Recent structural reforms of education highlight an emerging recognition of the difference between `public education' and `public schools.' Traditional perspectives emphasized ownership, governance, processes, and other institutional criteria in assessing the public nature of schooling. Yet many theorists and reformers now call for a focus on the effects of schools as instruments for serving consumer preferences—a perspective referred to here as instrumentalism. This analysis draws from the implementation of reform policies in one state to examine both the politics and political economy of instrumentalist approaches to public education. Attempts to expand the definition of public education to include independent providers are shown to change the incentive structures that define the public- and private-good effects of schooling. Consequently, the analysis suggests that efforts to elevate private-good aspects of education place schools in marketized environments, negating some of the public-good aspects of education, while diminishing broader forms of control over schooling.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, J. (2001). Education by charter: The new neighborhood schools. In J. C. Goodman & F. F. Steiger(Eds.), An education agenda: Let parents choose their children's school (pp. 56-64). Dallas, TX: National Center for Policy Analysis.
2.
Allen, W. B. (1996). A new framework for public education in Michigan. East Lansing, MI: James Madison College and Michigan Board of Education.
3.
Andrejevic, M. (1995, September 21). New school chief pondered. Lansing State Journal,p.1D.
4.
Bollier, D. (2002, July/August). Commons sense: Community ownership and the displacement of corporate control. Multinational Monitor, 23, 11-29.
5.
Bond, P. (2002, July/August). An answer to marketization: Decommodification and the assertion of rights to essential services. Multinational Monitor, 23, 14-17.
6.
Brighouse, H. (2000). School choice and social justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
Center for Education Reform. (2001). Charter school laws: Scorecard and rankings. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
9.
Coulson, A. J. (1999). Market education: The unknown history. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
DeWeese, P. (1994). The process of educational reform in Michigan. Journal of Education, 176(2), 29-35.
12.
Durant, W. C. (1996, January 21). The market, not state, sets standards. The Detroit News.
13.
Durant, W. C. (1997). The gift of a child: The promise of freedom. The Freeman, 47(6), 360-364.
14.
Engler, J. (1999). 1999 state of the state address. Lansing: State of Michigan.
15.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Foleno, T., Duffett, A., & Foley, P. (1999). On thin ice: How advocates and opponents could misread the public's views on vouchers and charter schools (No. 1-889483-62-1). Washington, DC: Public Agenda.
16.
Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest (pp. 127-134). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
19.
Howe, K. R., & Welner, K. G. (2002). School choice and the pressure to perform. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 212-221.
20.
Irons, P. H. (2002). Jim Crow's children. New York: Viking.
21.
Kuttner, R. (1999). Everything for sale: The virtues and limits of markets. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Labaree, D. F. (1997). How to succeed in school without really learning: The credentials race in American education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
Lubienski, C. (2000). Whither the common good? A critique of home schooling. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1), 207-232.
24.
Lubienski, C. (in press). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal.
25.
Lutz, R., & Durant, C. (1996, September20). The key to better schools. The Wall Street Journal, p. A14.
26.
Mangan, J., Adnett, N., & Davies, P. (2001). Movers and stayers: Determinants of post-16 educational choice. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 6(1), 31-50.
27.
McGriff, D. (1996, November 4). Redefining public education. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved January 12, 1998, from http://teach-mi.org/persredefine.htm
28.
McLellan, R. D. (2001, May 3-4). Michigan's voucher proposal and the future of school choice. Paper presented at the Education Vouchers Conference, University of California at Los Angeles.
29.
Michigan State Board of Education. (1995a). Michigan public school governance. Lansing, MI: Office of the State Board of Education.
30.
Michigan State Board of Education. (1995b). Mission, choice, freedom, quality. Lansing, MI: Office of the State Board of Education.
31.
Morken, H., & Formicola, J. R. (1999). The politics of school choice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
32.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
Payne, J. L. (2000). The agony of public education. The Independent Review, 5(2), 265-275.
Ravitch, D. (1996, January/February). In deep denial. The New Democrat, pp. 21-23.
37.
Rothstein, R., Celis, W., Corson, R., Cooper, S., & Farber, P. (1998). Charter conundrum. The American Prospect, 39, 46-61.
38.
Sanchez, A. (1995, January 9). Michigan tries teaching a new lesson. The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, p. 31.
39.
Sipple, J. W. (1999). Institutional constraints on business involvement in K-12 educational policy. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 447-488.
40.
Whitty, G., & Power, S. (2000). Marketization and privatization in mass education systems. International Journal of Educational Development, 20, 93-107.
41.
Whitty, G., Power, S., & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education: The school, the state, and the market. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
