One of the credos of our American Capitalistic System is that Competition is Good. Perhaps it comes from our love of sports; perhaps it comes from dimly-remembered Trials by Combat in our cultural DNA where two parties would clash with the confidence that the Best Man would Win. Whatever the reason, it is an Article of Faith in this country that Competition as a whole is a healthy thing which benefits everybody.
To a certain extent, this is true. Competition in the marketplace is beneficial to the Consumers, certainly, because it forces businesses to lower their prices and improve their products in order to keep their customers.
But things fall apart when we try to apply the rules of competition to our schools. That's because Public Schools aren't businesses, and we only bend them out of shape if we treat them like they are.
The thing is that competition does not benefit everybody. It benefits the consumers, and maybe it benefits the new businesses trying to break into the market; and maybe the competition will result in innovations which will benefit business and consumers alike. But actually competing costs money.
Let me repeat that. Competition costs money.
There are three things a business can do to keep its customers and/or get new customers in the face of competition. The first is pretty obvious: You lower the price. Charging less for your product means that cost-cutting customers are more likely to buy it. The problem with that is that discount in price is going to come out of your profits. Ideally, you hope that the increase in business from the lower prices will offset the lower profit margin per item. But since you face competition, you may not have a choice; you may have to eat the lower profits just to keep your competitor from snagging all your customers.
Now, you can mitigate this to some extent by reducing your own operating expenses; that way your can afford to lower your prices and still maintain a healthy profit. The obvious way to do that is to lower the wages you pay your employees. But that comes at a price, too; one which a lot of armchair economists don't seem to notice. If your workers receive a wage lower than what they think is fair, they have less incentive to do a good job. This will result in shoddy quality in the product and in the customer service; and eventually the customers will notice. Or your employees may quit for a better job, leaving you with untrained replacements.
Of course, this is all academic for Public Schools because they can't lower their prices. They are already free. (Well, except for things like fees for books, extra-ciricular activities, etc.). If we assume that the Parents are the Customers, and an Educated group of Children is the Product, then Public Schools clearly have the lowest prices. (If we assume that the Taxpayers are the customers, however, things change; because then the "price" of the education becomes the Total School Budget and not what the Parents are charged.)
Another way to get a leg up on the Competition is with Razzle Dazzle. You hire a Celebrety Spokesman; you buy a glitzy Ad Campaign; you come up with a Gimmick that none of your competitors have. This will make your product more attractive to your customers, but it will not neccesarily benefit them; (not unless your New and Improved Gimmick is actually somthing that really does improve your product). I suspect that a lot of charter schools owe a lot to this category. Schools are always looking for a quick and easy gimmick that will give them results. But Compensated Spokesmen require compensation; Gitzy Ads require a budget; and even Quick and Easy Gimmicks cost money to implement.
Ideally, Businesses want to attract customers by improving the Quality of their Product, and that's what School Reformers say they want too. But that, perhaps costs the most of all. Innovation requires time and money to develop, to implement, and to train people in their use.
Competition can provide incentive to improve; but the actual improvements that will keep a business competitive requires an investment of money.
The Reformers who claim that diverting fund from the Public Schools to Charters and Private Schools will create an environment of competition that will benefit everyone, ignore this. They want to force Public Schools to compete at the same time they are reducing the means those schools need to compete effectively.
Maybe some people will benefit from that; but they won't be the Schools.