students.1 1 1 Low-income students generally
education. Kaplan's reputation as an effective,
efficient education company makes its expan-
attend the worst government-run schools and
sion and continued success possible. However,
have the fewest alternatives.
to sustain its reputation, Kaplan will have to
If the money that currently goes to gov-
continue to provide quality service.109 (See
ernment schools on a child's behalf were
given directly to the parents, they would be
Appendix, Table A.6.)
able to use that money to pay for a school of
Potential consumers will consider the rep-
their choice. Instead of taking low-income
utation of for-profit education companies. If
students for granted, schools would have an
customers' expectations are not met, they will
incentive to deliver quality services in order
not purchase services from that provider
to keep their customers.
again. Accreditation services will help con-
Such competition would also likely result
sumers distinguish reputable education
in decreased tuition costs. Already, many pri-
providers, and employers will judge whether
vate schools are offering education for less
or not a degree from a for-profit university sig-
than the coat of a typical government-run
nals a given set of skills. If employers conclude
school. For example, the average per pupil
that employees with distance-learning degrees
expenditure in public schools is roughly
do not have the same level of training as do
$7,000, compared to the average per pupil
graduates of traditional four-year colleges,
cost of $2,823 for Catholic elementary
they will act accordingly. The marketplace is
schools and $5,466 for Catholic secondary
the most efficient and effective judge of value
schools.1 1 2Furthermore, the activities of pri-
and check on quality.
vate charitable organizations like the
Markets and Equity
Children's Scholarship Fund, which already
distributes millions of dollars to help low-
A market by definition can't address
income families pay private school tuition,
issues of equity. . . .1 1 0
suggest that many individuals would be will-
ing to donate money to help ensure that chil-
dren from low-income families have access to
Low-income students generally suffer the
a quality education.
most under the current system and have the
The argument
most to gain from a competitive education
marketplace.
that the poor will
Conclusion
First, the argument that the poor will be left
be left behind in
behind in an education marketplace presup-
an education
poses that existing government schools take
The for-profit education marketplace pro-
care of low-income children, yet studies show
vides us with a glimpse of what a thriving,
marketplace pre-
that the current system is failing to educate
competitive market for education might look
supposes that
those children. Arguably, government schools
like if the United States were to open the edu-
have already left the poor "behind." The
cation sector to the forces of competition. In
existing govern-
National Assessment of Educational Progress,
pursuit of consumers, for-profit education
ment schools take
a test of students in grades 4, 8, and 12, which
companies have found creative and cost-effi-
care of low-
is regularly administered by the Department
cient solutions to education problems--for
of Education, has found that lower-income
example, how to cure a speech impediment, to
income children.
students generally do not perform as well as
dramatically improve children's ability to read,
Arguably, govern-
higher-income students. For example, in 1998
and to provide educational opportunities for
ment schools
students eligible for the federally funded free
working adults.
or reduced-price lunch program, which is
The experience of the for-profit education
have already left
offered to children near or below the poverty
industry suggests that a fully competitive
the poor
line, had lower average reading scores in all
education marketplace would differ from the
three grades on the NAEP than did noneligible
current system in several important ways:
"behind."
18