{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02363268062120189, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.928, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Education and the Market: A Response to “Imagined Evidence and False Imperatives”

While Merrifield is correct in his basic argument that so-called “market reforms” in el/sec schooling are far from being pure market, he is incorrect to suggest that purer market projects are needed together with simulations of pure market reforms. There are two fundamental problems in that thesis. First, it is not clear that school choice in education based on (impure market) co-pay is fundamentally desirable. Co-pay arrangements are best justified as a pragmatic means to get around delays caused by school districts and unions to avoid competition. Some of the best system choices are provided on a no (or fair) pay basis. Second, there are important ethical issues in moving from co-pay (at minimal cost to parents) to purer market systems. Universal school taxes (however bundled) are paid by individuals without children in a transfer to people with children. Reduction or elimination of that transfer would have major social effects with the greatest losers being low income families with numerous children - more specifically on the children in those families who would then receive limited or no schooling to help offset any cultural disadvantage. If the plan were local, such families would soon leave for another jurisdiction. School choice is not, and should not be, incompatible with equality of educational opportunity within a regime of balanced authority of society and parents.