as a surprise. Under the system in which most of us operate you do not choose the school your children attend, unless you pay for private schooling. Rather you are assigned a school typically based on geography. The schools have little incentive other than to look after their own best interests. The teacher's unions look after the teachers but who looks after the kids? Facing little competition why should they attempt to provide great service?

There is a direct relationship between competition and service. Where are you typically treated better, the post office or UPS? Almost any store imaginable or the DMV?

Why should we think that a government monopoly on schools is the best means of providing public education?

No comments: