Free-Market Education
Bottom Line Up Front: Ultimatley, Free Market Education aims to treat education like other sectors where innovation thrives when competition and choice exist. Just as breaking up Ma Bell led to telecom leaps, diversifying education providers can lead to leaps in learning techniques and student success. The state ensures access and a basic quality floor but doesn’t micromanage or monopolize. The result should be more engaged students, higher achievement, narrower gaps, and an education system agile enough to adapt to future needs. We will measure success by rising test scores overall, shrinking achievement gaps (choice often helps low income kids most), higher high school and college completion, and parent satisfaction rates. If we see a vibrant market of schools and programs and parents have to decide which good option to pick rather than settling for a poor default, we’ll know we’ve achieved free market education in Colorado.
a. Innovation in Learning: Free Market Education extends the school choice concept into fostering a competitive, innovative education sector at all levels, not just K-12 but also higher ed and vocational training. It envisions education services provided by a variety of providers—public, private, non-profit, for profit—in an open marketplace where funding follows students, and educators entrepreneurs have freedom to create new teaching models. This competition is meant to drive quality up and costs down, just as free markets do in other industries. It also means deregulating education to allow creative approaches (like micro-schools, ed tech, apprenticeship programs) to flourish without undue bureaucratic control. We want an education ecosystem that responds to student and parent needs, not one-size dictates from a central office or teachers’ union.
b. Current Barriers: Public education in Colorado (and the nation) has largely been a government monopoly with heavy union influence. There are many mandates on curriculum, teacher certification, seat time, etc., which can stifle innovation. College has become very expensive, partly because easy government money and lack of market pressure to cut costs. Meanwhile, alternatives like trade schools or on-the-job training have been undervalued. We aim to infuse market principles: choice (as covered), accountability (if a school doesn’t perform, it loses students), diversity of models, and cost-transparency.
c. Policy Initiatives:
​
1. Encourage New Providers: Remove unnecessary regulations that prevent new education providers from entering the field. For K-12, make charter authorizing easier (already covered). For private schools, ensure state accreditation or approval processes are not onerous (they mainly just need to provide equivalent instruction for compulsory attendance). Possibly create an avenue for “educational pods” or micro-schools to legally operate as a type of private school or homeschool collective with minimal red tape. Some families formed pods during COVID – let’s legitimize that model so parents can pool resources and hire a teacher for a small group without fear of violating truancy laws. Similarly, support online schools (Colorado has some multi-district online schools) by updating regulations to allow more out-of-district enrollment and cross state offerings if quality is proven. A free market means crossing old boundaries; if a kid in rural CO wants to take an online course from a provider in another state, we should allow and incorporate that credit.
​
2. Education Funding Reform: We touched on ESAs for K-12. More broadly, funding should be flexible. Possibly allow “a la carte” public funding – e.g., a high schooler could take two classes at their public school and use part of their funding for an outside coding bootcamp or community college course. Right now, public school monopolizes the per-pupil revenue if enrolled. We might pilot a “backpack funding” that can split among multiple education sources (some states have part-time enrollment allowances; CO has something for homeschoolers to take some public classes as part-time). Expand that concept for maximum customizability.
​
3. Transparency and Outcomes: Free market thrives on information. We will bolster transparency measures: clear data on student outcomes, parent satisfaction surveys, etc., published for all schools receiving public funds. That way parents can make informed choices (like how consumers see product reviews/ratings). And schools will improve to attract more “customers” (students). If a school consistently underperforms, it risks closure or takeover - that's market accountability (with caution that we ensure fairness in measures and give improvement opportunities).
4. Higher Ed and Workforce: Colorado’s state universities should also face market pressures. We’ll promote alternatives to four-year college for many careers (workforce development programs, apprenticeships, industry certification courses). We support expanding concurrent enrollment (HS students taking college courses for credit free) to accelerate degrees and reduce cost. For adult learners, encourage competency-based programs (earn credit for what you know). We can tie some state funding to performance (like graduation rates, job placement) to push colleges to serve students effectively or risk losing funding to leaner models like online universities or community colleges. Also, encourage the growth of private technical institutes. Perhaps offer state microgrants directly to individuals that they can use for any approved training program (not just at public college) – a higher ed voucher in essence for workforce training. That introduces competition with nimble private training vendors.
​
4. Teacher Workforce Freedom: Empower educators by easing licensure requirements and letting expertise count. For example, a STEM professional should be able to teach high school math without jumping through multi-year ed school hoops. Alternate certification pathways and allowing charter/ private schools to hire teachers based on subject mastery and real-world experience fosters a market for talent. It also breaks union stranglehold and can alleviate teacher shortages. Good teachers will be in demand and could be paid more if schools have funding flexibility (like in charter system). Possibly implement a teacher bonus fund for results or hard-to-staff subjects to further the merit pay concept, injecting a bit of market compensation logic.
5. Content Diversity: Encourage a market in curricula by not imposing one statewide. Let schools choose or parents choose via ESA what curriculum resonates (Montessori vs classical vs project-based). Good curricula will rise as parents see better outcomes and share info. The state’s role can be to vet for basic quality (no fraud or extremist indoctrination obviously), but not to enforce a single text or method.
6. Education Entrepreneurship: We could set up an “Education Innovation Prize” or fund that grants seed money to educators or organizations starting new schools or edtech solving specific problems (like closing reading gaps). That’s akin to venture capital for education – invest in promising new models that could scale if successful. Example: if a group wants to start a charter focusing on bilingual STEM, they can compete for a grant to launch. This lowers entry barriers and invites dynamic market entrants beyond the traditional district framework.
​
Opposition and Weighing It: Of course, the education establishment (unions, some districts) will resist loss of monopoly and oversight. Our job is to show that free market education benefits students - the clients. Teachers can benefit too: more options for employment, possibly better fit schools for their teaching style, and high performers can command better pay when not bound to union scale. We’ll highlight success stories from other places (e.g., Phoenix area has huge charter market and improved outcomes; Florida’s ESA and voucher programs have helped public schools as well).​