« Tim Worstall asks | Main | Tom Palmer on positive and negative liberty »
My worry about vouchers
Here is one good bit, you can trace back an interesting debate through Kevin Drum, Matt, Ezra (can't find the link), and Jane. I have two worries:
1. The federal government will pay for vouchers, to some extent, and thus extend its control over schooling. Admittedly this is happening anyway.
2. No politically feasible vouchers program will apply immediate depth charges to current public schools or even reduce their initial budgets ("oh, you aren't letting public schools compete...). That means the new money must come from somewhere. That means our taxes will go up.
Vouchers would create a new middle class entitlement, ostensibly aimed at education but often simply capitalized in the form of cash. In the meantime public schools would require additional subsidies to stay open. How pretty a picture is this?
For sure, I favor selective vouchers for inner cities and voucher experiments. But Yana is finishing high school now, and we have had quite a cozy local arrangement in Fairfax County. I don't wish we had had vouchers, and I'm a libertarian (Bryan can laugh if he wants). That's why the vouchers idea has not really gotten off the ground.
I would be happier with vouchers if we were starting from scratch in designing educational institutions. And while I agree with Jane that children have a positive right to an education, I think the out-and-out laissez-faire option doesn't get enough attention. Keep the public schools we have, but make them charge tuition. I'm not sure that the number of good educations obtained would actually go down. Even if we can't institute this reform today, might it become possible at some level of per capita income?
When it comes to teachers' unions, I don't have much sympathy.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 22, 2007 at 05:06 PM in Education | Permalink
Comments
Most areas, aside from highly urbanized ones, probably aren't dense enough to sustain the competition necessary to make vouchers viable. In other words, the high time and energy cost of transport means that a limited number of students wouldn't make a real market feasible. The exception to that, however, is highly urbanized areas, as there are probably enough students in them to make sure the market works. Metropolitan areas with more than 250,000 residents are probably near the minimum.
In addition, such schools probably have the least to lose because such school districts already perform so poorly. Certainly that's the case in Seattle, where I live, and the public school district regularly underperforms neighboring suburbs and private schools. To some extent that's because of the differences in student composition, but vouchers would help attract some high-performing students back into the system. An article by Daniel Golden headlined "Affluent Families Have Ways to Sway School Assignments" appeared in the December 4, 2006 Wall Street Journal about the contortions currently being performed in pursuit of that goal.
Still, the article does offer one point that strongly supports Tyler Cowen's:
"According to Gary Orfield, a Harvard professor of education, programs such as Seattle's that let students choose schools are usually set up in ways that give an advantage to middle-class and white students. In Seattle, those who miss application deadlines tend to come from a "more transient population" of renters who are disproportionately low-income and minority, says John Vacchiery, the district's former director of enrollment. This year 8,828 Seattle students applied for school assignments on time and 7,039 applied late or not at all, relegating them to the back of the line."
In other words, almost half the families are too uninterested in their children's education to even try to apply to other schools. Voucher system assume that consumers will act in their own best interests, but if so many apparently aren't, then they might fail anyway. I'd continue to argue what I did above, however, in that the system is unlikely to get worse than it already is.
The rest of the article is behind the walled garden here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116519951912839643.html?mod=mostpop
Posted by: Jake at Mar 22, 2007 5:34:24 PM
People cloud the issue by making the voucher system too complex, fraught with details of privatization. The three-step solution is very simple: (1) auction off all the schools and eliminate government running of the actual schools completely. (2) You can keep the same spending (taxes don’t have to rise), and just divide it among each child. (3) Finally, let the market do the work (to appease some, I suppose there is some room for government regulation or minimum standards of some kind, but I’m not sure this is necessary).
I’m not sure how fundamentally different this would be from food stamps (i.e. kids/parents are analogous to food stamp recipients, and the schools are like the private grocery stores). Our schools could be like our grocery stores: very competitive and probably the best in the world in terms of product variety and cost.
Is this the “out-and-out laissez-faire option” that Tyler thinks doesn’t get enough attention?
Posted by: Scott W at Mar 22, 2007 5:52:25 PM
No politically feasible vouchers program will apply immediate depth charges to current public schools or even reduce their initial budgets ("oh, you aren't letting public schools compete...). That means the new money must come from somewhere. That means our taxes will go up.
I disagree. In Michigan we have near universal vouchers now, but you can use them only at public schools and charters, not private schools. Strictly speaking, the parents never touch the piece of paper, but the funding from the state follows the student wherever he or she goes. But most don't go -- they stay in their own local public school system because transportation is a problem and because that's where their kids friends (and their friends kids) go.
If vouchers were extended to private schools, there is no reason to believe that public schools wouldn't still be able to compete for and win a very high percentage of the students in most areas (Not least because the public schools start out with the enormous advantage of land and building which the upstarts would have to fund out of the vouchers).
I have kids in high-school, too, and I'm glad that we do have this limited form of vouchers, because the schools do worry about losing students (and the $10K a year that each brings in) and I believe they have become more responsive to their 'customers' than they were previously (where before, a student leaving meant just as much money but one less mouth to feed).
Posted by: Slocum at Mar 22, 2007 6:32:12 PM
I would be happier with vouchers if we were starting from scratch in designing educational institutions
We have a fundamental disconnect in the national debate over education and it is at the core of the above quote. People are too busy trying to advocate this thing or that thing to improve schools. But, what if we were to start from scratch in designing educational institutions? Try to have this conversation and you'll find the secret agendas behind a lot of the political noise.
We have no national consensus on what the goals of our educational systems should be. We have no consensus on what constitutes good education. Indeed, you'll find that people don't even agree on what education is. I'm reminded of the early 1980s quote by a right-wing fundamentalist who said something to the effect: "We don't want school teaching our children how to think. They are too young for that. Schools should teach them what to think. Only when they know what to think should they be taught how to think."
Posted by: squik at Mar 22, 2007 6:34:31 PM
Keep the public schools we have, but make them charge tuition.
coupled with an elimination of the schools portion of local property taxes (not that we have that in California anyway, since it all goes into the state general fund) and a negative income tax?
I could live with that. Of course, you'd also have to blow up unified school districts, turning most schools into independently administered charter schools that could compete AND control staffing decisions.
Posted by: brianS at Mar 22, 2007 6:43:14 PM
I share both your worries, but of course it doesn't relate to the argument of what we SHOULD be doing.
Posted by: josh at Mar 22, 2007 6:45:15 PM
Why not just have an income tax credit for pre-college educational expenses, capped at the amount of the voucher, and make prices for public schools?
That's "voucher-like" but doesn't raise nearly the same problems with the establishment clause and federal money. Moreover, states could do the same thing.
Posted by: GMUSL 3L at Mar 22, 2007 6:49:52 PM
I often find myself in debates with people who seem confused about voucher systems; they worry about what will happen to public schools because they don't grasp that a voucher system eliminates the distinction between public and private schools. Given these experiences, I think Tyler's concern is a valid one.
Given these confusions, it would be clearer if we dropped the word "voucher" and instead talked about "competition," "privitization," and "single-payer education". Here is a proposal that tries to work within this frame:
(1) Each public school, run by its principal, becomes an independent institution that can set its own admissions policy and curriculum, negotiate its own contracts with teachers, etc. School districts cease to exist. In other words, we run primary and secondary schools like colleges. (2) Federal, state, and local governments contribute $X/student enrolled at any acredited school. (3) An accrediting agency certifies which schools are eligible to receive funding on the basis of their curriculum and test scores. To eliminate the debate over public funding of parochial education, religious schools are disqualified. (4) Special needs students are dealt with via a completely seperate funding mechanism. If maninstreaming is appropriate, the responsible agency could offer to pay a school extra to accept a student it normally wouldn't, but a school can always choose to forgo the money and not accept a student.
Posted by: David Wright at Mar 22, 2007 7:05:34 PM
Vouchers would not only dramatically improve education, they would also significantly improve the environment by reducing urban sprawl.
For two generations families have been fleeing first the inner cities and now the first ring suburbs in order to choose better schools for their children. A voucher system would substantially curtail this flight to the outer suburbs and dramatically revitalize conveniently located but poorly schooled urban and older suburban areas.
If the electorate cannot be persuaded by the obvious educational benefits of vouchers, perhaps they can be persuaded by the prospect of increasing their property values.
Posted by: Tom Kelly at Mar 22, 2007 7:11:19 PM
Tom: As you can read in my previous post, I support a voucher system. But I still think you are wrong to assert that such a system would increase property values. The title to my home in an upper-middle-class neighborhood currently has an embedded option to attend a good local public school free of charge. A significant fraction of the market value of that title arises from that embedded option. If that option is decoupled from the title, the market value of the title will likely fall.
Jake: Your statistics don't prove that anywhere near half your sample population isn't interested in their children's schooling. A significant fraction of that half didn't request a non-default school because had already payed boku bucks to move a neighborhood with a satisfactory default school. (I agree, by the way, with your earlier point that systems like Seattle's are a way to look fair while in fact favoring upper-middle-class people with clout.)
Posted by: David Wright at Mar 22, 2007 7:36:40 PM
No vouchers. You don't want state money messing up private schools. Tax credits are the way to go. Allow anyone in the district to take a credit for private schooling, or for homeschooling (albeit a lower amount). Allow anyone to take the credit for a child, but only for 1 child. If an older couple with no children wants to take the credit, they could pay $2,000 of a poor child's tuition bill and deduct it off their property taxes. If the Federal government wanted to help, they could also allow deductions on income taxes. Did you know that the Education Department spends enough money to give every kid age 10 and up a significant school voucher? If the Department were abolished, and only 20% of the country wanted private schooling, the current education budget could fund it completely.
Posted by: Matt at Mar 22, 2007 10:02:15 PM
It seems that the items listed in the initial post were not necessarily reasons why vouchers wouldn't work, but simply things that need to be addressed as we proceed.
I quite unexpectedly took a teaching job a couple of years ago (of which I only lasted two years) and my overall view did not change on education, but I do have a new appreciation of how difficult it is to measure teacher performance.
This being said to make the point; the parent is the key to the child's success. A parent that is dedicated to their children's success; in that they are involved, they are informed, they are not infected with the "self-esteem" bug but know that their kids have to work, those kids can go to relatively mediocre schools and still excel overall.
But parents who want to drop their kids off to K thru 12 daycare, the best schools in the world cannot teach a child that doesn't want to learn, and whose parents do not care.
And all of that to this point: Vouchers will institute a more realistic system of accountability. This will free up more money, as the competition will force schools to pay faculty what they're worth, and eventually, in my view, more good teachers will actually be able to go to those down trodden schools, and help those who might otherwise receive very little.
How? Because once private entities get more fully involved, there will be schools available for the worst neighborhoods, and not just public schools. The same high IQ types that join the Marines before going to Wall Street, or do humanitarian work in Africa, or tramp around some social services job before finally giving up, they will find a niche in private schooling for the poor.
Posted by: Ray G at Mar 22, 2007 10:12:40 PM
Jake: I grew up on a farm where the nearest neighbour was about a mile away. Within busing distance were 3 schools: I could choose a French school, a mixed school, or an English school ranging from 7 miles to 20 miles away. None of the schools had more than 250 students, Kindergarten to Grade 12. The schools were in competition for students as language of instruction was an "acceptable" reason for parents to send their kids to one school rather than another. There might be places that are low enough in population density that there's no effective competition. But I'd be surprised if more than 5% of the population live in places so-characterized. Would have to be less dense than rural southern Manitoba; our farm had a population density of 4 people to the square mile...
Posted by: Eric Crampton at Mar 22, 2007 10:25:52 PM
David Wright: Why would the value of your property fall?
If a voucher system is implemented, your home no longer has just an option to send the kids living there to a good nearby public school- it now has an option to send the kids to any great school. An option on anything with more "options" that also includes the previous single option is certainly worth more, not less.
This is not a zero sum game. The benefits of enacting a voucher system will extend far beyond education.
Posted by: Tom Kelly at Mar 22, 2007 11:33:39 PM
Friedman originally articulated vouchers as being universal, and in my opinion universality is utterly key in avoiding the redundant systems Tyler fears as well as for the ultimate success of the model. Universality levels the playing field. When underperforming public schools find themselves without students (and their vouchers) sure, the local authority can choose to subsidize it, but unless there is a shortage of seats in the district causing hardship on other schools, eventually the authorities will come to question what the point is to subsidizing empty, unneeded schools.
Like several of the other commenters, I think the term "vouchers" has been allowed to become a loaded term by the enemies of choice. My suggestion for replacing vouchers is Student-Owned Tuition Accounts.
yours/
peter.
Posted by: peter jackson at Mar 23, 2007 12:04:17 AM
The one indisputably effective way to improve the quality of output of American schools is to improve the quality of their input of students through immigration policy. More highly skilled immigrants and fewer unskilled immigrants means higher skilled students and higher performing schools.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Mar 23, 2007 5:17:12 AM
Talking about vouchers is putting the cart before the horse. The crucial component of any system of educational competition, one that doesn't currently exist, is an independent testing system that objectively measures how much value each school is adding to the students it gets. Otherwise, parents are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Mar 23, 2007 5:29:18 AM
Here in Sweden school vouchers have been used for a couple of years now, which seems to have improved both the quality and efficiency of both privately run and county run schools. The schools get paid for each pupil they have, which has forced the county run schools (which previously received their money regardless of how many attendees they had) to improve and compete. I find it hard to understand why school vouchers are such a big issue in the US. Even the social democratic party are positive in Sweden. The commies are the only ones against it.
Posted by: Johan Folin at Mar 23, 2007 6:38:02 AM
By the way, the size of the city/county population doesn't matter. People in small villages send their kids to the nearest large town anyway where there are enough schools to choose from. The county population median in Sweden is 15000 and the average is 31000, so population density is clearly not a problem.
Posted by: Johan Folin at Mar 23, 2007 6:52:04 AM
I love how all of the pro-school choice people believe that they will be able to choose whatever school they want for their children. In reality, a K-12 school choice system will work much like the current college system. You can choose among the schools that will accept your child.
A total voucher system will benefit the rich, long term residents of area metropolitan area because they will be able to get their children accepted to the best college prep school. The poor, minority groups, and new residents will be stuck sending their children to schools that have empty seats and those by default will be the lowest performing schools.
Just like all families are not able to "choose" Harvard, not all families will be able to St Albans, the Dalton School, etc.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Mar 23, 2007 7:12:30 AM
I find it hard to understand why school vouchers are such a big issue in the US.
Well, that's easy -- because the teacher's unions (out of self-interest) are dead-set against vouchers, and the teacher's unions are a major Democratic Party constituency (much more important now than the fading industrial unions).
And to a lesser extent, voters (like Tyler) who have (or think they have) excellent local public schools are not in really proponents because they've already got a good thing and a major change to the system might mess that up.
Posted by: Slocum at Mar 23, 2007 7:33:06 AM
Since Sweden introduced school vouchers the teachers' real wages have risen much more than for the rest of the population, since the de facto monopsony is now gone.
Posted by: Johan Folin at Mar 23, 2007 8:18:50 AM
Sell these public schools to Blackstone and then be done with it.
Posted by: JoshK at Mar 23, 2007 9:02:30 AM
When it comes to teachers' unions, I don't have much sympathy.
Which is why TC, when offered tenure, renounced it on principle, as an unwarrantable hindrance on the free market.
Posted by: Anderson at Mar 23, 2007 10:42:53 AM
While the quality of teachers are important (I am a teacher) a bigger factor is the quality of students. If all schools can easily accept or students, then there will be a lot of students rejected by everyone. How is this a good thing? Also interesting to me in this debate is the assumption that competition automatically improves everything. Is this true on the college level? Is the quality of education at Harvard 10 times better than a state school? Would colleges be better if they had to take everyone?
As for teachers unions, most of the stories are urban legends (Cadillac driving welfare moms). Most States don’t have strong unions (ironically usually with poorer educational outcomes i.e. the south). The biggest problem with quality teachers is that so many leave within 3-5 years of being hired. (20-50% depending on area). Removing teacher protection by busting unions does not seem to me likely to encourage more and better teachers.
Posted by: exlitigator at Mar 23, 2007 12:54:14 PM
