Search

Home

Overview

Blog

Research

Classics

Criticism

International

Activism

New

Links

First, a general comment. In replying to you I had to decide whether or not to provide citations to support all my statements. In the end, I decided not to because I would have ended up repeating what I have already written in my book Market Education. I spent four years writing Market Education, and it has more than 550 separate sources and over a thousand endnotes. As a result, I'd rather let the book stand as the definitive statement of my position, and I offer these e-mail messages as a very broad summary of my findings. I hope that's acceptable to you.

You wrote:

> Until private schools accept and follow all the legislative and
>  judicial mandates that have chained public schools, they
> should not claim they wish to compete with public schools.

I try to take as few things for granted as possible. My aim is to determine what kind of school systems best fulfill the public's educational goals (at both the individual and societal levels). So my approach to the regulatory burdens imposed on government schools is to see whether they help or hurt the aims they are intended to promote. As it happens, I've found that government regulation and control of schools has not only failed to further the public's goals, it has actually interfered with the achievement of those goals.

My response to your observation is thus that government regulation of education is counterproductive and should be phased out entirely. Government regulation is essentially a band-aid applied to government-operated enterprises because those enterprises lack the incentive structure inherent in competitive markets. In the field of education, market incentives have consistently proven themselves to be a much more reliable mechanism for protecting the public's interests than government regulations.

> In order to gain admittance into my high school, an entrance
> exam was required.  The results were used to cull those with
> IQ's below average. Over one-third of the nation's  population
> have IQ's that fall below that cut off point.  My private school
> selected good apples and polished them.  Public schools are
> forced by law to make every apple shine.

I realize it's beside the point, but I'm not sure that you've accurately portrayed the IQ data. Either you are referring to a recently renormed data set, or an older norm established some number of years ago. In the first case, by definition 50% of the population would be above the average and 50% would be below it. In the latter case, more than 50% of the public would be
considered above "average" because average IQ scores have been going up consistently for more than half a century (I think the rate is about 1-2 points per decade).

This, incidentally, is not evidence that schools have been improving. The same IQ studies show that the specific skill sets taught in public schools have either stagnated or even declined. IQ scores have only gone up as a whole because of a rise in the most broadly defined, general measures of intelligence.

But now on to your main point. You are basically saying that public schools must accept all comers, and that private schools shun slow and difficult-to-educate students. In reality, the reverse is true. A recent study found that, nationwide, public schools send 100,000 learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and/or violent students to the private sector because the government system is incapable of dealing with them. Increasingly, there are also those students who have been expelled from the public schools for carrying weapons on school grounds (now a violation of federal law, I believe).

While some private schools cater to students of above average intelligence, many others cater to slow students, and to those with various personal, educational, and emotional problems. In fact, private schools serving this clientele were recently reported as being the fastest growing segment of the for-profit education market.

If you think about it, this should not be surprising. The private publishing industry does not abandon people with sight problems. Instead, they publish "large print" books, and books on tape. The private food industry does not abandon people with problematic allergies (such as to wheat gluten or lactose), in fact, they have entire lines of products geared to such people--products readily available in supermarkets around the country. In general, markets identify and meet the needs of niche customer groups much more effectively than monolithic state-run enterprises.

Best,
        Andrew

Andrew J. Coulson
Editor, School Choices
Editor@schoolchoices.org

Part 2

Dear Andrew,

I appreciate your quick response.  I have no problem with the way you
present your arguments, especially when I can use them to support the
foundations of my claims.

In the play A Man For All Seasons, Thomas More said of King Henryıs
efforts to control the Church,  "This isn't reform;   this is war on the
Church."  Hundreds of years ago Thomas More drew a distinction between reform of the Church and war upon the Church.   I ask you:  Is your goal to reform public schools or to gain funding for private schools and destroy public schools?

Andrew,  you never responded to my first assertion:   Private schools
should not claim they wish to compete with public schools so long as
they refuse to follow the same rules that govern public schools.   

You wrote, "Government regulation of education is counterproductive."  I
totally agree, but no voucher proponents have advocated getting
government out of public schools.  Believe me, I would cheer you and
join you if you fought to keep federal and state legislators and judges
from drafting legislation on high which negatively impacts my classroom.  
Merely taking money from public education for private education produces no reform in the public schools.

Sorry about any mix-up regarding IQ's.  Currently IQ's are displayed
using a stanine format, 1-9 with 9 being the brightest.   A bell curve
is also a means of showing how children score on intelligence tests.  
Average is considered to range from stanines 4-6, with 68% of a tested population scoring within that range.  The more one moves away from this norm, the greater the difference (deviation) from the norm.   Those in the 7th & 8th stanines are above normal and comprise 13% of the population.  They are balanced by the 13% who are below normal and in stanines 2 &3.  Those who score the 9th stanine are the most gifted but  very few  in number, under 5% of the population.  Those who score in the 1st stanine are least talented and also  few in number. 

How many private high schools in Washington accept children who score
below the 4th stanine? If they have entrance exams  like many private
schools in Florida, they will not accept students who score below the
4th stanine. 

My main point about public schools being forced to accept everyone
remains valid.  Your statement about the 100,000 children who are
severely disturbed or handicapped is cleverly worded and would fool many into believing that  some local private schools are nurturing these
children.  The truth is far from that.  U. S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, April 27, 1998,  stated that many private voucher schools in Arizona and Cincinnati offer no services for special needs students and work to keep problem students out.

I understand why private schools would strive to exclude special needs
children.  Because of  the legislation guaranteeing education for all
children,  public schools must shoulder the burden of educating
everyone.  If doctors decide children must be sent to psychiatric
hospitals, whether public or private,  public schools must pay for their
institutionalization. (See {law} 94142)

My local school district is large enough to attract and keep enough
special education teachers  to  provide for many of these ³special
students.²    At the high school where I teach,  our special education
department  is growing faster than any other department.    We have 13
full-time special education teachers who serve just over 150 students. 
One of these teachers,  in addition to  two full time aids,  is in
charge of four volatile, violent students.  A special room had to be
designed and added onto their regular classroom, at a cost of over
$50,000,  to accommodate their ³time-out² needs.

School districts that donıt have these resources are mandated to pay for 
institutionalizing these high needs children at costs that can run well
beyond  $50,000.  (See Time Nov. 1996.)

Currently, nearly 20 cents of every dollar is spent on special
education.  The monies spent on these children will never translate into
better test scores.

The Editor Replies:

You wrote:

> In the play A Man For All Seasons, Thomas More said of King
> Henryıs efforts to control the Church, "This isn't reform; this is
> war on the Church." Hundreds of years ago Thomas More
> drew a distinction between reform of the Church and war upon
> the Church. I ask you: Is your goal to reform public schools or to
> gain funding for private schools and destroy public schools?"

I thought I had made clear my goal in my previous post. As I said, my goal has been to determine what sort of school system most effectively meets the needs of the public, both individually and communally.

So your question presents a false dichotomy. My goal does not fall into either of the two categories you describe, both of which I consider to be inadvisable. The is no reason to set out with the intention of only considering reforms to our current government school system, ignoring alternative systems that have been tried throughout history. If we want the _best_ system for furthering our educational aims, we must examine _all_ systems. Your second alternative, to set out with the goal of securing state funding for private schools and eliminating government schools, is equally flawed, since it prejudges a particular outcome before looking at the evidence.

> Andrew, you never responded to my first assertion: Private
> schools should not claim they wish to compete with public
> schools so long as they refuse to follow the same rules that
> govern public schools.

Yes I did, but perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me try again.

> You wrote, "Government regulation of education is
> counterproductive." I totally agree, but no voucher proponents
> have advocated getting government out of public schools.

I speak only for myself, based on my own findings, and I do recommend phasing out government involvement in education. (Though I regret the distress that this recommendation causes to many people). Please see the "Position Statement" page of my website for further details:

> Believe me, I would cheer you and join you if you fought to keep
> federal and state legislators and judges from drafting
> legislation on high which negatively impacts my classroom.

I seek to do just that. Securing freedom for educators is one of the five factors I have concluded are associated with successful education systems.

> Merely taking money from public education for private
> education produces no reform in the public schools.

It should be clear now that my goal is to identify the best educational system for the public's needs, not to restrict myself to considering only reforms to our existing system. As it happens, my research has led me to conclude that phasing out our present system in favor of a competitive educational market is the best course of action, thanks to the salutary effects of parental choice, parental financial responsibility, and freedom, competition and the profit-motive for schools (those are the five factors I alluded to above).

This market, in keeping with the public's goals, should have a subsidy mechanism for helping low-income families to obtain high-quality educational services. I've concluded that these subsidies should be raised as much as possible through the private sector, given the negative effects that typically follow state funding of education.

> Sorry about any mix-up regarding IQıs. Currently IQıs are
> displayed using a stanine format, 1-9 with 9 being the
> brightest. A bell curve is also a means of showing how children
> score on intelligence tests. Average is considered to range
> from stanines 4-6, with 68% of a tested population scoring
> within that range. The more one moves away from this norm,
> the greater the difference (deviation) from the norm. Those in
> the 7th & 8th stanines are above normal and comprise 13%
> of the population. They are balanced by the 13% who are
> below normal and in stanines 2 &3. Those who score the 9th
>stanine are the most gifted but very few in number, under 5% of
> the population. Those who score in the 1st stanine are least
> talented and also few in number.

Ah, I was assuming a different definition of average than the one you were using. Now I understand what you meant.

> How many private high schools in Washington accept children
> who score below the 4th stanine? If they have entrance exams
> like many private schools in Florida, they will not accept
> students who score below the 4th stanine. My main point about
> public schools being forced to accept everyone remains valid.
> Your statement about the 100,000 children who are severely
> disturbed or handicapped is cleverly worded and would fool
> many into believing that some local private schools are
> nurturing these children.

How does being able to read and summarize a straightforward report constitute cleverness? And how can you "fool" someone with the truth? There _are_ thousands of private schools around the country serving this student population, as the report I referred to makes plain. If you don't believe me, I will be happy to provide you with the citation information.

> The truth is far from that. U. S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT,
> April 27, 1998, stated that many private voucher schools in
> Arizona and Cincinnati offer no services for special needs
> students and work to keep problem students out.

In response to my reference to a nation-wide study of thousands of schools, you present a handful of schools in one state. This is not a counterargument to the assertion I have made. I have not said that all private schools serve all students, I have said that there are private schools that serve every kind of student. Private schools can, do, and should specialize to provide better services to clienteles with unique needs. Not every private school is equipped to handle every possible kind of student. And, based on the fact that 100,000 students are sent by the public system to private schools nationwide, not every public school is able to handle every kind of student either.

> I understand why private schools would strive to exclude
> special needs children. Because of the legislation
> guaranteeing education for all children, public schools must
> shoulder the burden of educating everyone. If doctors decide
> children must be sent to psychiatric hospitals, whether public or
> private, public schools must pay for their institutionalization.
> (See {law} 94142)

I am familiar with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Many of the children classified as disabled under that Act already attend private schools at public expense. I don't see how this is an argument against private schools.

> My local school district is large enough to attract and keep
> enough special education teachers to provide for many of
> these "special students." At the high school where I teach, our
> special education department is growing faster than any other
> department. We have 13 full-time special education teachers
> who serve just over 150 students. One of these teachers, in
> addition to two full time aids, is in charge of four volatile, violent
> students. A special room had to be designed and added onto
> their regular classroom, at a cost of over $50,000, to
> accommodate their "time-out" needs.

Some public schools are clearly able to accommodate disabled students. Others are not.

> School districts that donıt have these resources are mandated
> to pay for institutionalizing these high needs children at costs
> that can run well beyond $50,000. (See Time Nov. 1996.)

I have seen cost figures up to $200,000 dollars for special education placements. Based on public opinion polls, this actually appears to be a higher level of spending than the public supports. That, however, is a separate issue from the one we're discussing.

> Currently, nearly 20 cents of every dollar is spent on special
> education. The monies spent on these children will never
> translate into better test scores.

I think this is beside the point of our main argument, and so I won't offer a detailed response just yet. However, if you like, I would be prepared to argue your statement is not entirely true, based on the fact that some students classified as Learning Disabled under the IDEA have simply not been taught to read using effective methods, and do in fact show considerable progress when taught properly.

Best,
     Andrew

 

Part 3

Dear Andrew,

Sorry I only cited two or three articles, but I prefer to use works
which do not contain a bias. There aren't many. However, a truth is a
truth no matter how seldom it is spoken.

I enjoyed the research presented on your web.  The flawed and
inconsistent logic in some of the articles will provide for a chance for
both of us to grow.

I am glad you were willing to step forward.

If you look at Stedman's marshalling call for educators and Milton
Friedman's article, you will see one of the glaring inconsistencies.

--Florida Public School Teacher

The Editor Replies:

Dear Teacher:

I, too, appreciate your willingness to talk about the relative merits of public schooling and competitive markets. All I am really hoping to achieve with my work is to present historical and modern evidence on school governance that I think has been neglected in the current debate, and let the public decide whether or not it finds that evidence, and my arguments based on it, convincing. I wouldn't want to impose any sort of school system on anyone.

You wrote,

> Sorry I only cited two or three articles, but I prefer to use works
> which do not contain a bias. There aren't many. However, a
> truth is a truth no matter how seldom it is spoken.

I share your concern about bias in research, but bias tends to show up most prominently in the conclusions researchers draw from their data, and has the least effect on the data that they collect (when those data are easily verifiable). The fact that 100,000 difficult-to-educate students are sent by the government system to the private sector is hard to dispute, and to my knowledge no one has suggested that it isn't true. It's a very straightforward observation. Of course, I wouldn't deny anyone the right to be skeptical.

As I said in my previous post, I don't deny that some private schools serve only non-disabled students. That's obvious. My point is that the private sector as a whole can and does serve difficult-to-educate students, because some private schools are specifically geared towards serving these children.

You wrote,

> I enjoyed the research presented on your web. The flawed and
> inconsistent logic in some of the articles will provide for a
> chance for both of us to grow.  I am glad you were willing to
> step forward. If you look at Stedman's marshalling call for
> educators and Milton Friedman's article, you will see one of the
> glaring inconsistencies.

I realize that there are inconsistencies between some of the articles available on the School Choices website. This is because I like to show a panoply of views, rather than presenting only my own findings. As far as I can ascertain, my own writings are consistent. There are no doubt a few mistakes here and there that have escaped my notice, but I would be very surprised if they were to affect my overall conclusions.

I also agree that there are flaws in some of the articles presented on the website. I don't agree with everything that the School Choices contributors have written, and make that clear in a few places (see the disclaimer in the first paragraph of the "Classics" page, for example). Once again, I've tried to correct all the flaws in my own work that have come to my attention, but I'm sure I've missed a few here and there. Hopefully people such as yourself will help me to find them.

Best,
     Andrew

Part 4

Andrew,

In the Dark Ages doctors bled patients in a vain effort to cure them.  
Some of the strongest victims survived the prescribed cure just as the
wealthy public schools would survive the voucher panacea.  I oppose
vouchers because they would drain away precious dollars from many
already underfunded public schools.

Though you felt special education spending was a separate issue, I
assert that it is germane.  Many who attack public schools mention the
huge increase in per pupil spending while failing to mention that the
lion's share of the increase in public school spending over the past
years has been to pay for special education programs.  While average
spending per pupil went up in the past thirty years, the spending per
average child has not  reflected that increase.  When 200,000 dollars is
needed to fund one childıs education, such costs must be offset by
decreased funding for other students.

The numbers speak for me; a disproportionate number of dollars is being
spent on special education students to the detriment of the average
child.

To many individuals, the words private school imply the neighborhood
parochial school or the private prep school with the manicured campus. 
The psychiatric hospital that charges the school district thousands of
dollars per week,  the detox programs, the super camps and the expensive private programs  should not be used synonymously with the normal private schools. If they are to be used as a sign of some competitive edge for private schools, they should charge a school district no more than the annual per pupil cost in dollars that the school district
received for the child.

I could write that public school children score higher than private
school children.  It is straightforward and correct.  (I am comparing
children from suburban public school to children from private urban
schools.  Would it matter if I kept the previous sentence out of my
work?)

While I will always oppose vouchers (D. Freidman's car should not be
purchased with public dollars earmarked for buses.), I am willing to
join you in reform.  Fact is I have probably been hissed at by more
educational bureaucrats and NEA members than you, and Iım in the NEA.

Here are a few of my ideas for reform:

People in high school who fail subjects should be forced to pay when
they take that course a second time.  No district should pay for an
individual's bad habits.  Students who strive to succeed succeed.

Quit buying grammar books for $20 a unit and buy paperback books
instead.  Reading is the foundation for writing.  Besides, students make
more than enough mistakes on their own papers; they donıt need to do
grammar lessons from a book.  For over fifteen years I have been
upsetting my department heads with that suggestion, but Stedman might
agree with me.

A child's attitude about himself and his potential for success or failure are developed before formal schooling.  Stedman's research and other like those in Newsweek's March '98 issue stress the importance of reading and other skill development during the preschool years.  The focus of Americaıs energies must be on these early years.

All of us are born with different potentials for intellectual development.  The brain is a part of a person's physical being and does not have unlimited potential.  Proper work habits and study habits must be ingrained to maximize that potential. 

Find out from students who the best teachers are and use these teachers
in educational colleges.  The difference between a college prof and an
actual teacher is comparable to the difference between a sportswriter
and a pro player.

College prep isn't for everyone.  The educational elite can't fathom
that fact.

America might model its educational system after the Germans.  Children
in basic school only attend until the ninth grade; those in average
school go through the eleventh grade and only the brightest or hardest
workers are allowed into the gymnasium schools.  These are prep schools
that continue through the thirteenth grade.  Germans attend school for
fewer days and the hours are shorter.  They segregate the children after
an elementary school test.   Though this limits options, it is a far
more realistic approach to educating people to fill a niche in a
society.

Merit pay is a nice idea, but it is such a hydra.  Because Floridaıs
lawmakers passed a merit-evaluation law, I am stuck with another mound
of paperwork. It detracts from performance.

Donıt pay school board members salaries and benefits.  Florida could
build one new school per year with those dollars.  Would you pay someone with no real training or experience over $70 per hour?  That's what our board members receive.  A legislators wife sat on some school board when the state government passed that law.

Stop programs that pay for teens who have bad attitudes and drop out of
schools to make babies.  Politicians never thought about the end product
of that subsidy.  Pay college educated couples to reproduce, instead.

Sorry for the politically incorrect point of logic.  But apples usually
fall out of apple trees.

The Editor Replies:

Dear Teacher:

You wrote,

> I oppose vouchers because they would drain away precious
> dollars from many already underfunded public schools.

I am familiar with this argument, and I think it is critically flawed in two ways. First, public schools are funded for a purpose, to educate children. If some children leave the public schools thanks to vouchers, then public schools have that many fewer children to educate so their costs are commensurately lower. That would be true even if vouchers were for the full amount of per-pupil public school spending, which they generally are not. In all existing cases with which I am familiar, vouchers are worth some percentage of total public school per-pupil expenditures, meaning that for every child who leaves, the public schools have a net financial surplus. The verity of this observation is illustrated by looking at the extreme case, in which all students leave the public sector. In that situation, the public schools would theoretically still be receiving funding even though they had no students, because all the students would be gone, but a significant portion of their funding has remained (because the vouchers only withdrew a fraction of per-pupil spending).

One concern with this counterargument is that the relationship between a public school's costs and its enrollment is not linear for small numbers of students. For instance, if one child leaves a public school, that child's entire classroom still has to be cleaned, maintained, and heated, and the teacher for that class is still required. That means the school's costs have not been reduced by a full per-pupil allocation. This objection is already undermined by the fact that vouchers are less than the full per-pupil cost to public schools. So while public schools can't save the full cost of a single student's education if that student leaves, vouchers would not cause the public system to forfeit a full student allocation.

Furthermore, the linearity concern can be completely dispensed with when we consider the long-term picture for school districts as wholes. As students migrate to the private sector in larger numbers, classes could be reorganized, teachers let go, and buildings leased or sold. All of these actions would help to make the cost/enrollment relationship more linear, and the third would actually bring in additional money to the system. On the whole, then, there is no basis for believing that vouchers would reduce the financial viability of public schooling.

My second objection is much more fundamental. The argument that vouchers might hurt the institution of public schooling is immaterial, so long as children are better off under a voucher system. Public schooling is not and never has been an end in itself, it is a means of providing for the education of children. If a new means of providing for that education comes along, and it proves to be better at meeting the public's individual and collective educational needs, then it is actually _desirable_ for public schooling to be phased out in favor of that new system. That, as I've already said, is the conclusion of my research.

> Though you felt special education spending was a separate
> issue, I assert that it is germane. Many who attack public
> schools mention the huge increase in per pupil spending
> while failing to mention that the lionsı share of the increase in
> public school spending over the past years has been to pay for
>  special education programs. While average spending per
> pupil went up in the past thirty years, the spending per
> average child has not reflected that increase. When 200,000
> dollars is needed to fund one childıs education, such costs
> must be offset by decreased funding for other students.

Before I address your point, let me reassert that I believe current special education spending is higher than the public would approve of, if it were fully informed. I make this point in my book, and hope that some caution and public accountability will return to special education spending. In particular, I believe that the public would reject the court precedents, based on the IDEA, that have forbidden cost as a consideration in the design of special education placements. People do want cost considered, and the IDEA therefore needs to be revised.

As for the role of special education in the rise in public school costs, I acknowledge that it has played a role. However, public school costs, adjusted for inflation, were already _5 times larger_ in 1976 than they were in 1936. But the IDEA was only passed in 1975 (under its original title, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act).

Moreover, the enormous flaws in the content and administration of the IDEA--which you have already hinted at--are further evidence of the consistently deleterious effect of government intervention in education. Public schools are not themselves responsible for the passage of the IDEA, but our elected representatives were. My research has led me to conclude that all types of government intervention in education eventually produces worse outcomes than competitive educational markets. In other words, the IDEA is a further reason for separating education and the state.

> To many individuals, the words private school imply the
> neighborhood parochial school or the private prep school
> with the manicured campus. The psychiatric hospital that
> charges the school district thousands of dollars per week,
> the detox programs, the super camps and the expensive
> private programs should not be used synonymously with
> the normal private schools. If they are to be used as a sign
> of some competitive edge for private schools, they should
> charge a school district no more than the annual per pupil
> cost in dollars that the school district received for the child.

You have made two points here. First, you wish to redefine private schools serving difficult-to-educate students as non-schools or non-private or something of that nature. But they are private, and they do teach their students, and they have a virtue that most public schools do not share: their services are actively sought out and voluntarily chosen by parents or the students themselves. I see no reason to exclude them from consideration. What is it about these children and the institutions serving them that you think makes them unworthy of consideration?

I'm not clear about your second point, but you seem to be saying that private schools should educate special needs children for the same amount of money that public schools spend on "normal" children. In the case of students placed in private schools as part of their Individual Education Program--in accordance with the IDEA--cost is legally no object regardless of placement. Students needing one-on-one special care throughout the school day, and expensive medical or learning aids, receive government funding for those services no matter where they are educated. Your criticism is thus just as applicable to the public as to private sector.

Furthermore, the 100,000 students referred to in the study were rejected for one reason or another by the public system and so they could only find educational services in the private sector. It is unfortunate if these services are sometimes more expensive than typical public school spending, but since the public system could not cope with these students at all, I don't see how the private schools can be faulted for sometimes charging more. Without them, what would happen to these children?

> I could write that public school children score higher than
> private school children. It is straightforward and correct.
> (I am comparing children from suburban public school to
> children from private urban schools. Would it matter if I
> kept the previous sentence out of my work?)

You appear to be implying that my arguments about private schools serving difficult-to-educate students are misleading and disingenuous. In a previous post you seemed to be implying that I had set out with an ideologically motivated agenda to bring down public schooling and bankroll private schools at public expense. Have you noticed that I have never impugned your own motives? A little civility goes a long way.

> While I will always oppose vouchers...

What an astonishing statement! I can't believe that a teacher is actually admitting he is not open to evidence that conflicts with his present views. Surely you don't mean this.

> I am willing to join you in reform. Fact is I have probably been
> hissed at by more educational bureaucrats and NEA members
> than you, and Iım in the NEA.

It's possible, but I hope for your sake it isn't true. I've been called things that would sound out of place in some school-yards, let alone in the hallowed halls of academe.

> Here are a few of my ideas for reform:

I liked a number of your reform ideas, but then I share many pedagogical views with mainstream education researchers in the "effective schools" field. What I find lacking in their work (and in your ideas) is a mechanism for actually getting effective practices adopted consistently and on a broad scale. That is where competitive markets have indisputably outshone government-run systems throughout history. Market incentives encourage schools and educators to adopt effective practices with a consistency that public schools do not, have not, and cannot equal (because of their own very different and dysfunctional incentive structure).

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a professor of education say "We know what to do, let's just do it." Even when they do know what to do--which is not always the case--they have no sound ideas about how to ensure the wide and successful dissemination of their policies. In some cases, they aren't even aware that there _are_ mechanisms for consistently promoting the use of effective policies. And in virtually no cases are they sufficiently familiar with the history of education to realize that market incentives are the proven mechanism they need (assuming they know they need it).

I don't know what your thoughts are on exchanges such as the one we're having, but I tend to think that they have a rapidly diminishing rate of usefulness. If you don't mind, I'd like to call a hiatus for a while. Of course, if there are comments in this message to which you'd like to respond, please do so.

--Andrew