The government spends an inordinate amount of money on education, ranging from a low of $5,257 a year per student in Utah to a high of $14,119 per student per year in New York. Spending has increased, adjusted for inflation, over 100% since 1971. Still, American children are being left behind in the pursuit of decent education. A recent international test found American students score twelfth in the world in 4th grade, but fall to 28th by 8th grade. Schools vouchers, in theory and in practice, have been shown to be an effective and cheap way of educating the public by means of the private market. Vouchers, rather than interminable calls for further funding, should be the foundation of American educational policy in the 21st century.
Though the issue of vouchers is one incredibly important to education, a recent study found that up to 40% of American adults admit to not understanding vouchers completely, if at all. School vouchers, in essence, are a means by which public money would be used to fund the education of students in the school of their choice—public, parochial, or private. For example, if a lower income student wished to attend a private school—and was accepted—public funds would be allocated for this student’s education. School vouchers offer a means by which all schools are in direct competition with one another; schools that do not attract enough students eventually close while schools that do attract students thrive, and expand.
It has been said that the private market, with exception, offers the most efficient engine for delivering the most goods to the most people. Education is no different. The exceptions offered above present clear instances in which the government should step in to regulate the invisible hand: when a certain good is non-excludable and/or non-rival. Non-excludable goods are such that one cannot be excluded from enjoying them, like the benefits of national military protection. Non-rival goods are such that one person utilizing the good does not detract from another’s ability to do so, like certain kinds of cable television. Education, however is both excludable and rival. Clearly, one can be excluded from a formal education, and formal education is rival insofar as there are a limited number of seats in a classroom. Standard economic theory dictates, then, that the private market should be able to provide education more efficiently.
Opponents of school vouchers systems claim that the system would create a vicious cycle, in which the smarter students end up attending the best schools and the less talented students are relegated to worse schools. This would be true at the onset of a voucher system (though maybe not much different than the system now). However, parents would not indefinitely send their children to bad schools. New schools would spring up—and/or better schools would expand—to address the increased demand for quality education (now that students have the funds to attend these schools). This is the case with college education; private, public, and parochial schools have been competition with one another and have constantly improved to attract students. Eventually, with competition, the level of education would increase for all.
Other opponents of a voucher system argue against it from a First Amendment standpoint, or specifically the clause that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This argument is based on the fact that, under a voucher system, parochial schools, like Catholic schools, would most likely receive public money if students decided to attend these schools. First, this argument is spurious, as the government would not be actively supporting religious institutions, but only directly, and through individual choice. Secondly, public financing would not only go to a particular religious sect, or even religion. Students would elect to attend—yes Catholic schools—but also Jewish schools, Muslim schools, and many more would attend secular or non-denominational schools. The government, through indirect financing, would not be actively supporting “the establishment of religion.” This interpretation was legally verified with the Supreme Court ruling of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in 2002.
Empirically, school vouchers have been shown to work not only in the United States, but around the world. Milwaukee has led the nation in the implementation of school vouchers in a program that has existed for more than 15 years. Sweden, a country hardly known for its political conservatism and stalwart adherence to the free market, has had a partial, though significant, voucher system since 1992. Though there have been minor problems, school vouchers, in a short time, have been shown to work.
School vouchers are,an intelligent way to improve American education. With education as a private good—one funded by the government to ensure universality—competition among schools would raise the tide, lifting all boats.
Sources:
http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/education/publicview/redflags
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=536&page=639
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010218.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Although the idea of school vouchers is interesting in theory, there are many factors that are left up to great chance within the system.
For one, such a drastic alteration in our education system would be dependent upon the parents' free ability to choose within the new structure. Even if a parent wants to send their child to the best available school, limitations (proximity of the school from their home, travel time, school hours, etc.) would inevitably create an inequity in the quality of education (the already established, wealthier schools sustaining their already-begotten benefits).
Further, to expect such a system to work, programs promoting parent involvement must be coupled with the voucher system. Unless the importance of their child's education is stressed, some parents may only make the most convenient choice. In such a case, the continuance of schools would not necessarily be an adequate reflection of effectivity of the system, but instead a product of its flaws.
Also, a point on spending. Perhaps my opinion is biased, having come from one of the largest school districts in the country with some of the lowest per-pupil spending (which is undergoing further cuts due to a deficit in the state budget), but I do believe more funding should be given to our schools and education should be raised on our country's list of priorities. Yes, allocation of funds could be more effective and a voucher system could potentially streamline the process. However, without greater incentives and erasure of the current low-salary stigma for teachers, it will be very difficult to draw enough people into the field to educate our next generation. We'll be able to cut costs, but will we be able to meet the demand?
I'm not saying that vouchers would not be beneficial for our country. On the contrary, they could be just what we need to improve our currently ineffective methods. However, we will need a very skilled tactician to implement such a system where possibility of success is so much up to chance.
Playdoh, thank you for the interesting post, which, so to speak, brought me out of that 40th percentile group. It seems like an interesting idea that could have real benefits for our education system.
First to further comment on tom rags critique that such a system has inherent limitations. Without a voucher system, there is no "private" option for these families. The voucher system, at least initially, opens up this option. So, at least a step in the right direction. I think even having the system in place, though, may naturally cut down on some of the geographic limitations some families may face (ie. not living near any private institutions). Having this greater source of potential funding should, economically speaking, encourage more private schools to open.
tom rag's second point, and in general the entire post by playdoh, led me to consider the culture of education in America. I've always tended to think that, as a whole, American culture is not as oriented towards education as some other countries, and that this is the overarching reason for our low international standing. Our culture, in this area, may be a product of the system, or vice versa. I can't prove this statement, but I think that anyone who knows these other systems, or has lived in these countries, would agree. Either way, any system that somehow provides more opportunities, funding, or societal involvement (such as parental involvement) has to be good for us. Generally increasing the worth of education, particular by some reorientation of our system, if necessary, in our country will be beneficial to us in all other areas.
This post is an incredibly persuasive case for school vouchers. However, I see a number of problems.
First, to the point that free markets lead to the best distribution of goods. As playdoh put it, it is the "most efficient engine for delivering the most goods to the most people." This statement, in my mind, actually holds the justification for public education as it is now.
Consider the phrase, "the most goods to the most people." I believe we have a responsibility to provide an education to not just most children, but every single one. In a market system, only profitable schools would survive. Students in rural areas, particularly, would suffer.
Education, more than any other debate, seems to demand application of the maximin principle. In order for a democracy to function, it is essential that everyone have some sort of minimum education or background.
I had other things to say, but I'll spare you because that got pretty long.
Post a Comment