Those calling for universal preschool recognize that we will need to utilize a variety of providers. We provide financial aid for students to attend college, but they can choose to go to universities that are public, private, or sectarian. We subsidize health care but let families choose from a variety of doctors. But just because the government pays for it does not mean government must be the sole provider. Some will say education is a public good - not just something that benefits individual students or families - and I certainly agree. If education was truly a commodity, meaning there was little variation in the quality provided, would we see the focus and attention on schools when parents are deciding where to live? If education was a natural monopoly, would we really see parents who are willing to pay more for homes in neighborhoods with better quality schools? If one provider met everyone’s needs fairly well, would parents pay to send their children to private school when they could go to an equal public school for free? When one in five Seattle kids goes to private school, I think the answer is obvious. But as anyone who has watched any show on HGTV knows, at the top of their considerations is the quality of the school zoned to their home. When families are considering whether to purchase a home in a new neighborhood in a neighboring city, they don’t think about who would provide their electrical service. The greater Seattle real estate market continues to be hot.
But learning can take an infinite number of forms, based on children’s needs and interests.Ī top-down, centralized approach isn’t going to meet these needs and interests. My neighbors and need exactly the same electrical service - an electron is an electron. Further, education is the provision of learning and knowledge - it is about as far away from the definition of commodity as possible. Yes, schools have to have buildings and textbooks, but these capital costs don’t outweigh the cost of labor. They are hugely dependent on people - that is the teachers who are so important to education. There are many reasons why education does not fit the definition of a natural monopoly. The question is worth asking, and I believe the answer is clearly yes. We should never accept the idea that organizations can’t strive for continuous improvement, but perhaps is it reasonable to wonder, do we need to fund alternatives to the existing system - is that the most efficient way to ensure every child gets a great education? I attended neighborhood public schools myself, with mostly fond memories. I personally can see the appeal in the ideal of the neighborhood school, a central gathering place in the community with open doors to all children (even if the history is quite different). So are schools technically “natural” monopolies? And if so, should we break the monopoly over public education? There is no clamor for breaking the power monopoly. (It also helps that Seattle has some of the lowest electricity prices in the nation thanks in part to abundant hydro-electic power.) It wouldn’t make much sense for competitors to run a costly set of alternative power lines down the street. But since moving here a year ago, I’ve been pleased with the service. Residents and businesses don’t have a choice. Where I live in Seattle, electricity is provided by a city-owned utility, Seattle City Light. This is typically seen as true when big upfront investment is needed to build a physical infrastructure, such as the systems that deliver water or electricity to our homes. Still, monopolies are not always seen as bad - economists have long recognized that there may be “ natural monopolies.” This is the concept that for some products or services, particularly commodities, it is most efficient for one entity to provide it to everyone. Beyond that, they seem against the ideal that there should a fair playing field for competition and that Americans deserve choices. Economic theory shows why monopolies are not efficient. Even today, it’s not hard to worry that some of the companies that produce products we use every day - perhaps Google or Facebook - dominate the market so much that is difficult for viable alternatives to compete. Monopolies are generally associated with b ig corporations - think Standard Oil - that used their large size to squash the competition and fleece the consumer. I t’s not uncommon for advocates seeking change to our nation’s educational system to argue that it is time to “break the monopoly.”