School Vouchers

There will be a vote in Utah on a voucher program shortly. The idea seemed appealing top me initially, but I'm not sure where I stand with it now. I'd love to hear your opinions and requested reading material.

If passed, the program will allow a maximum of $3000 to be taken out of a tax fund and put into their child's tuition. This sounds great at first. Who here wouldn't want more choice in education and more of a chance for the market to influence education? But while debating the issue, I learned that it's not such a clear cut issue.

Firstly, has anyone read anything substantial on the quality of education at charter and private schools? I've talked to people with serious doubts about the quality. For one, their accreditation is sparse compared to public schools. As well as doubts about the ability to objectively make the best decision for your child. Since they don't use the same tests as public schools, it will be difficult to compare results. Is there a society where the free market has influenced education for the better?

It also blurs the lines of public and private, which isn't usually a good step.

Another concern came upon realizing that parents wouldn't just be taking out their personal contribution to public education, but also some of my money. So it allows my tax dollar to go to religious institutions and mediocre charter schools. Perhaps I might have more power with my dollar if I can focus my efforts on just the public school system, no matter how stubborn and misconceived that system might be.

There's also the economical problem of inflation when government gives a known quantity to the public. Private schools might just raise their tuition and negate the voucher's worth.

There are other potential bugs in the bill's specifics, but I'd rather take the issue as a whole.

Post 1

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 10:03pm

Vouchers are a mixed-economy mixed-bag. Since gov't money is never handed out without strings attached, this means that gov't will inevitably stick its nose into education, subjecting schools to the whims of whoever is in power (religionists, socialists, whomever). I still think its preferable to the one size fits all approach, however.

Post 2

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 3:12am

Anything approaching a step toward the "competition" direction is good to me. No way we're going to get total privatized education overnight, so I'm happy for the baby steps whenever they come.

As with all public school districts, there are good charters and not so good. There are good public schools and not so good.

For one, their accreditation is sparse compared to public schools.

As if getting kudos from publicly funded source is some kind of good thing? Please.

As well as doubts about the ability to objectively make the best decision for your child. Since they don't use the same tests as public schools, it will be difficult to compare results.

I think this is nonsense. It isn't difficult to discern a correct answer from an incorrect one, even if the question is asked differently.

Is there a society where the free market has influenced education for the better?

Absolutely. In Belgium.

Post 3

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 10:53am

Hi Doug--

Thanks for your post on this subject. Educational issues have been a part of my past work life. For eight years in the 1990's, I worked for a private foundation in New York City that funded educational reform in five urban school districts. Following that, I worked four years for a private educational research firm in Washington, DC. Politically, the foundation was a moderate/slightly left-leaning organization; the research firm was non-partisan though its staff was liberal and almost overwhelmingly pro-Public Education. For the record, I am for the privitization of the educational system.

Since I am writing this over lunch, I will give you two suggestions for reading and then comment on some of the issues that you raise in your post.

My strongest suggestion is to go to the Utah state legislature's website and see if you can find the pending bill. If for some reason you cannot find it, call your state representative's (or senator's) office and ask where/how you can obtain a copy of the current version of the bill. When you get it, read it carefully. If you have any questions/concerns about the bill, called them back. After reviewing the bill, call them again and express your views. The reason why I strong urge this tact than going via the mass media is that the media tends toward slanting the news so you may not have all the information you need to make an informed decision.

Another good source for research information, ironically, is the US Department of Education's (ED) website. They used to have a link to available research on all sorts of educational topics, including, as I recall, vouchers.

Your observation that the voucher issue is not so clear-cut is absolutely right on. In addition, in my view, none of the proposals for school vouchers is great. They each have tremendous flaws in them (more on this later).

The issue of quality in charter and private schools versus public schools is a bit of a red herring. Data I have seen suggest that there is an equal amount of variation in the quality of public and charter/private schools.

The testing issue is also a bit of a red herring. The fact is that there is no test that every US student takes whether the student attends a private or public school. The closest is the National Assessment of Education Progress test (NAEP--you can find info on this test on ED's website). I also have extreme doubts testing in general and standardized testing in particular.

The issue about money going to religious institutions is yet another red herring. That was settled in the late 1940's with respect to the paying of GI Bill benefits to religiously-affiliated colleges and universities.

I agree that vouchers blur the line between private and public. I think we will have to live with that in the interim term until we achieve total privitization (as an aside, one of the biggest problems I have with most voucher proposals on the table is that it is not clear if vouchers are a transition to privitization or a way to appease voter's frustrations with a failing public school system. My sense it is the latter.).

I hope this is a good start.

Kevin

Post 4

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 11:28am

one of the biggest problems I have with most voucher proposals on the table is that it is not clear if vouchers are a transition to privitization or a way to appease voter's frustrations with a failing public school system. My sense it is the latter.

You're quite correct - am sure is the latter.... governmentalists have great reluctance to removing controls they have incurred...

Post 5

Sunday, November 4, 2007 - 4:07pm

We've had two major, highly controversial voucher initiatives here in CA in the past fifteen years. In both cases, there was all kinds of completely illegal propagandizing in the classroom by the public school teachers, as well as proven massive use of taxpayer financed school printing of anti-voucher propaganda which was sent home via the students.

I don't recall if the CA cap on reimbursal per child enrolled was $3,000 or $5,000, but there were all kinds of totally fallacious arguments from the anti-voucher people - mainly hacks from the public school teachers union - to the effect that no school could possibly provide a true "quality" education for such a meager sum. The fact that the huge, award winning, local Catholic high-school - Mater Dei - was doing it for LESS than the proposition's proposed payment was completely ignored by the liberal media.

The rich yuppies of Irvine and Laguna here in the OC, and the progressive puppies of Santa Monica were told that vouchers would mean funding cut from their precious progressive public schools, so they voted overwhelmingly against them. The Hispanics, who generally go along with anything a "Jefe" says, voted what their teachers told them, along with the Chinese, who were starting to dominate in Irvine.

The people, however, who were most strongly in need of the vouchers, the urban poor in East L.A. and Watts especially, not only voted overwhelmingly in favor of the vouchers, but went out and rented property and found retired teachers to set up their own schools, on the expectation that the voucher initiative would pass. In those areas, the public schools are almost like NAZI concentration camps, with barbed wire, armed guards, shootings, daily beatings, rapes, you-name-it, and the drug dealers hanging out a block or so from the school, waiting for the kids to hustle or rob them or sell them drugs.

As an anarcho-capitalist, I too have very mixed feelings about the vouchers, and a lot of the libertarians and home-schoolers opposed them - although NOT those in Watts or E. L.A. They are definitely a mixed bag. The general run of private schools, as well as charter schools, have not been all that much better by most reports than the public schools. In some well-publicized cases, the people running a charter network were skimming huge amounts of money from the funding. I.e., there was a lack of meaningful oversight, with the natural attendant problems.

Nonetheless, I am in favor of the vouchers, as they are a step in the direction of private, parental/child control over the process. I am a lot MORE in favor of home-schooling, which has a FAR better track record than ANY type of school that I'm aware of. Instead of vouchers for school, maybe there should be a bigger tax cut for child support, which would also help the home schoolers.

Teresa, the public schools, especially the highschools here in CA have become essentially just facilities for teaching to the tests that are mandated by federal and state title-grant programs. The consequence has been the dumbing-down of any kind of integrated learning experience. The classic example locally is Century High School in Santa Ana, which was set up initially in the early '90's as a magnet school for high-achievers from minority and low-income backgrounds. They started with one MacIntosh for every 4 students, plus PC labs, plus a mini-computer network that allowed teachers to instantly access lesson plans, student records, etc., from their desk. The teachers were all volunteers.

Century High, about 15 years later, is one of the poorest performing schools in the area, even in Santa Ana, where it is located. Teaching to the test has resulted in only about 50% of the kids passing the Exit Exam for 2007, required now for graduation. I.e., 50% of the students - which does not include the high percentage of drop-outs, BTW - will fail to graduate.

This in spite of the high per-pupil funding and the select admission policies that are supposed to screen for kids of high ability.

Those kids are so unhappy about the whole thing that they are ready to revolt - and they should. They should form a real union and go on strike, like out of some novel I heard of somewhere... ;-)

The point? ANYBODY could do a better job. Vouchers? Bring em on! It can't be any worse than it already is.

Post 6

Sunday, November 4, 2007 - 4:41pm

As an anarcho-capitalist, I too have very mixed feelings about the vouchers, and a lot of the libertarians and home-schoolers opposed them - although NOT those in Watts or E. L.A.

Can you give me an idea as to why home schoolers would be opposed to school vouchers? That just boggles me. I can't for the life of me understand why they would oppose such a measure.

Nonetheless, I am in favor of the vouchers, as they are a step in the direction of private, parental/child control over the process.

Totally agree with you, Phil. Anything that would give parents/guardians more control is fine with me.

And you're right. It couldn't be worse than it already is.

Post 7

Monday, November 5, 2007 - 3:39am

Thank you for you comments. Much thanks to Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Osborn (keep in mind my post will be delayed, apologies to any who comment after my submission).

First, a quickie. It could worse be worse than it is now. Very, very much worse. A few historical examples would obliterate this notion that our status quo is the lowest possible low. The notion that anybody could do a better job is equally misconceived. Teaching is a skill like any other. It deserves more reverence than many care to give. Many teacher go into the field because they want to be great teachers and shake up the rigid system. Some of them should have been great teachers.

It seems there is a general consensus here and elsewhere that fallacies and all, vouchers will bring something better than the status quo. I'm not convinced. I find Pete's comments very important.  The blurring of private and public ties strings of obligation onto private institutions. The blurring may continue until all the freedom of choice gained becomes indistinguishable to our unhappy status quo. This seems likely, given the usual direction of government policy and our enthusiasm to take it flaws and all. Because Rand is always relevant here, I will mention that she equally disapproved of government aid to any special interest group, private or public, meek or mighty.

It is strange to me that the mere fact that this is unconstitutional doesn't stir people up like it has me. This is no red herring. My dollar will be funding a Catholic school! This may be the only fraction of the status quo I'm fond of: Creationist "science" isn't yet given validity in most public schools in the country. What might the consequences of a mass wave of metaphysical indoctrination mean for our country? To this people usually respond either that 1) we already fund religious organizations and 2) this is at least a step in the right direction.  The first response is the red herring.  To the second, can this really be considered a step in the right direction if it dubiously salvages one principle at the explicit cost of another?

I agree with Mr. Kirkwood that a few of my concerns are red herrings. While they are of less importance to the conversation of vouchers in principle, they are critical in the voucher's application. Treating these as irrelevant seems to me sloppy thinking.

Given the preceding, it seems especially important to have conclusive evidence that charter schools are (not just could be) significantly better than public schools. The response that there's good ones and bad ones is unhelpful. Especially because an A grade on one history test should not be automatically assumed equal to an A on another. There needs to be an objective criteria to decide which school is best for one's child and as it stands this seems plagued with impracticalities. This impracticality would be helped by a standardized test. That conservatives seem eager to leap into a dubious situation without firm data and without a well crafted method of objective study (as it is) is not encouraging. This seems like a desperate and reckless attempt at free market education. It seems like mob rule in a capitalist disguise. To fly such a thing under banners like free choice, free market, capitalism, libertarianism will mar our credulity as rational, evidence based thinkers and give that cred to the other side.

I first approached this bill with great enthusiasm. It seems an obvious choice. Public education is misconceived in principle and a failure in many measures. I am fond of ideas like home schooling, unschooling, private and charter schools, community schools and whatever. But not at the expense of freedom.  A far better bill would allow for a voucher according to a parent's contribution to public education. Although the flavor is bad we could even say if person A contributes $10,000 he only gets half back, while person B, who contributes $500, gets all back. This may not achieve the same goal, but it would encourage free market education without compromising principle and could be applied with fewer strings attached.

Post 8

Monday, November 5, 2007 - 6:20am

Catholics do not believe in Creationism.

Post 9

Monday, November 5, 2007 - 6:45am

I notice that people aren't mentioning tax credits, as distinguished from vouchers, or at least they aren't making the distinction. With credits, students, parents and donors simply take the money off their tax bill. It never passes through government's hands. This considerably weakens the money-leads-to-control objection that libertarians have to vouchers, and it completely removes the my-money-for-[objectionable belief system of reader's choice]-schools objection. For the record, this, and not vouchers, is what Rand was promoting as early as 1962.

Post 10

Monday, November 5, 2007 - 1:13pm

Thanks Peter Reidy. I wasn't aware that a sounder alternative has been tried. That knowledge will be most helpful in convincing friends and family. I was told that Milton Friedman endorsed vouchers long ago. I should look into his argument.

Kurt Eichert, you've intrigued me. Please go on.

Post 11

Monday, November 5, 2007 - 8:40pm

Teresa, the reason why the home-schoolers opposed the Voucher initiatives was the expected compromise in control of private schools by parents that would inevitably accompany state oversight - which would predictably happen, when a few scams or attrocities were sensationalized in the news.

An related example of this, BTW, is the infamous McMartin Preschool case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_Preschool.

In this case, the most expensive trial in CA history at the time, ALL defendants were acquited of ALL charges and it was totally clear that the state had completely screwed up on every level. Yet the result, due to the sensationalization of the story in the press was a snowball of dozens of similar cases of alleged torture, sex with children and sacrifice of babies, etc., etc., etc., with many people being forced to plea bargain to things that they never did - that is, until the psychologists established how easy it was to plant false memories in a young child, and then demonstrated that the aggressive child interview techniques in ubiquitous use by state psychologists could hardly be calculated to have any other effect.

And the insurance rates for ANY preschool went through the roof, putting a lot of Montessori schools, already paying out ten times as much for their equipment and extra teacher training as the typical preschool, out of business. And, of course there were calls for more regulation of preschools, etc., in spite of the acquitals. And, finally, most people today in CA who have heard of the case actually think that the defendants were convicted.

The home-schoolers were afraid of ANY more involvement in education by the state - nose of the camel, etc.

I, BTW, oppose ALL money coming from the state to subsidize children, old people, whoever... But if the money is being diverted from a really bad, destructive use, such as the public indoctrination and incarceration centers for children, into one that is less bad or even positive, then that's a net improvement of sorts.

Post 12

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 - 12:46am

Peter, thanks for bring up the tax credits. Good point about it eliminating the "my-money-for-[objectionable belief system of reader's choice]-schools objection". I hadn't thought about that.

From my understanding, it was the "money-leads-to-control objection" that tax credits were supposed to be superior. If government gives vouchers, they will make sure they approve of the school you'd be paying, which means they'd want to control it. Tax credits meant you were spending your own money, so the government would have less potential to make sure it went to the right place.

It sounded good when I first heard it. But after awhile, I'm not convinced that government would be much less likely to get their fingers into things. If you're not going to pay taxes, they'd consider that an expenditure, and they'd demand it was used "responsibly". I guess your wording might be appropriate. It "weakens" the objection. I don't know about considerably, although it may do that as well.

Thanks for the post.

Post 13

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 - 6:30am

Joe, I think I agree. A tax credit would still be viewed as negative revenue for the government, no matter how you slice and dice it. It seems likely that the government would impose standards by which one qualifies for the credit, and herein would be the area where they could assert their control. It still sounds better than a voucher, however.

Post 14

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 - 6:34am

Yes, but it would be harder to enforce. One reason is that government would have to go after individuals rather than schools.

Another is that tax bureaucrats don't have the incentives that education bureaucrats do. The qualifications for a 501c3 non-profit are relatively loose. You don't need a license in advance, and only flagrant self-dealing (with the burden of proof on the tax people) disqualifies you. The teachers' unions and their allies would do what they could to influence the definition of what constitutes a school, but it wouldn't be the same as if they had the money to give or hold back. Only major legislation (giving school authorities a hand in the enforcement of tax laws) could change this, and I don't see much prospect of that.

Post 15

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 - 10:38am

This has been an interesting discussion--probably one of the most intelligent and civilized on this issue that I have read!

From my own thinking, I would like to add the following somewhat random observations about education in this country:

1. There is no public consensus on the purpose of education. By "purpose" I mean, what characteristics/knowledge do you want kids to know by the time they finish their schooling? Into this vacuum of public consensus has rushed, multiculturalism, progressive education, and social engineering. Personally, I think that the student, parent, and the institution the child wants to attend should make this decision.

2. The world has changed and education has not kept up with this change. We see this in the constant complaints from business about kids not being able to read, write and compute. We also see that kids (particularly from low social classes regardless of race/ethnicity) do not have the skills to think critically, reason, write, and continue their education (which they will need to do as adults). We also see this in how education is structured--the rigid school day/school year (which corresponds to an agrarian versus largely urban/suburban population distribution), age grouping, etc.

3. Unless vouchers are tied to a definite timeline for both phasing in (what percentage of education tax dollars each year are to be put toward the voucher program until year X when 100 percent of education tax dollars are put into the voucher program) and phasing out (decreasing the value of the voucher until the value of the voucher equals zero; i.e., at year Y, the program ends), you run the risk of creating a new set of clients/political constitutents for the program.--With tax credits, you run the added risked of further complicating an already complicated tax system.

In light of the above and the fact that we are facing a well-financed and politically well-heeled group, I can only think of one alternative and I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

So much of school funding on any level, but pariticularly on the state and federal level is tied to complying with regulations in order to receive/continue to receive funds. Why if school districts/schools refused to take it? This is not so far fetched; here is an example from higher education. Hillsdale College in Michigan has refused all federal and state aid in every form (for example, the Federal Student Loan programs, PELL grants, etc.). Instead, it has raised money for scholarships and guarantees that any student accepted will receive the money needed to attend the college. Replacing government money with private money (from foundations or corporatations) will shift the balance of political power from the government to the community. As more local and more accountable groups/communities gain control of their schools, they can make the changes needed to improve the quality of education. And as these programs succeed, they could serve as models for other communities to do the same.

What do you think of this idea?

Post 16

Tuesday, November 6, 2007 - 12:55pm

Peter,

I was under the impression that the tax credit could be used for anything, like books, computers, software, tutoring, etc. You seem to think it has something to do with 501c3 non-profits. Are we talking about the same thing?

My understanding was the tax credits could be used, in theory, on anything educational. It didn't just have to go to "schools". So tax credits could in theory be used for homeschooling as well, for instance.

But if the restriction is still that it can only go toward schools, or licensed educational institutions, that's another matter.

In terms of control, I think the IRS would demand receipts from "licenses" education institutions. If they didn't at first, I think there would be people abusing the system, spending it on something else, and the government would feel the need to crack down. So whether it started with full control, or just moved in that direction, I really can't see the government keeping their hands out of it.

Post 17

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 - 9:40am

I thought the education tax credit was only for business-related schooling, not for parents of schoolchildren or for students preparing to enter a new field. Fine with me if it isn't.
The point of the reference to 501c3 status is that this is much easier to get than state-level permission to run a school (though you do have to incorporate and file tax returns). These objections to government's getting its hands in would be a good one if they weren't already there - if we were starting from a free-market and these were proposals to initiate new government interventions. The question before us today is how to move schooliing in the opposite direction.

Post 18

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 - 11:27am

I thought the education tax credit was only for business-related schooling, not for parents of schoolchildren or for students preparing to enter a new field. Fine with me if it isn't.

That may have been so in the past, but not now. http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=132652,00.html
On the other hand, the tax credits therein are for college, university, vocational school, or other post�secondary education, i.e. not for elementary through high school.

Post 19

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 - 6:53pm