The Voucher Fallacy

There's a terrific piece by Greg Anrig at the Washington Monthly that explains why some conservatives have decided to give up the voucher fight. Apparently some conservatives have decided that the voucher experiment has worked as promised to bring educational prosperity to inner city poor kids.

Let's start with the contention that the academic performance of low-income children would improve after they moved to private institutions. For a long time, it was absurdly difficult to find out whether this was true in the one place where vouchers had been tried over an extended period: Milwaukee. After that city's initial small-scale initiative produced ambiguous, but generally unimpressive, results (and a lot of fighting over that data), the Wisconsin legislature chose to omit testing requirements altogether when the program was significantly expanded in 1998. This February, however, a group of researchers led by professors Patrick J. Wolf and John F. Witte produced the first installment of a study intended to follow how comparable groups of students in the public and private voucher schools perform over time. At least at the outset, they found no statistically significant differences in the test scores between the public and private school fourth and eighth graders for the 2006-07 school year. For the private as well as the public school students, the scores generally hovered around the 33rd percentile—in other words, a typically low performance for schools with high concentrations of poverty.

In Cleveland, a similar but now completed study that followed the same students over time showed dispiriting results from that city's voucher program. Tracking the scores of students who began kindergarten in the 1997-98 school year through their sixth-grade year in 2003-04, Indiana University researchers found no significant differences in overall achievement, reading, or math scores between students who used vouchers and those who stayed in public schools, after taking into account socioeconomic differences.

Anrig goes on to explain that there were also not economic pressures forcing public schools to get better the way many theorists expected. There was always a fallacy about the "competition" between schools that stood behind the voucher argument. Voucher advocates thought that public schools would begin to work to attract students back from private schools the way a business would work to bring back clients lost to the competition.

This is a fallacious analogy brought up again and again by people who can only see education in economic terms. For one thing, schools aren't stores: they can't serve everyone who shows up. There isn't room in private schools to accomodate all of the students in public schools, or even a fraction of them. You can't have competition when so few choices really exist for the large majority of people.

But where the choice/competition argument really fails is in thinking that schools fail simply because they aren't working hard enough or that they don't care about their customers. Kids in public schools don't fail because the teachers and administrators are doing a bad job. Sure, sometimes they are, but sometimes teachers in wealthy districts with good test scores are doing a bad job too. The success or failure of students in schools isn't always about the quality of the people providing the instruction. Sometimes it's about the student's ability, his or her motivation, the resources provided by his or her family, his or attendance, and so on. Changing schools doesn't fix those other factors, and it's ridiculous to think that a child's motivation, intelligence, or aptitude will improve just because they change schools. Competition doesn't fix everything. But because "reformers" want to blame teachers and unions for the failure of public schools, they have to pretend that changing the setting will fix the problem. It doesn't work that way, and many of us tried to make that point years ago, the point that geniuses like Chester Finn are just figuring out.

It's also why critics of charters schools are sometimes off base. Should we close down charter schools because students in them are failing? Of course not. Many of those kids were failing in traditional public schools, too. Not a big surprise that changing the scenery would make a big difference. We should close charter schools for other reasons. But NOT because their students are continuing to struggle in a new environment.

Until we get our heads around the fact that kids who fail in public schools fail for a variety of personal, social and economic reasons that may have nothing to do with the quality of instruction or management inside that school, we're not going to be any closer to fulfilling the promise of public education. Gimmick fixes like charters and vouchers don't address any of those underlying issues, they just offer false hope.

Read More...

Summary only...

Getting Real on Obama

If Obama is really about a new kind of politics, and I hope he is--see the graphic at the top of my blog--he should start thinking about actions as well as words.

Jill challenged me on my defense of Obama's plaigiarism. Is he really right to do what he did? I was asked by Michele also, what if it were a student? Well, I've argued the rules are different for politicians. But there's more to it. If Obama is trying to change those rules he needs to act differently. This is Clinton's point: if Obama is authentic, use your own words. If he wants change, he needs to show it with his actions. A better example: Campaign finance.

Obama promised to accept public financing, and McCain has said that he would agree to it. Now Obama is hedging. Well, if Obama really represents change, he needs to, when the time is right, address this issue. Is he for change or isn't he? I don't think it's that complicated. Sure, McCain might benefit from outside groups running ads for him in an effort to subvert the intent of public financing. But the left has its own outside groups that can match them if it comes to that. Move On will rise to the challenge. If Obama really represents change, he needs to help chart a different course in how elections are run.


The most disappointing moment of this campaign, to me, was when Edwards challenged Clinton on lobbyists money in one of the debates. Obama said, "No one's hands are clean on this." Wow, that's not what change is about. Change is about saying, no, I won't take money from lobbyists either.

I like Obama, and I support him at this point (after having supported Edwards) in spite of some curious statements. Most recently, he's claimed that he might support school vouchers. Dayton blogger Scott Elliott wrote about it here, and Michele McNeil wrote about it too. Change? I guess... but it's not the change in the right direction! On the other hand, Hillary doesn't need to fear-monger, a la Bush, to oppose them, either. From Scott:

Obama said he remained a "skeptic" about vouchers, but would reconsider if the research showed otherwise. There has not been a conclusive longitudinal study of the effectiveness of Milwaukee's voucher program, although a new study is underway.

Rival Hillary Clinton has been highly critical of vouchers, even warning that widespread use of them could result in public financing for kids to attend schools that teach "jihad."

And then there were the strange comments about Reagan ("I didn't say they were good ideas."), his quasi-support for merit pay, his oddly expressed desire to go after Pakistan. In spite of it all, I still think Obama's following and his energy make him a unique candidate. He's a gifted speaker and writer, and in spite of what Hillary suggests at times, words really do matter.

But so do actions. I hope his actions match his words.

Read More...

Summary only...

Catching up

I haven't been blogging much lately so today is a good day to catch up on a couple of crumbs I wanted to humbly throw to the blogoshpere.

First, tooting the horn of professional blogs, and then my own, below.
The importance of professional blogs like TPM and like Pierre's, can't be overstated. The traditional media are starting, finally, to pay attention, as a result of the way Josh Marshall blew the attorney firing story wide open. It was mostly Josh's reporting that helped turn this into a story, and finally pushing it into the mainstream press. It isn't the first time TPM has helped move the debate: the Social Security debate was another case in point. Some of the best reporting on the Scooter Libby trial came from FireDogLake. In Pierre's case, his skills as a professional editorialist make him more informed and authoritative than the average blogger. In all of these cases, there is a level of analysis and information that helps make the blogosphere a serious alternative to traditional media.

Is it about time to award a Pulitzer for on-line journalism?

Unrelated matter: The following from the guv's State of the State Address made me seem prophetic in my posts from last week on vouchers:

So as we ask for sacrifice, we must demonstrate responsibility. Wastefulness and giveaways can no longer be tolerated.

That’s why my budget eliminates the Ed Choice voucher program.

And it reminded me of one more obvious reason to be opposed to vouchers: we need the money to fund our public schools. Let's not allow the Right to frame this as "sending the kids back to failing schools" crap that they've already started to spew. This is about investing in high performing schools for ALL students.

Read More...

Summary only...

Vouchers, part II

When I wrote something about vouchers I didn't intend for it to be a two-parter, but Paul was good enough to post a lengthy comment, which I appreciate, even though I don't agree with Paul. But his comments were interesting enough that I wanted to repost them here and write a response that wouldn't be hidden in the comment dungeon.

I wanted to take the time to respond because Paul is essentially arguing a version of the free market line about education, that if you just give the money directly to students to spend where they wish, the market will create a wealth of great and diverse schools for kids to choose from. I want to be respectful to Paul because he took the time to show up here and read what I wrote and consider it seriously, which I genuinely do appreciate--it's why I blog. But I have to say that what Paul is arguing is a dangerously deceptive line of thinking.

Before I go any further, here's Paul's comment.

I have been a proponent of a voucher program even since reading Milton Friedman's writings on the subject. In this case, I am talking about a universal voucher program: every kid gets a voucher and the voucher can be spent only at an accredited school. The voucher system in Ohio is a bastardization of the concept -- badly conceived and poorly implemented. The basis for my belief in vouchers is simple: if each individual family can make their own rational decisions where to send their kids to school, then only schools that deliver what is needed will get kids and their money. Effective schools will thrive and ineffective schools will die. This is the core concept of a free market system.

There needs to be standards of course. A school must be licensed by the government to accept vouchers as payment. To be licensed, the school must show that it has faculty accedited to teach, it must offer a curriculum that meets certain basic standards, and it must demonstrate that it is effective in educating kids in the basics. I do not propose any change in the way teachers are licensed or schools are evaluated in terms of performance. However, there would be some teeth behind the evaluation: a school which fails to perform at the "Excellent" or "Effective" level would lose its license to accept vouchers.

Any kid may take his/her voucher and use it to pay for 100% of their education in any school licensed to accept vouchers. A regional transportation network would be developed to allow a kid to go to any school within a reasonable distance (e.g. 25 miles) at no cost.

I think the outcome of such a system would be a mixture of boutique schools that have perhaps only a few hundred students, all the way to regional organizations which operate many buildings and serve many grade levels. We have one of these boutique schools here in Columbus. It's called Metro High School. It specializes in math and sciences, and accepts only 100 kids for each of its four grade levels (9-12). Right now, each central Ohio school system is given a quota, based on the current size of the system (i.e. Columbus City Schools with 56,000 students gets the most slots). It has no competitive sports or performing arts facilities because it chooses to allocate all of its budget to basic education requirements and advanced study in math and science.

With 400 students and vouchers worth $10,000/student, this school would have a budget of $4 million/yr. Assuming a student/teacher ratio of 20:1 and $75,000 in salary an benefits, payroll would be around $2 million once a few administrators and staff are added. Figure a $10 million building, and the annual financing and operations cost would be about another $1 million. That leaves $1 million/yr for supplies, transportation, equipment and all kinds of good stuff. The same kind of philisophy could be applied to a school specializing in arts, or gymnastics, or foreign language/culture studies (imagine a school in which only Mandarin Chinese is spoken, for example).

Another configuration might be a regional school organization that can serve let's say 50,000 kids. All those vouchers would generate $500 million of income for the organization. Such a system might offer a broader diversity of programs, including some which require considerable capital outlays, such as athletic and performing arts facilities.

Other schools might offer vocation programs for kids who choose that kind of education. Our country cannot be one of only engineers and burger flippers. We need folks who are ready to take on the highly skilled production and service jobs a strong economy requires: Computer and communications technicians, manufacturing technicians, transportation system specialists, etc.

Other than the tradition of the thing, I don't know why we have let K-12 school systems grow into these bureaucratic, monopolistic, and generally poorly performing entities. We can have food stamps without dictating where people can buy food with them. We can have Medicare without restricting a person's choice of which licensed doctors or accredited hospitals can provide their care.

When our kids graduate from high school, they are free to apply to the college of their choice. Do we, or our kids, suddenly become more capable consumers of educational services when the kids graduate from high school?

Every kid deserves an education, and I'm willing to pay taxes to ensure that every kid gets the opportunity, just as I help pay for food stamps and Medicare. But let's get rid of the K-12 education monopolies.

The idea behind Paul's logic is the basic free-market myth that the market can solve any social problems. I'm an American, and I believe in markets. But the market model simply doesn't work for schools. You can't profit from schools.

If every student were armed with a voucher of $10,000 (and that's a number Paul threw out, but a pretty high one--for the sake of argument, let's use it, but understand that would require shifting a lot of local tax revenue to the state) and schools openly competed for those dollars, lots of things would happen. Lots of kinds of schools might open up catering to student interests. But would that be a narrow interest? I can envision some fantastic arts-oriented schools opening up. But would art and music be part of the curriculum at all schools, no matter where a child went? If we create a system of niche schools do we sacrifice the idea of a well rounded liberal education? Still, the idea of parents choosing from a wide variety of schools is an attractive idea on the surface, especially when we consider the plight of poor students who may be stuck in schools offering a bare bones education in run down facilities, while their suburban counterparts benefit from much better conditions?

It's this idea of the market somehow levelling the playing field that is so dangerous about vouchers. Let's be honest about it: this wouldn't happen under any universal voucher system. Just because students are subsidized by the state, doesn't mean schools will be obligated to keep tuition under that $10,000 pricetag. There will be $20,000 schools. There will be $15,000 schools. And there will be $10,000 schools. How do you think they will compare? And which ones will poor kids go to?

If anything, universal vouchers will make schools less equitable, not more. And less efficient.

I've often thought that the "pilot" programs offered by people like Voinovich were actually Trojan Horses, cynically using vouchers to benefit a few poor urban students in order to create more favorable impressions towards them. Then the right would move towards a more widespread system of vouchers, shifting massive amounts of state money to private and parochial schools. It's clear that vouchers combine a couple of right wing ideologies--the desire to fund religious institutions with public money, and the power of the market over everything.

Whatever problems public education has, vouchers would only make them worse.

In the interest of time, I'll let it go there.

Read More...

Summary only...

A few thoughts on vouchers, for Chris

This is for Chris, and anyone else who is interested.

Chris asked my thoughts on vouchers. I am opposed to them on basic ideological grounds. I don't believe public money should go to private schools. Simple. In fact, I don't even think public money should go to buy textbooks, pay for counseling services, or busing.

But, a larger point for me is practical. There just isn't enough money to go around to start spending money on vouchers. Let me explain.


According to the 2003-04 NCES report, Characteristics of the 100 largest school districts, Cleveland had about 71,000 students. (If you open the PDF, I'm looking at table A-14). They spent around 10,000 per student, of which about half comes from the state. Let's say 5,000 students are given vouchers in Cleveland. Ohio doesn't give the state funding to Cleveland for each of those 5,000 students. That adds up to about $2.5 million in lost revenue for Cleveland.

Now, you say, the other half of the 10,000 that is local revenue is freed up to spend on the remaining students, to do whatever the district wants. (There is federal money in there also, but I'm not dealing with that right now. That money depends on which students transfer out, so it's not as clean a discussion.)

But school funding comes in per pupil from the state, but it isn't really spent that way. Money is spent on teachers, support staff, and facilities. If three students transfer out of School A in Cleveland, for example, it loses $15,000 in funding from the state. But it still has to employ the same number of teachers, support staff, etc. Three students isn't enough to close the school or cut a teacher. But in reality, $15,000 will have to come from somewhere in the school's site budget. Computers? Supplies? If the number is a little higher than 3, then the cuts are a little deeper. Cut a teacher, cut a class, cut supplies more deeply, cut a counselor.

In a district as large as Cleveland, eventually resources have to be moved around, maybe schools closed, maybe extracurriculars are cut, and so on. But the end result is a loss of investment in public education in Cleveland. Supporters of vouchers say that's a good thing, and that those 5,000 students who transfer out are doing much better and have a better future. Maybe so. But the private school system certainly can't support the other 66,000 students in Cleveland public. (And, I would argue, if the private system did absorb those students, they would have the same problems the public district had before.) We end up sacrificing them and their education so that 5,000 kids--the best kids, because the private schools can be selective--can go to private schools. It's a very elitist agenda.

Long term, we need to figure out what it is about private schools that make them successful--is it discipline? High standards? Parental support? And try to model that in public schools.

I know this much: expensive private schools don't produce high quality graduates by beating their brains in with standardized tests.

Read More...

Summary only...