Encouraging Educational Innovations Through Competitive Institutional Arrangements


Affiliations

  • University of Illinois, Department of Educational Organization and Leadership, Champaign, IL, 61820, United States

Abstract

Policymakers increasingly recognize the need to encourage educational innovations as a way to give all children access to quality schooling. Standardized systems have failed underserved and marginalized communities; state-run systems are often oriented to the preferences of bureaucrats and special interests, rather than the needs of students. Thus, theorists point to alternative organizational structures as a means to animate market-style incentives, thereby inducing school managers to be more entrepreneurial in responding to consumer demand for education. This paper surveys educational innovations in a number of nations that have embraced private sector models to aid in educational provision and innovation, including Canada, Chile, England/Wales, India, New Zealand, and the United States. The review suggests that decentralized structural arrangements have been more successful at producing innovations in areas such as governance, contracting, employment and marketing. Classroom-level innovations are more often a product of professional impulses, often within the state sector.

Keywords

Innovation, Incentives, Governance, Curriculum, Pedagogy.

Full Text:

References

Becker, G. 1999. Competition. Address for the Heritage Foundation 25th Anniversary Leadership for America Lectures, Chicago.

Bennett, C. 1994. The New Zealand principal post-Picot. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(2): 35-44.

Borcherding, T. 1977. Budgets and bureaucrats. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Brighouse, H. 2000. School choice and social justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Buchanan, J. M., Tollison, R. D., and Tullock, G. 1980. Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society. College Station: Texas A & M University.

Carnoy, M. 1998. National voucher plans in Chile and Sweden: Did privatization reforms make for better education? Comparative Education Review, 42(3): 309-338.

Carnoy, M., and McEwan, P. 2000. Private and public schools in the context of the Chilean voucher plan and voucher-like plans in Europe. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Chamberlin, E. 1933. The theory of monopolistic competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chubb, J. E., and Moe, T. M. 1990. Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Dosi, G. 1988. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3): 1120-1171.

Espínola, V. 1993. The educational reform of the military regime in Chile: The school system's response to competition, choice, and market relations. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Wales, Cardiff.

Fiske, E. B., and Ladd, H. F. 2000. When schools compete: A cautionary tale. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Friedman, M. 1994. The Case for Choice. In K. L. Billingsley (Ed.), Voices on choice: The education reform debate: 91-101. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.

Friedman, M. 1995. Public schools: Make them private. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

Gauri, V. 1998. School choice in Chile: Two decades of educational reform. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. J., and Bowe, R. 1995. Markets, choice and equity in education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Gintis, H. 1995. The political economy of school choice. Teachers College Record, 96(3): 462-511.

Glatter, R., Woods, P. A., and Bagley, C. 1997. Diversity, differentiation and hierarchy: School choice and parental preferences. In R. Glatter, P. A. Woods, and C. Bagley (Eds.), Choice and Diversity in Schooling: Perspectives and Prospects: 7-28. London: Routledge.

Good, T. L. and Braden, J. S. 2000). The great school debate: Choice, vouchers, and charters. Mahwah, NJ, L. Erlbaum Associates.

Gordon, L., and Whitty, G. 1997. Giving the ‘hidden hand’ a helping hand? The rhetoric and reality of neoliberal education reform in England and New Zealand. Comparative Education, 33(3): 453-468.

Halpin, D., Power, S., and Fitz, J. 1997. Opting into the past? Grant-Maintained Schools and the reinvention of tradition. In R. Glatter, P. A. Woods, & C. Bagley (Eds.), Choice and Diversity in Schooling: Perspectives and Prospects: 59-70. London; New York: Routledge.

Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hsieh, C.-T., and Urquiola, M. 2002. When schools compete, how do they compete? An assessment of Chile's nationwide school voucher program. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.

International Finance Corporation. 1995. Privatization: Principles and practice, Lessons of Experience. Washington, DC: International Finance Corporation, World Bank.

Kalt, J. P., and Zupan, M. A. 1984. Capture and ideology in economic theory of politics. American Economic Review, 74(3): 279-300.

Lauder, H., Hughes, D., Watson, S., Waslander, S., Thrupp, M., Strathdee, R., Simiyu, I., Dupuis, A., McGlinn, J., and Hamlin, J. 1999. Trading in futures: Why markets in education don't work. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Levin, B. 1997. The Lessons of international education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 12(4): 253-266.

Levin, B., and Young, J. 1999. The origins of educational reform: A comparative perspective. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy (12).

Lipsey, R. G., and Lancaster, K. 1956. The general theory of the second best. Review of Economic Studies, 24(1): 11-32.

Lubienski, C. 2003. Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2): 395-443.

Lubienski, C. 2004. Charter school innovations in theory and practice: Autonomy, R&D, and curricular conformity. In K. E. Bulkley, and P. Wohlstetter (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What's happened and what's next?: 72-90. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lubienski, C. 2006. School choice and privatization in education: An alternative analytical framework. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 4(1).

Lubienski, C. 2007. School competition and the emergence of symbolism in a market environment. In C. F. Kaestle, and A. E. Lodewick (Eds.), To educate a nation: Federal and national strategies of school reform: 257-280. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Mansfield, E. 1970. Microeconomics: Theory and applications. New York: Norton.

Mikuta, J. 1999. Education as a commodity in New Zealand. In N. Alexiadou, and C. Brock (Eds.), Education as a commodity: 149-163. Suffolk, UK: John Catt.

Mueller, D. C. 1979. Public choice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Niskanen, W. 1971. Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine.

Oettle, K. 1997. Has there been a change of paradigm in managerial economics from the public enterprise toward the regulated (privatized) enterprise? Annals of Public and CoOperative Economy, 68(3): 367-377.

Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Parry, T. R. 1997a. Decentralization and privatization: Education policy in Chile. Journal of Public Policy, 17(1): 107-134.

Parry, T. R. 1997b. How will schools respond to the incentives of privatization? Evidence from Chile and implications for the United States. American Review of Public Administration, 27(3): 248-269.

Peterson, P. E. 1990. Monopoly and competition in American education. In W. H. Clune, and J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, Volume 1: The theory of choice and control in education, Vol. 1: 47-78. London: The Falmer Press.

Picot, B., and Taskforce to Review Education Administration. 1988. Administering for excellence: Effective administration in education. Wellington, NZ: Government Printer.

Power, S., Fitz, J., and Halpin, D. 1994. Parents, pupils and grant maintained schools. British Educational Research Journal, 20(2): 209-226.

Power, S., Halpin, D., and Fitz, J. 1994. Underpinning choice and diversity? The Grant-Maintained Schools policy in context. In S. Tomlinson (Ed.), Educational Reform and its Consequences. London: IPPR/Rivers Oram.

Robinson, J. 1933. The economics of imperfect competition. London: Macmillan.

Robson, W. 2001. Publicly Funded Education in Ontario: Breaking the Deadlock. In C. R. Hepburn (Ed.), Can the market save our schools?: 13-39. Vancouver, BC: The Fraser Institute.

Romer, T., and Rosenthal, H. 1979. Bureaucrats versus voters: On the political economy of resource allocation by direct democracy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93(4): 563-587.

Schumpeter, J. A. 1943. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London: G. Allen & Unwin.

Srivastava, P. 2004. Low-fee private schools for disadvantaged schools in India: Implications for educational equity policy. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Stigler, G. J. 1998. The theory of economic regulation. In R. B. Ekelund (Ed.), The foundations of regulatory economics, Vol. II: Modern approaches to regulatory economics: 81-99. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar.

Stiglitz, J. E. 1991. The invisible hand and modern welfare economics. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Stout, R. T., and Garn, G. A. 1999. Nothing new: Curricula in Arizona charter schools. In R. Maranto, S. Milliman, F. Hess, and A. Gresham (Eds.), School choice in the real world: Lessons from Arizona charter schools: 159-172. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Tiebout, C. M. 1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(4): 416-424.

Tooley, J. 1999. The global education industry: Lessons from private education in developing countries. London: IEA Education and Training Unit; International Finance Corporation, World Bank.

Tooley, J., and Dixon, P. 2003. Private schools for the poor: A case study from India. Reading, UK: Centre for British Teachers.

Tooley, J., and Dixon, P. 2005a. Private education is good for the poor: A study of private schools serving the poor in low-income countries. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

Tooley, J., and Dixon, P. 2005b. Private schools serving the poor: working paper, a study from Delhi, India. New Delhi: Centre for Civil Society.

Treasury. 1987. Government management: Volume II - Education Issues. Wellington, NZ: Government Printer.

Walberg, H. J., and Bast, J. L. 2001. Understanding market-based school reform. In M. C. Wang, and H. J. Walberg (Eds.), School choice or best systems: What improves education?: 3-38. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Walford, G. 1997a. Diversity, choice, and selection in England and Wales. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(2): 158-169.

Walford, G. 1997b. Introduction. Oxford Review of Education, 23(1): 3-4.

Whitty, G., Power, S., and Halpin, D. 1998. Devolution and choice in education: The school, the state, and the market. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

Woods, P. A., Bagley, C., and Glatter, R. 1998. School choice and competition: Markets in the public interest? London: Routledge.

Wylie, C. 1994. Self-managing schools in New Zealand: The fifth year. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.