In a recent column in the New York Times, David Brooks describes the work of a new centrist think thank called the Niskanen Center which embraces a “free-market welfare state” model. As an example of the Niskanen Center’s moderate approach, Brooks notes:
They want charter schools and wider choice, but within strong government structures to ensure quality. (It turns out that bad charter schools continue to attract students; the education market doesn’t work totally unregulated.)
The extent to which school choice should be regulated has been a matter of great debate in the world of education policy.
Jay Greene has argued in a series of blog entries that what he calls the “high-regulation” approach to school choice is deeply flawed.
Mike Petrilli makes the case for results-based regulation of school choice here.
At this 2016 event, researchers debated whether Louisiana’s school voucher program was being negatively impacted by over-regulation.
— Education Next
