Here’s a problem that school reformers often have when critiquing DPI, and it also defies logic: they expect that reform can or will take place within the existing monopoly. Reform in this case usually means adding some options?always at the discretion of the public education authorities?that weren’t available before.
If we take the premise that monopoly is bad (true, for government- established and run monopolies like DPI), as most public school reformers do, then it makes no sense to stand up and talk about how to make the monopoly “better,” whether academically better or physically safer. Both changes would be desirable, of course, but are we likely to get that outcome while DPI-run schools command thousands of tax dollars per family? Of course not, for the same reason that Marion Barry isn’t going to reduce D.C.’s crime/murder rate. There’s no compelling reason why he should bother, since his election efforts haven’t suffered, while attempting to do so would seriously upset the crony apple cart of D.C. politics that keeps him riding high.
The point is not whether the existing monopoly in either example could do a better job at ‘keeping the body count down,’ the point is that safeguarding and other functions are currently in the hands of government-sanctioned monopolists. What we know about monopolists under these circumstances is that they are free to pursue their own agenda? not necessarily the one contained in their job description. Remember: they get paid anyway.
It’s no surprise that we don’t get the services we pay for under any kind of protected monopoly. Expecting the culprits to reform themselves should be viewed with skepticism, as should reform efforts that require the cooperation of the monopolist provider. Instead of marvelling at how stupid this is in the one circumstance, we need to develop a learning curve when it comes to education in general.
