Private School Vouchers

Megan McArdle defends private school vouchers. I see all the arguments against her defense as hollow and lacking merit. I also find only one (loosely) credible defense against vouchers for private schooling, which nobody has yet made.

Some of the less inane arguments against vouchers, yet still lacking merit are:

1. A voucher is nothing more than a subsidy, and as happened with post-secondary schools as a result of subsidies for higher education, the schools will internalize the subsidy in the form of higher tuitions.
   • RESPONSE: First, don't confuse the marginal with the average. Yes, many schools have increased tuition substantially as subsidies to higher education increased, but that was due to the increase in demand for higher education. Thirty years ago only about thirty percent of all high school graduates went on to college, today it is closer to 70%. All the while, the capacity of colleges and universities has not kept up, causing tuition to increase. There is no net increase in demand for elementary and secondary education, only a shift from government to private education.
   • Keep in mind also, that it's mostly been colleges and universities that are capacity constrained, and consequently more selective, who respond (rationally) by increasing tuition. On the other hand, colleges and universities with  more open enrollment policies increased tuition at much lower rates.
   • Second, tuition vouchers apply only to a small percentage of students, mostly low income. As long as schools are restricted from charging differential rates (price discrimination based on vouchers only) this won't be a problem. If a family is unwilling/unable to send their child(ren) to private school when the tuition is $6,500, then they'll also be unwilling/unable to do so if the tuition is $9,500 and they receive a $3,000 voucher. It's also the case that more schools will emerge, thus increasing supply. Due to localization, the reduced reputation effects, and the lower salary and administration costs, it's much less costly to start a private elementary or secondary school than to start a new college.
2. Private school vouchers will "skim the cream off the top" of public schools, and since public schools cannot exclude students, public schools are left with the worst.
   • RESPONSE: First, so what!!!!!! Why does my child, who might be above average, have to suffer for the sake of the below average kids? Talk about complete socialization of private property - this one takes the cake.
   • Second, given the profit motive, individuals can be incredibly innovative and creative. Private school alternatives will emerge to serve the needs of low functioning, and even possibly disruptive, kids.
   • Third, the problem with government schooling is that it is a race to the bottom, and so far that bottom seems endless. Due to incentives like Title I funding and the NCLB Act, among others, government schools (rationally) cater to the needs of the lowest common denominator, leaving those with above average talent to suffer. Private school vouchers would/ought to produce better sorting and targeting of individual needs and talents, which government schools are not set up to achieve.
   • The argument favoring government schooling so that we can instill some common cultural influence (civics, perhaps) on our kids is hollow and worn-thin. There is no consensus of what a civic education is or ought to consist of, and this divide has been largely influential in driving many families to home-school. Allow schools to cater to the individual tastes, talents  and interests of their customers and we can have a truly pluralistic educational experience. And isn't this one of the great virtues of American culture and heritage?

But this last point brings up a seemingly possibly legitimate criticism against vouchers. Do we really want to support with tax dollars education that promotes hatred or some otherwise socially undesirable dogma? If markets indeed will produce private schools that cater to specific tastes and talents, can't we expect to see anti-American Muslim Schools, Aryan Nation schools that promote racism and ethnic cleansing, or Wiccan schools? If not, do we really want government to regulate private schools to ensure that schools that teach socially undesirable dogma do not receive vouchers?

This is likely a small problem. Do we see colleges springing up with such curricula? The gains to privatizing education are great and costs like this seem trivial given the substantial benefits.

Two weeks ago I was listening to a discussion on NPR of research scientists in the U.S. who all (four of them) expressed their concern that scientific research and development in this country has deteriorated considerably over the past thirty years. All four attributed their academic (college and postgraduate) success, as well as their research success, to having attended private elementary and secondary schools. They all argued that had they instead attended government schools (this is NPR mind you, not a hotbed of anti-government conservatives) they would not likely have made it to where they are today. Why can't we provide more people the same opportunity that these research scientists received?   

Comments

[Brian Pitt]

What I have always found remarkable is how the pro-government schools advocates castigate the voucher system by speaking to the possibility of an inflexible price, downwards, for elementary and secondary education. Yet, if their teachers' and adminstrators' wages were not as inflexible as they are, there would be little utility in conversations about "over-sized" classrooms and a dearth of "quality" teachers.