often nonexistent in public schools. Parents are largely told where to send their child and what teacher the child will have. If a family lives in a neighborhood without a good public school the attitude of education officials is often well, tough luck.

In contrast, no one would dream of accepting a system in which a government official assigned each citizen to use only the public gas station within two miles of his house, especially if the gas were underperforming and overpriced. And educating one's child is far more important than filling the gas tank.

We can barely imagine what life would be like in the United States if we applied the rigid lack of choice that exists in public education to other areas of life. When any company or government agency has a captive audience, the benefits of healthy market forces are lost. Without consumer choice, managers, whether public officials or company executives, have no incentive to innovate, improve quality, provide inspired leadership or create a culture of excellence.

If public school parents were allowed to choose where to send their children, and if principals were given control over school admissions, we would have the ingredients for bringing the benefits of free market competition to public education. Principals would be motivated to provide the very best education to children, so they could attract the best students.

Schools would likely begin to differentiate themselves in an effort to provide students with education options that do not exist today. Shaped by the "invisible hand" of market competition, this differentiation would take many forms. Some schools would focus on a science-based curriculum, others would focus on foreign language and international cultures.

Other schools might want to invest in advanced technology as a more predictable and reliable mode for teaching. Some schools would offer small class sizes or promote the benefits of study at a small school. Some schools might want to provide a gender-specific learning environment, creating unique