I find myself wondering how many people who cite Adam Smith have actually read (and digested) any of his works. Looking through the
source material, in particular article two of chapter one of book five, I have to wonder if your author merely skimmed rather than read Smith, or is simply cherry picking to support his position.
Looking over the chapter, I suspect he would have liked NCLB, or some similar program to make sure teachers work hard by rewarding them for producing results, but he considered education to be as vital to a society - just as providing for the common defense is, and aught best be placed on all aspects of society.
It is also worth noting that being a groundbreaker does not make one infallable - some theories may eventually be fine tuned, adjusted, or thrown out altogether.
Consider Newton. Had some solid theories. Einstien came along and adjusted them. Plank showed some of Einstien's conjectures to be completly wrong (such as those regarding quantum mechanics)
Consider Freud. Most of his theories have been tossed aside by modern psychology. Still, his treating insanity as an illness and approaching it from a scientific standpoint, rather than treating it as demonic posession or witchcraft, was a major step forward.
I think NCLB is flawed in it's requirements for frequent testing, and wonder if it's excessive demands for teacher accountability might not be akin to the excessive regulation which undermines industry. There is perhaps a ballance to be struck on this matter, as there should at least be some reward for successful educational work, though finding an accurate and fair yardstick is a difficult task.
As education is an endevor that profits society as a whole, rather than individual groups, and is focused on long term gains rather than the short term profitability which is all to often the focus of so many megacorporations today. (some of whoms anti-competitive practices must have Smith spinning in his grave). The author of this piece seems almost to subscribe to the mercantilist ideology which Smith put to rest centuries ago.
Smith was of the era of the enlightenment, and a believer in the noble nature of man, and in the power of reason and observation. He was very much a classic style liberal. Though he refers to the 'invisible hand' of comerice - I doubt he would have though much of those who seem to view free markets as a form of magic. Quite the contrary, he gave numerous examples of how the seperation and specialization of labor, and the motivation of competition help to provide an overall more prosperous society.
I have yet to see the advocates of fully privatized education explain how their scheme would improve the overall quality of mass education beyond the mantra that competition always magically makes things better. This is a romantic (anti-enlightenment) way of viewing things. Competition increases motivation, so if motivation is a problem competition helps to remedy it. If not, competition isn't always as helpful.
In addition, some of the economic structure has changed. Many companies see consumers and market share as a static value to be divvied up, almost a mercantilistic world view, and often pour much of their resources into advertising rather than improving the quality of the product. Society benefits most from a socially mobile populus, denying a child the tools to move up just because their parents are poor and unwilling or unable to make massive sacrifices for their benefit is a loss for us all. The idea that the sins or misfortunes of the parents should be pushed upon the children is a highly statist, and ultimately monarchist, sort of a postition. This person may fancy themselves a libertarian, but they don't seem to have the perspective that underlies classic social libertarianism/liberalism.
