The Lafayette Journal & Courier featured a column by an administrator at one of the local Christian schools entitled “Why School Choice is Working.” Despite the title, the column doesn’t really establish that “school choice” (i.e. vouchers/privatization, etc.) is “working.” For starters, it doesn’t really define what “working” is. (My assumption is that this should mean that we end up with a better educated population. But, for all I know, someone else might think it enough that we’re handing kids diplomas without spending as much money.)
But, on to the arguments.
Item the first: The columnist argues that vouchers are actually saving our educational system money because a “voucher will always cost less than public school tuition because it cannot exceed 90 percent of the cost of attending a public school.” I’ll just re-state my response from the last time this argument surfaced in the paper:
First of all, not all children cost the same to educate. As I’ve mentioned before, that’s a major issue with taking a “dollars-follow-the-child” approach. Some kids are easier to educate than others. My guess is that the tougher cases are more likely to stay in public schools. Secondly, this ignores the subsidy potential for parents who, in the absence of the “choice” legislation would have paid 100% of their decision to put their kid in a non-public school. This is a windfall for those families. No one is forcing you to give your kids a public, secular education, but now we’re subsidizing the decision to send kids to private and/or religious schools.
Item the second: The local schools’ test scores are improving and the administrator’s particular school have remained the same. This “does no harm” argument is not compelling. First of all, this particular argument is anecdotal. I have no idea whether it is representative of the state as a whole. But, even if it was, maintaining the status quo in terms of educational quality is hardly a compelling case for publicly funding private education.
Boiled down, those are the two arguments the column puts forward. So, the headline (which may not be the author’s doing) is not really on point. He also asserts that publicly funding a religious education is constitutional because it’s the parent’s choice. I don’t think one follows from the other, but won’t quarrel with him at this point because, where these vouchers are concerned, the religious angle really isn’t at the heart of my beef. I don’t really like it any better when the vouchers are going to private, secular schools.
Lacking any evidence that these voucher experiments are actually improving education, proponents of school privatization are left with bare assertions that “empowering” parents to “choose” is, by itself, a sufficient reason to publicly fund private education. Being empowered and choosing are good things, right? I’m sure their marketing consultants tell them that. But, as I’ve said before, these are not sufficient reasons for insisting on unproven schemes for improving our schools. Other countries have figured a lot of this out. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We can look at what has worked elsewhere and copy it.
Near as I can tell, the voucher proponents fall into one of three general camps:
1. People who were going to send their kids to something other than a traditional public school anyway and want to have that decision subsidized.
2. People who see that big pot of education money as a business opportunity.
3. People who regard “free market” arguments as a sort of dogma and believe that making the school system more like a marketplace must improve education, regardless of the actual data.
And, I suppose honorable mention should go to lawmakers and politicians who see this as a way to disempower public school teachers as a political force. But that is, perhaps, a discussion for another day.
Thanks for an insightful piece about what vouchers really mean to public education.
When vouchers were first introduced in Indiana the argument was, “It will save money.” Since that has turned out to be untrue, the argument now is, “Choice for choice’s sake.”
I especially like your 4 camps of voucher proponents. The unnumbered #4 is true as well…and public school superintendents (as a group) had a hand in that as they encouraged the legislature to do what they could to weaken Indiana’s teachers unions. I don’t think it turned out the way they (the superintendents) had planned, as many of them are now regretting the damage done to public education.
(btw, the link to your older article on vouchers doesn’t work)
Thanks for the heads up on the link. I fixed it.
There’s one other factor at play — private schools desperate to get state money so they can stay open. Catholic and conservative Christian schools, already in long-term decline, have taken it on the chin the last few years, as their middle-to-working-class base has been priced out, or availed themselves of free, private-like charter options, or perhaps chose to home-school.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgc.asp
Excellent analysis, including that fourth point you are leaving for another day. Thanks
If all you have to talk about is dollars and test scores, you are not talking about education.
100% with you.
I am vehemently against vouchers and anything else that weakens our public schools.
Rocky Killian’s op ed ( 7/31) points out the destructive impact of voucher schools, which basically funds racial isolation in the state. Public schools reflect the public composition, and where they are best, combine academic excellence, diversity and leadership skills development. When looking for scholarship recipients, Yale wants bright leaders from diverse high schools, not white kids from isolated schools, because that is who tomorrow’s leaders will be.
P.S. Stu is not the same person as Stuart. Not that I have disagreed with his comments.
How about a compromise: instead of vouchers, simply allow the parents the ability to get a deduction for fees they pay a private and/or charter school up to say the average student is funded per public school. Capped at say 5K per kid deduction…
I’ll throw a fly in the ointment. My youngest had a lot of difficulties in school. By the time he hit H.S. he was way over his head. He did not conform well with community standards and was given the option of attending Options Charter School. They do a great job with the students that our area High School would prefer to not have in the system.
Working with Options he found the ability to not only learn in a warm and supportive environment but to really develop and sharpen his skills. If it saved anyone money that is just a bonus.
I’m certain that if Options would not have been there he would have been another statistic. As it turns out he got a great education and our local High School didn’t have to worry about him or his classmates lowering the Districts Rankings and Awards. An honest win / win from any perspective, except maybe that of the staff at Options. They were miracle workers. He would have been a distraction in a regular class setting.
There he fit in fine and actually had to learn.
Sometimes, it’s the story that wins the argument, but stories are anecdotes, not data. There are all sorts of reasons why some kids (not all) do better in an alternative setting, but there is also no reason why the public schools could not duplicate the best of the options, and for cheaper. They already have the mental health and supportive services, administration and infrastructure that is needed. When folks go out of their way to deal with the outliers (at both ends of the spectrum) the organization gets stronger and more adaptable. When they learn to oursource any difficulty, they get more narrow and less adaptable. Ricksmith’s situation was an opportunity for them to learn, and if they didn’t, shame on them.
If the folks in the district were smart, they would listen, learn from kids like Ricksmith’s and make sure there were options that would accomplish the same ends, but within the context of the schools. Everybody wins. After all, that’s where your tax money is going, so you want a stronger, more adaptable organization that will learn how to provide everyone with a positive learning experience.