Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Education vouchers

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Are education vouchers good public policy?

Background and context of debate

A voucher system is an alternative method of funding education. Instead of tax revenue being distributed to state-run schools, parents are issued directly with vouchers, which can be spent on education in any school, privately or publicly run. Schools therefore compete for pupils and the funds that come with them. Such a scheme was originally put forward by Milton Friedman in the 1950s and now systems of voucher funding are in place in several American states and European municipalities. The idea was also briefly the basis for a reform of UK nursery funding.
In the United States, President Barack Obama has said that he is open to the idea of education vouchers, if they can be demonstrated to improve student achievement.

Many questions frame the public debate over education vouchers. The debate asks what role the state should play in the education system. Should parents have more choice over where their children are educated? Or should state funds remain under state control? Do choice and competition through education vouchers help improve academic achievement? Do they help improve schools themselves? Do choices and competition improve the efficiency and effectiveness of schools? Are education vouchers a way to enable "creative destruction" of bad schools or bad teachers, and is this a good thing? Can schools be compared to the market place, where competition is valuable? Or, do schools have distinct characteristics that differentiate them from the commercial market place, such as the importance of a stable educational system to national vibrancy? Do vouchers cause an unacceptable volatility in this sense? Is it the case that education vouchers help reduce inequality between schools, or do they favor affluent students and worsen divisions between social groups? Can education vouchers improve local control, and is this an improvement over more federal regulation and standards in schools? Are education vouchers complimentary to charter schools, and is this a good thing? Are education vouchers consistent with the separation of church and state? What is the overall balance of pros and cons? Are education vouchers, overall, good public policy, and an improvement on the status quo?

See Wikipedia's article on education vouchers for more background.

Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Choice: Do vouchers introduce beneficial choice to education?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Vouchers honor right of parents/students to choose school Parents and students have a right to choose what school they will attend. Forcing a child to attend a public school, even if it is not a healthy and productive environment for them, is wrong. Vouchers afford children and their parents are right to choose which school best fits their needs and desires. It affords greater decision-making power and freedom to citizens, instead of the state, on a matter of tremendous importance to their lives and futures. This is righteous in principle.
  • Vouchers improve choice/access despite private school right to deny It is true that private schools can deny students they believe to be unqualified. Nevertheless, vouchers generally improve student and parent choice and access to private schools by making it more affordable. Vouchers need not make student access 100% perfect. It is enough that it simply improves choice and access.
  • By giving parents a choice, vouchers engage parents more. Parents who have greater choice are more likely to be involved in their children's schooling. Vouchers demand that a parent choose and control paying for the education of their children, thus initiating their involvement in their child's education.
  • Students/parents with vouchers make better choices than bureaucrats. The voucher program in New Zealand benefited students in both the private and public schools by putting funding in the hands of students and parents instead of bureaucrats. Parents will almost always make a better decision in choosing a school. The success of education vouchers in New Zealand is a good example of what it can achieve elsewhere in the world.


[Add New]

Con

  • Vouchers lack choice as private schools can exclude students Vouchers do not provide all public school students with a choice to attend private schools. Private schools can, inherently, deny applicants entry. The main problem with this is that many of the most needy disadvantaged groups are already being turned away by private schools, so education vouchers may not provide them with any greater choice or access to private schools. Public schools are open to all students, and this is why the disadvantaged should be helped through the public school system.
Minnesota Education Association (An NEA affiliate). - "Vouchers fail to offer the 'choice' that proponents claim. The 'choice' remains with the private schools that will continue to pick and choose the students they wish to accept and reject. Public schools open their doors to all students."[1]
  • Students choice of public schools can be improved without vouchers. The argument for vouchers relies on the premise that there is not enough choice in the public school system. This may be true. But, it is possible to have enhance choice for students/parents between public schools without vouchers. By simply allowing some or all students to attend public schools outside of their schooling district, for example, choice can be enhanced. By not considering these simple mechanisms for choice within the public school system, vouchers overshoot.
  • Poor often can't afford private schools, even with vouchers Given the limited budget for schools, a voucher system weakens public schools while at the same time not necessarily providing enough money for people to attend private schools. Some private elementary and high schools are nearly $20,000 - $30,000 per year. Most voucher programs are in the range of $5,000 to $15,000. Many disadvantaged students and parents will not be able to pay the difference - ranging from $25,000 to $5,000. This means vouchers do not necessarily offer the disadvantaged the opportunity and choice to attend expensive private schools.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Competition: Is the competition introduced by vouchers a good thing?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Competition via vouchers makes schools more efficient/effective Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman argued for the modern concept of vouchers in the 1950s, stating that competition would improve schools and cost efficiency. They introduce competition by giving parents and students the choice to leave bad schools in favor of better schools. This compares to the far less competitive status quo situation in which students are locked into schools in their district. The argument goes that competition forces schools to act more resourcefully, creatively, and efficiently as a means of enhancing their competitiveness relative to other schools. If they do not do this, they will be less competitive, lose attendance and tuition, lose quality students and teachers, and possibly be forced to close. In short, vouchers introduce competition, which provides an incentive to increase efficiency and effectiveness.
  • Education vouchers force schools to hire competitive teachers. Schools that face choice-based incentives must increase the quality of the education they provide, which causes them to seek and keep better teachers and hold bad teachers to account. If they do not do this, they will lose students and tuition, and may be forced to close. Vouchers, therefore, provide an incentive for schools to increase the quality of the education they offer, which improves student achievement and success, and generally improves the long-term economic vibrancy of a nation.


[Add New]

Con

  • Cooperation, not competition, is best way to improve schools. Cooperation between schools, city and local officials, communities, and educational groups is the best way to improve schools. It ensures that information and resources are shared and that everyone works together to improve the educational system collectively. Competition is much the opposite. It ensures that school administrators do not share information that may undermine their "competitiveness" and distracts attention away from the most important thing - how to best educate children - and focuses more on how to out-compete other schools. When combined with testing regimes (such as exists in No Child Left Behind), it often creates a perverse obsession with "teaching to the test" as a means of producing a higher average test score compared to other schools. This may have no relation to the quality of an education.
  • Vouchers damage public schools that can't compete with private schools. Public schools are unlikely to be able to respond to increased competitive pressure generated by vouchers.[2] This is not the fault of public schools - they are not designed to "compete". Public schools are designed to provide an education that reflects the educational priorities of a society; this is not something that competition can necessarily foster. Private schools often have a very different mission and are designed to compete, in some case purely for profit. It is wrong to attempt to mix non-competitive public schools and competitive private schools in a competitive voucher system. Obviously, public schools will lose, undermining the common values driving the public education system.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Economics: Are education vouchers economical, efficient?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Market-based education vouchers help supply demand. Under a student voucher system, where demand exists for education from the parents that would rather attend a different school, entrepreneurs are free to open and invest in new schools to accommodate demand. Supply demand, in this sense, is generally a good thing in its own right. People that want something are happier if someone is allowed to fulfill their desires. But this is only possible under a student voucher system, where students can move freely between schools and schools are free to accommodate this fluid demand.
  • Vouchers take advantage of more efficient private schools. State-run schools are more expensive per head than private equivalents. Large government-run bureaucracies are notoriously inefficient. Even without voucher schemes many private schools currently charge less per head than the funding state schools receive - evidence that education can be provided more efficiently by the private sector.[3]


[Add New]

Con

  • Public schools are a public good; should not be subjected to market. Education does not fit well into a fungible supply/demand system. The main reason is that the supply of schools cannot adjust quickly to year-to-year changes in demand. Schools cannot be built overnight or within even a single year. And, schools cannot rapidly adjust their budgets because demand rises and falls dramatically from one year to the next, via school vouchers. Schools are, rather, long-term investments for long-term demographic trends, with the objective of supplying the public with a stable public good - education. This stable supply of education should not be subjected to the whims of shifts in year-to-year demand.
  • Profit motive of private schools is costly, undermining vouchers. Private sector schools require extra funds as the profit motive has to be met. They are, therefore, not necessarily cheaper for the taxpayer. Vouchers that go toward private schools may, therefore, simply go toward lining the pockets of the investors of private schools. This is neither a fair nor an efficient use of taxpayer money.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Inequality: Do vouchers help fight economic, ethnic educational inequality?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Vouchers give poor a choice of schools, lower inequality School vouchers allow for greater economic diversity by offering lower income students opportunities to attend previously unaffordable private schools. School voucher proponent and Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman observed that the poor have an incentive to support school choice, as their children attend substandard schools, and would thus benefit most from alternative schools and access to private schools. In turn, increasing the poor's access to better schools helps increase their chances of success and decreases inequality.
  • Education vouchers improve minority academic achievement. There may be small achievement gains in mathematics for the African-American and Hispanic children who use vouchers. The main reason is that it increases access to better schools and better educations, which are a key factor in improving academic achievement.
  • Voucher combat cultural genocide occurring in public schools. Some proponents of school vouchers, including the Sutherland Institute and many supporters of the Utah voucher effort, see it as a remedy for historic cultural genocide committed against demographic minorities by compulsory public schools. This is because public school standards and tests are established, usually, by non-minorities that are insensitive to the different cultures of minorities. They insensitivities ultimately undermine these minority cultures, sometimes intentionally, in a form of "cultural genocide". Vouchers offer choices and alternatives that counter the monopoly of public school standard-bearers and those committing "cultural genocide".
  • Vouchers counter social division between public/private schools. The division between private and public schools is very prominent in society, based largely on the socio-economic ability of parents. Vouchers help combat this by providing disadvantaged groups with the opportunity to attend private schools.[4]


[Add New]

Con

  • Even with vouchers, private schools can still exclude certain groups. Because private schools can exclude students, even ones with vouchers, there is a tendency for them to exclude certain socio-economic, ethnic, or disabled groups. Vouchers do not help prevent such exclusion and discrimination.
  • Education vouchers worsen economic and ethnic divisions "The Case Against Vouchers". National Education Association: "A pure voucher system would only encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society. America's success has been built on our ability to unify our diverse populations." The general logic for this is that vouchers would often be used by parents and students to attend schools with like-minded students, whether black, hispanic, catholic, or disabled. They, therefore, allow for the separation of groups, and the problems of misunderstanding and division that follow as a result.
  • School vouchers mostly benefit the affluent A voucher system that offers choice to parents is used most by affluent parents that are already engaged in the education of their students and whom would prefer that their child leave a failing school. Poor and disadvantaged parents are less likely to take advantage of vouchers. The result is that affluent students go to better schools, while poor and disadvantaged students generally stay in underperforming schools. Instead of helping the disadvantaged, vouchers actually end up leaving them behind.[5]
  • Voucher funding often goes to those that can afford private schools. Voucher are like a discount coupon for those who can already afford the full cost of a private school education. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.[6]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Educational achievement: Do vouchers help improve educational achievement?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Competitive school voucher programs help increase graduation rates. Children that op-out of schools that are not serving them well are more likely to graduate than those who remain at schools that are failing them.[7] In Columbia, for example, school voucher programs were reported to have increased secondary school completion rates by 15-20%. [8]
[Add New]

Con

  • Little evidence that vouchers improve academic achievement. In Chicago, there is little evidence that attending school choice programs provides any benefit on a wide variety of traditional academic measures, including standardized test scores, attendance rates, course-taking, and credit accumulation. In the Netherlands, where parents are free to choose the school for their children, higher competition is associated with lower student achievement in upper secondary education.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Schools: Do student vouchers improve the quality of schools?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Vouchers foster competition that forces schools to improve themselves. Competition through free market capitalism would increase the quality of education for both private and public education sectors as it has for higher education with publicly funded state universities directly competing against private universities. Also, similar competition has helped in manufacturing, energy, transportation, and parcel postal (UPS, FedEx vs. USPS) sectors of government that have been socialized and later opened up to free market competition.
  • Vouchers allows for creative destruction of bad schools. Under a voucher system, successful schools would attract students, while bad schools would be forced to reform or close.
  • Education vouchers allow students to leave failing schools. Many state schools are failing and a voucher system provides an escape valve for students that would otherwise be locked into unfortunate circumstances. Children are locked into bad schools, particularly in inner-city and under-privileged areas. Parents must be given the opportunity to escape from bad state education systems if educational standards are to improve.[9]
  • Universities succeed because they are more like voucher system. The key difference between a k-12 and a University system is that the U.S. University system receives a substantial portion of its funding from students and subsidies to students in the form of scholarships, government grants, and subsidized loans. This is argued to be conceptually equivalent to school vouchers because the money is provided ultimately to the student and in such a way that the student's ability to choose between schools is maintained. Because choice is maintained, universities must compete harder to attract students, which many proponents argue is the key ingredient in the relative success of the Universities system over the K-12 system. Thus, some argue that a similar competition-inducing approach should be taken with the K-12 system through school vouchers.[10]
  • Student voucher programs help develop healthy school cultures. Vouchers allow individual school cultures to develop, enabling teachers to choose schools that promote teaching approaches that match their teaching styles, and enable students/parents to choose schools that match the students learning styles and abilities.
  • Vouchers promote innovation and specialisation. As schools work to attract particular kinds of pupils, variety and choice within the education system is increased.[11]
[Add New]

Con

  • School vouchers leave worst schools and students behind Some pupils will always end up stuck in dying, under-funded schools because over-subscribed schools cannot expand fast enough. Vouchers worsen this problem by subjecting these schools to competition, which they will fail against. Such schools and the students that have no choice to attend these schools - because there is no space in other schools or for other reasons - will simply lose out more.
  • Vouchers drain talent from public schools, undermining competitiveness. Some economist critics point to the problem of "cream skimming," a variety of adverse selection in the educational market. With a greater pool of applicants, the private schools could be more selective over which students to admit, excluding those who do not belong to a preferred group (for instance, religion or ethnicity), those with disabilities such as autism or multiple sclerosis, and those with disciplinary problems. By law, the public schools must accept any student. So that they would presumably end up with all students whom the private schools turn away for such reasons. This would likely further undermine the reputation and competitiveness of the public schools, leading to a vicious circle that tends toward the total abolition of the public schools and perhaps the end of universal education.
  • School vouchers erode national educational standards. Education vouchers erode educational standards by allowing public funding to go to private programs that may not reflect strong national educational standards. School vouchers also decentralize control over schools, creating a scattering of programs, instead of a core educational standard based on our highest educational ideals.
  • Private education, with vouchers, is no better than public education. One reason given for being allowed to choose private schools is the belief that private schools offer better education – a belief disputed by the United States Department of Education in their 2006 study of the public education they oversee. There is no conclusive evidence that private schools necessarily produce better test results or more successful human beings.



[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Privatization: Is education a private or public good? Is privatization beneficial?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Privatization of public schools through vouchers is a good thing. The Liberty and Democracy Party of Australia supports vouchers as a stepping-stone to abolishing public schools. LDP spokesman Shem Bennett said, "Initially some public schools would remain. But under the LDP’s plan, schools would slowly privatise and diversify as there’d be no need for government ownership."[12] This is a good thing because privatized schools are more efficient and cost-effective, delivering a higher quality education product at lower costs. An additional reason is that privatized schools are more agile in meeting the demands of local community members. Public schools, driven by national standards, are not as reflective of the educational preferences of local communities.
[Add New]

Con

  • Vouchers forget that education is a public good, not a private good. The argument that education is a private good is based on the failure to differentiate education from public education. Education refers merely to the teaching of individual students for their own benefit. Public education refers to the goal of educating the entire public for their own benefit and the benefit of society as a whole. Looked at from this point of view, public education is a public good. This interpretation is arrived at by looking at society as a whole as benefiting from the education (or suffering from the lack of education) of its citizens.
  • Market-based voucher system clashes with right to education. Under a 'market' system there is no guarantee that school places will be provided in isolated areas where there are not enough pupils to justify private investment or that schools will accept disabled pupils, whose education may require more funds than the voucher provides.[13]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Jobs: Do vouchers help/harm teacher jobs?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Public school job loss from vouchers will be offset in private schools. Any loss of supply and demand for public institutions would be offset and equalized by the increased demand for private institutions. For example, if the demand for private schools increased, they would need to hire more teachers and staff to compensate for their increased growth, so any jobs lost from the public sector would be offset by jobs gained in the private sector.
[Add New]

Con

  • Student vouchers will cost many public school teachers their jobs. Student vouchers cost public teachers their jobs as students leave public schools for private schools with their vouchers.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Accountability: Do education vouchers enable strong accountability and standards?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Vouchers stop parents paying twice for public and private schools. Under non-voucher education systems, citizens that currently pay for private schooling are still charged taxes that are used to fund public schools. Their cost for education is, therefore, two-fold as they are funding both public and private schools simultaneously. Vouchers are designed to provide citizens freedom to spend their tax money as they choose for the type of school they want for their children, avoiding such double taxation.
  • Vouchers increase local accountability over central control. Education vouchers localize accountability as opposed to relying on central government standards. This means that the education of children is controlled more by the desires of a community - as it should be - and less by the whims of a central government.
  • Vouchers introduce competition without over-regulating public schools Incentives to improve schools can be introduced without drammatically changing the whole system of publicly run education. Generally, it keeps everything the same while adding choice, and a sort of free-market competitive mentality. In this mentality, very little regulations are introduced that would weigh down the educational system. Independence and flexibility is maintained.[14] Furthermore, the public nature of public schools is maintained, with appropriate national standards, but simply with the beneficial introduction of competition into the system through vouchers.
[Add New]

Con

  • Student vouchers reduce democratic accountability in education. Another argument against the implementation of a school voucher system is its lack of accountability to the taxpayer. In many states, members of a community's board of education are elected by voters. Similarly, a school budget faces a referendum. Meetings of the Board of Education must be announced in advance, and members of the public are permitted to voice their concerns directly to board members. Although vouchers may be used in private and religious schools, taxpayers are not able to vote on budgetary issues, elect members of the board or even attend board meetings. Opponents of vouchers assert that this disenfranchisement amounts to taxation without representation.
  • School vouchers erode national educational standards. Education vouchers erode educational standards by allowing public funding to go to private programs that may not reflect strong national educational standards. School vouchers also decentralize control over schools, creating a scattering of programs, instead of a core educational standard based on our highest educational ideals. It is generally important that schools be held accountable to a single national standard, but education vouchers have the potential to undermine such a standard and the ability to hold schools to account on a national scale.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Religion: Do vouchers rightly/wrongly support religious schools?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Vouchers comply with separation of church and state The main argument here is that vouchers are only individual aid, giving individuals the choice to go to a religious school, but of course not mandating that they do so. Vouchers, therefore, can only indirectly support religious schools, and so should not be as a violation of the Establishment clause and the separation of church and state.
  • Vouchers for religious schools increase competition across system. The inclusion in 1998 of religious private schools in the Milwaukee voucher program led to more than a three-fold increase in the number of private schools and almost a four-fold increase in the number of choice students, and to a further improvement of the public schools.


[Add New]

Con

  • Vouchers for religious schools violates church/state separation Education is used to inculcate values that the society believes in and to promote social and civic awareness. Religious schools promoting anti-female policies, for example, should not be receiving taxpayer funding in the form of vouchers. This violates the constitutional separation of church and state. State funds cannot be separated from state control. It matters not whether the state is not directly making the choice to fund religious schools. Taxpayer funds should not be allowed to be directed toward religious schools.[15]
"The Case Against Vouchers". National Education Association - "About 85 percent of private schools are religious. Vouchers tend to be a means of circumventing the Constitutional prohibitions against subsidizing religious practice and instruction."
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con sources

[Add New]

Pro


[Add New]

Con

External links

Books

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.