Health care, education reform both need competition

In Washington, and state capitals everywhere, policy debates tend to be partisan and shaped by the interests that have something at stake. But peering beyond the surface of many of these debates, sometimes one can uncover certain principles around which the debates are organized. The clash of interests tends to be over how these principles or ideas should play out in the policy and political process.

Consider the current great debate taking place in Washington: health care reform. It is a complex and cumbersome issue with billions of dollars at stake and the potential to alter the way every American understands how to approach health care. The various reform proposals are mind-numbing in their detail.

But for many in the debate it comes down to three keys things: Will there be more competition for health care insurers and providers, will there be more choices for health care consumers and will there be a public option for consumers to consider? Competition, choices and a public option - or not; in the drive to ensure quality care for all at an affordable price, it all seems to come down to this.

Competition is needed, it is argued, to keep insurers honest and prices down. Choices spur competition and provide consumers more options from which to choose. A public option might be needed because the private sector alone may not, it is argued, provide everyone with adequate coverage.

Health care represents a huge sector of the economy and concerns everyone. Health care reform has been a perennial topic in our politics, but it has never really been tackled successfully.

This should sound familiar to anyone even vaguely familiar with the perennial talk of reform in another huge sector of the American economy that concerns everyone: education.

As with health care, education reform has been a part of our political conversation for decades and countless efforts have been made to initiate real reform in K-12 education. Most recently, President George W. Bush offered up No Child Left Behind. Now President Barack Obama and his secretary of education, Arne Duncan, are saying we need to rethink some of what that law requires and seek other ways to ensure our schools are getting the job done.

There is no real consensus out there yet on what reform strategies should be followed, other than an old one long favored by the education establishment: more money. Obama has made sure they get the money. Now, it is assumed, he will try to make sure the money buys real reform.

The president should take a page or two from the health care debate and apply them to the upcoming education reform debate.

Real reform in education should ask the following questions: Is there adequate competition among education providers, do education consumers have enough choices and is the public option the only appropriate way to provide education?

Real reform in American education won't happen until a healthy dose of competition is introduced into the system. As with health care, education providers will become more efficient and responsive to consumers when they have to compete for them and their money. As with health care, more choices for education consumers will spur competition and provide consumers with education options that might more closely align with their needs and interests at a more attractive price.

As with health care, only in reverse, it might be smart to ask whether the "public option" is the single best way to make sure every American gets a good education.

To be fair, Obama has supported some choice in education. He supports charter schools and wants to see more of them. And charter schools do indeed provide a bit of competition for traditional public schools.

But charter schools, remember, are public schools. They are part of the education "public option" that we call public education in this country. Moreover, the president doesn't seem bothered by the fact that he will allow Congress to stop a school choice program operating in the nation's capital - where one of the most troubled school districts exists - even as families love it and students benefit from it. In Washington, D.C., it's the public option or no options at all, it seems.

Competition and choices seem to be key ingredients in health care reform but missing in the national discussion of education reform. Whether or not there should be a public option in health care is a robust debate. In education there is no room for debate; no option other than the public option.

America's public schools are not getting the job done. It is no one's fault, really. It is a system that can no longer accomplish what needs to be accomplished.

America's health care system, according to some, is not getting the job done either. In both debates, competition and choices should be essential components moving forward. As for the public option, those interested in improving America's health care system might do well to consider how the public option is playing out for America's public school system.

A public option without competition and choices isn't an option. It's a recipe for a one-size-fits-all approach that will gradually, over time, lead to mediocrity and poor performance.

Health care and education are very high priorities in the minds of most Americans. They are key "quality of life" concerns. People - taxpayers - are willing to invest in both because they know both are important.

Interestingly, as the health care debate goes forward, questions about the wisdom of a public option seem to be mounting. As the education reform debate emerges, it would be wise to make sure we question the wisdom of continuing the strategy that embraces a public option only.