The latest evidence that school districts are increasingly acting like commercial businesses comes from the two urban districts in the Tampa Bay area.
The Tampa Bay Times reports that, “Increased competition for students, declining enrollment in the middle grades, and a need to offer more attractive options to families is leading Pinellas County Schools to open new magnet programs at four middle schools next fall.”
According to Bill Lawrence, the district’s director of student demographics, assignment and school capacity, “It’s important in this day and age, with competition in public education, that we have to do this. Some of our children are choosing other options, so it’s important we do it.” And Amie Hornbaker, the district’s new communications specialist, said, “We try not to say we’re selling (to parents), but essentially, we are.”
This concern with market share is a logical response to the expanding array of schooling options now available to families, including low-income families. But I’m uncomfortable with school districts becoming businesses in a competitive market place.
I know this sounds counterintuitive, or even hypocritical, coming from the president of the country’s largest private school choice organization.
I believe public education should operate as a well-regulated market. Educators should be empowered to own and manage schools and all parents – not just the affluent – should be empowered to match their children with the schools that best meet their needs. And I’m pleased many district school leaders are increasingly seeing families, and not their bureaucracies, as their primary customers. But if school districts become competitors in a market-driven public education system, who is going to objectively regulate this system?
Good regulatory oversight is a necessary component of an effective school choice system, but that’s not possible if the primary regulator is focused on maximizing its market share. And that’s what is increasingly happening in public education today. A good example is how Florida school districts are treating charter schools.
Florida school boards regularly use their power as the state’s sole charter school authorizers to block new charter schools from opening. So instead of competing for families on the basis of quality, school boards are using their regulatory powers to deny families access to non-district schooling options.
Last week in Tampa, for instance, the Hillsborough County School District’s nationally renowned superintendent, MaryEllen Elia, announced she was not supporting an effort by the MacDill Air Force Base commander to create an on-base charter school for military families. Military families hold a special place in the hearts of the Tampa community and everyone usually does everything possible to support them, including Superintendent Elia. But in this case, her need to protect the district’s market share trumped the base commander’s views on how best to serve his families.
Back across Tampa Bay, the Pinellas district is using its muscle to block competition. The St. Pete Beach community, which sits on a barrier island miles from the nearest district school, would like to open a charter school in a boarded-up district school building. But the school board refuses to even discuss selling or leasing the space. Again, protecting the district’s market share trumps what the beach community thinks is best for its kids.
McDonald’s would love to control whether a Burger King opens in its community, but giving McDonald’s this power would hurt consumers and undermine the public good.
School districts can be competitors in today’s rapidly expanding public education market, or they can be the primary regulators of this market. But they can’t be both.
Visionary thinkers such as Andy Smarick and Neerav Kingsland have proposed that school boards relinquish their role as school owners and managers and transition to a more regulatory/oversight role. I agree.
School boards have performed a great service over the last 150 years. They helped us make quality public education universally available. But they now need to turn the owning and managing of schools over to others and assume an exclusively regulatory role.
Some critics might see this as advocating for greater privatization in public education, but my intent is the opposite. From my perspective, privatization occurs when private interests are allowed to usurp the common good, and the chances of this occurring are greatly enhanced when the roles of regulator and competitor are not separated. School board members are human beings, and it defies human nature to expect them to objectively evaluate charter school applications while they are competing with charter schools for market share. How many Burger Kings would exist if they needed McDonald’s permission to open?
Transitioning the role of school boards from school owners and managers to public education regulators will be a slow and laborious process. Nonetheless, it’s a journey we need to begin.
