As I begin to think more about and to explore the public choice aspects of education reform movements, I wonder whether it’s so much the case that power corrupts, or whether the corrupt seek power in the first place. I am talking about the leaders of education reform groups, their true mission, and their effectiveness.
Why do ineffective or self-serving groups continue to receive funding? Reasonably popular programs that are largely funded by taxpayers, such as those sported by the Education Leaders Council, will see funds flow as long as the grant proposals sound plausible and sufficiently earnest. Private dollars will continue to flow to lots of these organizations, too. The tax benefits are too attractive to pass up, and many if not most contributors have a sincere interest in the proposed reforms.
So what’s up with education reform? It’s a lucrative field, with growing employment potential and budgets. In some cases, it’s simply a jobs program for people who want to lead organizations. This, I am aware, is a whole different objective than producing educated, thinking young adults. Education reform and education are not the same thing, and we should stop confusing them.
Note above the consequences to organizations that are ineffective or unaccountable?they are given more money?I guess so they can “try harder.” Did anyone mention results? Not seriously. There is a huge incentive to retain power and influence at work in these groups, just as there is in government agencies and our present public school structure. Public choice analysis could explain much of what we see, vs. what we want to see.
This situation is of course shameful. As I see it, American students will continue to fall behind, education reform–with the exception of a few pockets of genuine research– will become an ever bigger industry, and I will go to Home Depot and buy a brick to keep on my desk. You’ll have to get your own.
