Who's Afraid Of Testing Backlash

 Education Next can be counted on to stand up for the reformy status quo. Let's look at "Testing Backlash Could Hurt American Global Competitiveness," the latest entry in a long line of chicken littling about dropping high stakes testing as the foundation of U.S. education. I read it so you don't have to.

Tanxi Fang is a student at Harvard College concentrating in government, and he has hit all of the standard notes in this golden oldie. 

His way in is a quote from Joe Biden about expanding education into Pre-K and post-secondary areas. But Fang says Biden is skipping over "talk about testing and accountability." Fang points to the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015 as having lowered the stakes for testing; it's not that simple, since states are still unwinding their new plans. But, warns Fang, since then "the gains in student achievement that had been seen under the more rigid No Child Left Behind" have leveled off since then. Well, yes--they leveled off almost immediately, right after students were trained in the new test-taking skills requirement. Fang notes that ubiquitous "some" see a link between ESSA and that leveling.

Fang is also concerned that colleges are moving away from standardized test-linked admissions. Ditto for screening for selective schools and programs. Fang adds all this up:

Some experts are voicing concern that a pell-mell move away from testing could hurt America’s standing, especially as America’s global competitors are moving in the opposite direction. China and India, the world’s two most populous countries, have placed standardized exams at the core of their respective education systems, with the high-stakes Gaokao and CBSE exams determining admission into the two countries’ elite universities. Testing is so sought after by students in both countries that American testmakers see them as potential growth markets.

China and India have indeed thrown themselves at testing. It's just not clear that it's doing them any good. Read Yong Zhao's Who's Afraid of the Bog Bad Dragon for a thorough explanation of how China's testing regime is failing them as a country. Reformsters used to hit heavily on the global competitiveness idea, but the problem is that nobody has yet to link test scores to actual global dominance; if there were a link, Estonia would be a major world power. Meanwhile, the secret of China and India still seems to be cheap labor and and lax regulations--not superior test scores. Fang quotes Rick Hess, highlighting his membership in the 2012 Council on Foreign Relations Task Force that concluded that "educational failure puts the United States' future economic prosperity, global position, and physical safety at risk." Even if we accept that this is true, it is a galaxy-sized leap from there to "We need more standardized testing."

Fang also talked to Chester Finn, who has also been trying to sound the alarm about "America's achievement problems: and the notion that the world is surpassing us somehow. Finn is afraid that the US is falling behind in competition "with people from all around the world" and that the country's previous economic competitiveness was driven by the fact "that we simply had more education than anyone else, but this is no longer the case." I don't know what his basis for that is; we have hung around the same middling spot on the PISA test since always. Nor am I sure how he's measuring education. And once again, I'm wondering how this whole argument stacks up against the hollowing out of the middle class and the transformation of so many jobs into McJobs which require very little education at all. And--and and and and--what does any of this have to do with the Big Standardized Test? Where is the evidence that taking the BS Test addresses any of these issues?

Next Fang is going to trot out Hanushek, who has been trying to find a link between nations' GDP and test scores, but who has to settle for, "Well, at least the score might motivate specific parents to improve things for their specific child."

Many colleges are ditching the standardized test, Fang says. And he tries to tie in the College Board's decision to ditch the SAT Subject Tests, a failed product that was supposed to compete with the ACT. He notes that the move away from the SAT and ACT is "rooted" in the notion that the tests are unfair, though it might be more on point to say that they're not accurate. He even talks to Robert Schaeffer of FairTest for a quote. And Fang nods to the notion (supported by research) that high school GPAs are better predictors of students' future academic success.

Then Fang runs us through history-- Sputnik, A Nation At Risk, Mark Milley's very close to a Sputnik moment, big trade deficit, India gets most H1-B visas, CIA says Chinese are increasingly adversarial. "Will the U.S. education world adjust to these contemporary developments?

Sigh. We handled the Sputnik moment without standardized testing. Nation at Risk was a position paper, not a research report. And I'm not sure if we can get China to shape up by showing them really good SAT scores. 

The global competitiveness argument remains shot full of holes and unanswered questions. What actually is needed to compete globally, and compete for what, exactly? Military dominance? Economic success--which is measured how? Happiest citizens? Scariest political leaders? And once we've figured all of that out, what is the connection to standardized testing? And that's before we get to the bigger philosophical questions-- if our citizens were happy and healthy and living their best lives, but we were somehow #3 in world rankings (of something--bestness, I guess), would we still have to be sad? Or are concerns about global competitiveness about political leaders keeping us scared so that they can herd us in their preferred direction? 

Luxury Beliefs And Education: An Intro

So here's a new rhetorical framing device that you may have seen cropping up here and there. 

Luxury beliefs.

It's an interesting concept. Its coiner is Rob Henderson, currently a Cambridge scholar, but with a striking backstory ("I suspect I'm the only student at Cambridge University who lived out of garbage bags as a child"). Here's his description of luxury beliefs

Ideas & opinions that confer status in the upper class while inflicting costs on the lower class.

Here is another description:

Luxury beliefs are those that act as status symbols for the elite. In the past, the elites showed their wealth and status by having luxury goods. However, since it’s much easier to obtain luxury items today, the elites now have to display their status by having a set of “luxury beliefs.”

Bari Weiss, who says that once you know the term, you start to see it everywhere, gives it a shot.

Perhaps most obvious is the notion of defunding the police, in which overwhelmingly wealthy, educated people who live in safe neighborhoods call for a policy that would leave lower-class people living in high-crime neighborhoods vulnerable. But also, say, the idea that monogamy is an outdated, oppressive institution. Most of the people espousing this view raise children with the economic and social benefits of intact, stable families. And so on.

Henderson has found an audience mostly among conservatives who see this is a means of puncturing liberal elites. I have some issues with it; for instance, I think Henderson leans way too hard on the notion that elites adopt these beliefs as a performative stance rather than because they, you know, actually believe them. Also, some of his examples have an awful lot of corners chopped off in order to make them fit neatly into his model.

Still, part of this idea resonates for me. It's not unusual for folks who have relative wealth and privilege to get all let-them-eat-cakey about ideas that are simple and cheap for them, but not so much for others. And you can notice it lots of places, once you look. And I find that some places are not very liberal at all.

For instance, "Just comply with the authorities and you won't have any trouble," sounds virtuous and very common-sensey--if you are a rich white guy. 

And we are loaded with this stuff in education. For balance, I will note that the left-leaning notion of replacing all disciplinary action with meditation and meetings sounds great if you're in a school that doesn't deal with regular violence, fights, and disruption.

However, there's also the belief that we just need more great charter schools like Success Academy, which sounds great if you are envisioning a charter that, like SA, carefully curates its student body and just lets public schools carry the weight of all the students the charter doesn't want. You can get all virtuous about how capping charters is denying all of these deserving students a choice while ignoring that the charter wouldn't necessarily accept them in the first place.

Or the education-to-prosperity pipeline (which, honestly, I can no longer tell whether this is a right-tilted or left-tilted policy idea). Like the success sequence that Henderson alludes to more than once (marriage, then kids), this confuses cause and effect. While he notes that poor and working class out-of-wedlock births are up and not so for the affluent, he doesn't consider whether we are talking cause or effect, but simply chides affluent folks who pooh-pooh the value of a traditional nuclear family. That cause-effect thing matters; if a high marriage-wedlock rate is a result of affluence and not a cause, then the idea that everyone should just get married if they want a better life is the real luxury belief. 

So ditto for the notion that getting a good education is what will lift people out of poverty. It's a nice belief--if you're someone who's well off. You can pretend it's the result of merit and hard work and not the accident of birth, even as the data shows us that school success is not necessarily the path out of poverty.

But I think the most striking non-liberal luxury belief is the belief in free market education. If we just gave everyone a voucher and turned them loose in a free market of education, everyone would be in great shape--say people who enjoy the benefits of being winners in a free market. In fact, I'd argue that unwavering belief in the power of the free market to deal with all situations is itself a luxury belief, held by people who are market winners. A free market education approach would leave them right where they are--able to acquire whatever education benefits they wish for their children--and would put additional burden on folks who already struggle to manage their children's education. 

This model of luxury beliefs rears its head any time we talk about policy without discussing the people most likely to be negatively affected by it (or don't even try to figure out who those people might be). 

There is one other thing that strikes me about the luxury beliefs concept. We already have a term for people who, knowingly or unknowingly, enjoy an unearned benefit for themselves while failing to see or acknowledge how people who lack that benefit are affected-- white privilege. 

So while I think Henderson's work is an interesting first draft, I think it could be more useful if expanded. First, work on the fact that none of these beliefs are confined to elites. Second, lose the notion that they are some kind of performative virtue signaling with no basis in actual belief. Third, admit a little more loudly that they aren't confined to any single part of the left-right spectrum (I suspect some aren't really related to the political spectrum at all). I'm intrigued, but not convinced. 

Tuesday's Bitter Anniversary

I've seen precious little about it, even though the anniversary is coming up tomorrow. I'd like to think that it's something practical, like it's only a nine year anniversary, or we're distracted by all our other issues. I'm sure we'll see a bunch of pieces tomorrow, and for one day some folks will pretend to care.

I'm writing this on Monday, December 13. Tomorrow is the ninth anniversary of the Sandy Hook murders.

Twenty-six people died, twenty of them children. Tomorrow we'll see various outlets trot out retrospective stories, some with pictures, some with graphic descriptions of the terror and horror of those peoples' final moments. It will be a writing challenge, to try to stir up feelings about the killings, to find a nerve to press down that hasn't already been pressed.

Because tomorrow we really mark two anniversaries. One is the anniversary of one of the nation's most horrific mass murders, a school shooting that literally outstrips the mind's ability to grasp fully. The other is the anniversary of learning something about ourselves as a nation.

Sandy Hook stands out among all our many various mass murders in this country, all our long parade of school shootings, because Sandy Hook was the moment when it finally became clear that we are not going to do anything about this, ever. "If this is not enough to finally do something," we thought, "then nothing ever will be."

And it wasn't.

"No way to prevent this," says only Nation Where This Regularly Happens is the most bitter, repeated headline The Onion has ever published. We're just "helpless."

Look, I don't know that draconian gun control would work, though I know that the few-years ban on assault weapons did (don't message me with your objections to the term "assault weapon"). I can't pretend to have an answer to this persistent and complicated problem. But I'm sure "thoughts and prayers" aren't doing jack or squat. I'm sure that legislators trying to come up with any kind of "solution" that directs attention away from guns isn't it. Whatever. 

We've made it very clear as a country that we aren't going to do anything about it, that we're going to pretend that even though we have gun violence and death on a scale unparalleled by any other nation on earth, it's just not really a problem and there's not really a solution. Meanwhile, "thoughts and prayers" out of one side of the mouth and "the government is coming to take your guns (so you better buy more)" even though after all these years the government still hasn't even tried to come take anybody's guns.

But Sandy Hook made it clear. Each new shooting would be greeted by a little theater, some somber shadow plays, some depressing statistics, make some stupid proposals (let's arm teachers!)and then we'd move on and not do a damned thing. Just put students through god-awful active shooter drills and add "maybe take bullets for children" to teacher job description.

If you ask me to lay out a perfect solution, I can't. But I know that the solution is not to do nothing but shrug and say, "Oh, well. That's how it is"-- something we've never adopted as a solution for anything else, ever, in this country.

Sandy Hook is when we knew, when we finally understood. This is how we. as a nation, want to live.

So tomorrow, feel that bitterness and anger, and also set aside a moment for remembering that to those families, the anniversary is not that of a bitter turning point for us as a nation, but a very painful and wrenching and specific anniversary for a wrenching and specific loss. I'm going to wrap this up with something my sister posted today:

It's 9 years now.

 
They were in their last 24 hours on this planet. Thoughts and prayers, fundraisers, marches, petitions, celebrities, anger, outrage, apathy; churches declaring it not their problem, gun owners defying common decency, government being cowards,mentalhealthcare availability, safety drills, fancy door locks, security officers....those didn't stop it, neither did the bravery of the staff literally stepping in front of a gunman, teachers pulling students out of hallways, barricading doors with file cabinets, the custodian running room to room to warn....They hid in closets, bathrooms, under desks, in the dark. And 26 of them died there. Don't look away.

 
Our country turned a dark and dangerous corner when none of this created any change. The children would be learning to drive, going to junior proms. The building was razed when insane people wouldn't stop coming to see it, and the survivors were too frightened to return to it. First responders were in therapy for years, some of the children were literally shot to pieces. Don't look away.

 
I know it's hard to hear, hard to dwell on, hard to think about how we've failed. But it is the very, very least they deserve. The ones who didn't come home, and the ones that carry on as best they can. The families with a hole the size of a small child. The ones in other schools, wondering if they are next. They deserve our attention tomorrow. Don't look away.

 
Remembering Sandy Hook.

ICYMI: Quick Summer Day Edition (12/12)

 It was beautiful but blustery here yesterday, the gentler end of that front that wrought such havoc out west. My county has been on the receiving end of killer tornados, and it's an awful thing, that mixture of destruction and death and the reminder that we are tiny creatures on the surface of a giant globe that we can't actually control. Maybe that's one reason we spend so much time fighting about other stuff.

At any rate, here's some reading for the week, beginning with a bang and ending with Britney.

The Supreme Court's new religious liberty case could destroy public education

Slate looks at the case currently working its way through SCOTUS, and how it will probably mean very bad news for public education

To reduce inequality in our education system, reduce class sizes 

This week Friend of the Institute Leonie Haimson went off on a press conference in NYC. Here's the written out version of her argument form The Nation. It is the one reform that we know works, and yet somehow, it's the one education "leaders" never seem to want to implement.

What should parents be worried about? The books their children don't read.

Anne Lutz Fernandez points out that if you are worried about indoctrination and brainwashing of your children, maybe think about how little they actually read, and the time they spend on their devices.

DeVos family among top DeSantis re-election PAC supporters

Because of course they are.

In Texas, a battle over what books can be taught and what books can be read

Michael Powell at the New York Times with a deep dive into the sides of the Texas-based move to control curriculum and gag teachers.

Bloomberg's charter push: big money and bigger political peril

Matt Barnum at Chalkbeat takes a look at Bloomberg's plan to throw money at charters.

The problem(s) with Bloomberg's $750 million investment in charter schools

At the Washington Post, Carol Burris and Diane Ravitch lay into Bloomberg's big money attempt to take charge of education.

When your job interferes with your work

John Warner at Inside Higher Ed talking about college teaching, but every other teacher who ever said "I love teaching the kids, but the rest of this job is killing me" will recognize exactly what he's talking about.

The GOP has revived its obsession with parents' rights

Jennifer Berkshire at The New Republic with a stroll down memory lane to the 90s, when the GOP thought it had a winning political issue with parents' rights. (Spoiler alert: it looks great until voters see the fine print).

"We are here" Debates over teaching history exclude Native people

From the LA School Report (and yes, in partnership with The 74) a look at some Indigenous parents pointing out that the "how to teach history" debates are leaving someone out.

What's one more deadly school shooting when the real danger to kids is a book?

From the Miami Herald, a pretty blunt assessment from Leonard Pitts, Jr.

Tennessee's kids should be taught the truth about our history

Betsy Phillips in Nashville Scene has some thoughts about the work of the group she calls "Moms for Lying to Kids" 

"A dog whistle and a lie" Black parents on the critical race theory debate

From the parenting column at the Washington Post, a missing perspective in the great crt panic

Empty pedagogy, behaviorism, and the rejection of equity

There's a lot to read here, and a lot to take in (framed by Doug Lemov and his teach like a champion shtick, but it's a great article for pinpointing just what feels so very wrong with technique-focused educationeers like Lemov

Bring back homerooms

Nancy Bailey with a simple solution--use home rooms in school. It's true. We had them on and off for years at my school, used because they made a great "base camp" for students, and repeatedly discontinued because they weren't instructional time. She's got a point here.

New Hampshire is trying to protect itself from subversive doctrine

Charles Pierce at Esquire rips into New Hampshire's descent into suppression of certain Naughty Things

Why we need to address scam culture

Tressie McMillan Cottom is the bomb (if you don't follow her on the twitter, you should fix that). This NYT piece about scam culture is not directly about education, but you'll certainly recognize features.

Texas substitute teacher who brought karaoke machine to class asked to leave

The story we need. A sub who screwed up, but not horrifically. An administration that reacted with restraint (and a bit of wit). And the video is included.

Jeb Bush Has A New Education Master Plan For 2022

I'll give Jeb! this--when education policy failed to carry him to the White House, he didn't just turn tail and pretend that he's never met the whole thing ever before (that was Common Core he disowned). And his policy right-tilted thinky tank is still at it, currently under the name Foundation for Excellence in Education, aka ExcelinEd.

In fact, the group has a whole new education policy playbook for 2022. And it looks very... familiar.

"States are the incubators of innovation," says the tiny head of Jeb. "With a relentless focus on advancing big and bold policies, governors and state leaders can prioritize students and transform education to give our next generation of citizens the very brightest of futures." There is no mention of the bright present of a previous generation of Florida students, who have been well-soaked in Jeb's big bold ideas.

So what are these ideas. There are five big, bold headings.

Close learning gaps.

The bullet points include "ensure every child can read by the end of 3rd grade," which is not a terrible goal, but experience tells us that reformsters don't really understand what it means and tend to seek "remedies" like holding students back who don't pass the state reading test. This does not work, for many reasons, and it ignores that the third grade reading success to later life success link is correlation, not causation.

EIE also wants to "assess learning every year" and "hold schools accountable for student outcomes" which means using punitive measures tied to Big Standardized Test scores, a policy we've been pursuing for at least two decades, with zero success. :et parents and educators know "about student progress" as if nobody has ever done that. 

There are two bizarre items on the list. One is "equitably distribute high performing teachers," which has, again, been part of federal ed policy for a long time, only nobody can figure out how to do it. Assuming that you can identify high-performing teachers (you can't), exactly how do you redistribute them? Grab them on their way home from school, tie them up, and toss them ion a van? It's also emblematic of EIE's deep and profound lack of understanding education that they imagine a teacher who is effective in School A would automatically also be effective in Schools B through Z.

Finally, "distribute funding equitably across all public schools," which is a hoot coming from reformsters based in Florida, a state that perfected the art of segregated school funding. Though if I were a betting man, I'd bet that what they actually mean here is "We think charter schools are public schools, too, and while we used to claim that they could do more with less, we would now like to get a bigger slice of that big educational taxpayer money pie."

It's worth noting that there's no particular reason to think that any of these measures would close the "learning gaps," nor can I say hard enough that these all represent old, moldy policies.

Bridge the digital divide.

There's one good bullet point here-- provide devices and internet connections for "underserved" students. The rest is really another goal entirely.

High quality instruction and curriculum through online platforms. Develop online services for special ed, ELL, and SEL. Establish technology and instructional education accounts for families. So it's all about virtual schooling (a proven failure) ties to education savings accounts, aka super-vouchers.

Empower families with opportunity.

Well, you know where this is headed. Offer choice of any district in the state. Grow more charter schools "that are equitably funded" (told you). Let ed dollars follow the student. "Level the playing field" for special needs and low-income students via ESAs. Unbundle education at the course level. 

So the complete dismantling of public education, while using a voucher system to abandon parents. Yes, I know it says "empower," but what a voucher/esa system actually does is say to parents, "We gave you some money--now you're on your own. Good luck in the education free market."

Strengthen pathways to college and career.

The short form here is "turn education into simple job training" while promising that it will be training for Really Good Jobs. EIE also wants to "blur the lines" between high school and post-secondary ed (because market expansion).

Oh, and they want to collect a ton of data, right in line with what Jeb's other super-group, the Chiefs for Change, has proposed. Collect all their school data, and also all their life-after-school data--just to be sure the program's working, you understand.

Reimagine learning.

Credits for life experience. Personalize learning. Microschools. Learning pods. Old standards, particularly for the Put Your Personal Identity On A Blockchain crowd, most horrifyingly captured by The Ledger. 

There's also "fund education based on the value of learning" and "rethink traditional hiring practices and allow teachers to bring school to students," neither of which is explained in the fine print of the "report." 

There are more pages delving into these bullet points in greater detail, but none of it provides actual real support for this vision, which is the same vision this branch of reformsterdom has always pushed--not just quite so explicitly:

Replace public education with a free market system. Parents get a voucher/esa and a hearty wish of good luck. They then get to navigate a marketplace of many, many education-flavored products, which are largely unregulated but which are also, through some mysterious market process, high quality (you know--like the market has pushed Wal-mart and McDonald's to be strictly high quality). 

This is what Jeb! and his crew want to push next year. It's what they've been pushing for years, but like many folks, they smell covid-created weakness and think maybe this could be the year they finally kill off public education in this country. Stay alert. 

Are Parents' Rights The Only Ones We Need To Worry About?

Being a parent is a scary business. Suddenly you've got these tiny humans to take care of and you don't know what you're doing and you try to make the best choices you can even though you're worried that you may be scarring them for life but you invest your heart and soul into trying to keep them safe and smart and growing up to be good people. And then just as they're starting to turn into real people and you're even starting to feel like you're getting a handle on things, you reach a point where you have to start handing their care and safety over to other people--people you don't even know--and you discover whole new levels of fear and anxiety. 

All of this is real. It's important to remember that. It's important to remember that no matter how many times the concern is exploited by charlatans and opportunistic demagogues, the concern is real. 

Parents rights is a hot political ticket right now, and like the best political opportunities, it has some basis in reality. Parents do, and should, have rights when it comes to their children. 

But--and this is a huge, important but-- any system that recognizes and supports parental rights must also recognize and protect the rights of children.

Right wing folks are fond of saying, "My child does not belong to the government" That's true. Your child is a human being. They don't belong to the government or the school or you--they belong to themselves. And because they lack the power and agency to fully protect their own rights, they need a champion, a person with power and agency to stand in their corner.

Ideally, that person would be a parent. But any responsible system has to recognize the reality that there exists a non-zero of bad parents out there. Some of them are spectacularly bad (like the parents who held their twelve kids captive); some of them even make news. 

Every teacher has stories. Kid thrown out of the house after a big argument with his dad about sharing drugs. Kid's drunken mom tries to purposefully run them down with the family car. Girl's dad punishes her by shaving her head; sends her to school with instructions to the school not to let her try to hide it with a hat. Kid falls asleep because Dad spends the utility money on beer, so there's no heat at home and it's hard to sleep. Kid's father leaves town to start life in new town with new wife and baby, and tells kid not to bother trying to visit because he's got a new life now.

This is over and above the more pedestrian stuff, like the parent who sits in a parent-teacher conference and berates the child for being stupid and lazy "like always." The parent who is never home. 

To be clear, these parents are not even close to the majority of parents. But I don't think you can find a school anywhere, regardless of race, wealth, or any other demographic marker, that does not have a few of these stories every single year. 

So any time you start talking to me about upholding parents rights, I will want to hear about how your "solution" will involve protecting the rights of young humans--not just from the school, but from their peers and their own parents. I don't want distrust of parents to be the default any more than I think distrust of teachers or schools should be the default--but there must be mechanisms in place to protect students rights when they are threatened and that must take precedent over parental rights.

If talking about parents rights, we also need to discuss rights of other stakeholders. Some parent "rights" cannot be honored without damage to society. Those parents who believe they have a "right" to raise their white children in a segregated environment. Parents who believe they have a right to place their child in a school where Those People's Children are not allowed to attend. Now we get into a different conversation, a conversation not about whether parents have the right to make that choice, but whether or not taxpayers have an obligation to fund it. Do parents have the right to make choices that are bad for society--and do they have the right to have society pay for those choices?

It is easy to demand that parents be in control of their child's education, that you shouldn't have to co-parent with the government--which is just another way that you should be allowed to make your own way and that your child should be totally dependent on your capabilities as a parent--when you are confident that you personally have the resources to navigate that challenge. Not everyone does, and a non-zero number of parents are not even trying under the current system, even with all its built-in supports and assistance. 

Parents must be partners with the schools that educate their children--but when they are incapable or unwilling to hold up their half of the partnership, schools need to step in. Parents' rights are important--but when they clash with the rights of the child, the child's rights must take precedence. Waving the parents right banner is swell for politics (must be, because it keeps coming back time and time again as a cover for other activities), but it's not a great way to put students first in education.

Education Is Not A Market Good, Episode 564,221

 A fun story from Tik Tok via Daily Dot, and which has been bouncing around for a while, showing once again how the free market actually works.

The clip is from a Door Dasher, and it shows a wall's worth of bags at McDonalds, waiting for someone to Door Dash them to the person ordering. They are sitting and languishing because the customer did not attach any kind of tip to them and Door Dash pays diddly. 

This is a lesson for every DeVos-style "education should be a Uber" person out there--if you make a good or service an item on the free market AND you also set up that good or service to be provided by gig workers, what you've basically a bidding system in which said goods/services go only to those who are willing to win the bid. That system will also set a low bar, a "this is not enough money to bother with" bar, below which you will find phenomenon like a wall full of cold Bic Macs.

So let's say that we go to an voucher/esa system, in which the state says, "You're on your own parents-- go buy your kid some education." Who wins the bidding war for education services-- the parents who have just the voucher money to spend, or the parents in a position to sweeten the pot? Where will the market set the inevitable "this customer won't make me enough money to bother with" bar? And what can be done for the people on the low side of that bar? Well, maybe there will be a public system limping along that they can go back to. 

The free market picks winners and losers, both among vendors and among customers. The sad Micky D's wall is a reminder of that.