This is the first post in a ridiculously pro-market series I am introducing. Robert Nelson wrote a book called Economics as Religion, suggesting that Economics has become a religion (with Chicago as a church and economists as priests). Well, perhaps he was right, and we should bow down to the free market.
So, on to the first post…
This school is an example of the good that can happen when we encourage competition and innovation. It’s a charter school called Sobriety High.
The purpose of this school is to provide a safe environment for students recovering from chemical dependency programs (drugs or alcohol). Apparently the relapse rate is extremely high (over 90%) for students who return to their old environment. 70% of their funding is from the government and 30% from charity; they don’t charge tuition.
Praise the market.
P.S. I really just wanted to point out this interesting charter school with a little humor regarding our overt biases at UES.
To provide more of a neutral analysis: This school is a perfect example of benefits that arise from reforms like charter schools which may not be captured in standard measures of academic achievement. The current evidence is inconclusive regarding the effect of charter schools on achievement, but I suspect it is that measures like FCAT scores are not capturing innovations like Sobriety High. Hence it could be that these reforms vastly help a special subset of students and don’t help others. I recall that some of the papers suggest this as well, that is, they find effects for certain subsets, but no overall effects.
Compared to the traditional state funded and regulated school system, charter schools are a step in the right direction. Although a market distortion still exists due to the governments involvement, it does introduce an element of competition which is virtually non-existent in the traditional system.
The fact that a whopping 30% of funding for Sobriety High comes from the charity goes to show that government intervention in education is not a necessary evil.
As for standardized tests not capturing the achievements of schools like Sobriety High, I will agree. But the issue of standardized tests must be dealt with separately. In time, I imagine a different standardized test would emerge to fit the needs of unique institutions like Sobriety High.
Perhaps we at UES could come up with a standardized test geared for these specialized schools.
Question 1:
How many grams in an “eight ball?”
http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/05/let-there-be-markets.html
Admiral! That article you linked effectively deleted 30 minutes of my life! I want my money back. I must say that was the poorest attempt to discredit the field of economics I have ever read. I’m not sure if he is just uninformed or downright deceptive in his demagogic argument. For one, someone needs to explain the difference between “normative” and “positive” economics to this Gordon Bigelow feller, or maybe we could offer him a UES sponsored “Principles of Economics” course to clear up his confusions.
I think the last response posted by “Anonymous” just saved me an ulcer and at minimum placed me more at ease.