The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle has published a series of posts about school vouchers lately, and I’ve avoided weighing in because, frankly, I wrote about vouchers almost every day for six years and grew a little tired of it.
But Megan’s latest (and apparently, last) item on the subject is worth taking a moment to consider in more detail. After explaining her belief that the quality of kids’ education should take precedence over every other possible consideration, Megan offered a bottom line:
Now I’m done talking about vouchers. Either you agree that poor kids should be allowed to exit until the system works for them, or they don’t. My model of voucher beliefs predicts that people will get angry at me when I challenge their beliefs without changing their minds, and indeed, they are right. And myself, I’m too angry on the subject to do much good. The people saying that they want details before they’ll commit: look, obviously design matters. If you concede the right of exit, I’m happy to debate details. But until you do, it’s a waste of time.
I’ve seen voucher arguments for quite a while, some of which are more credible than others, but it’s hard to overstate how unpersuasive this is. Megan wants those concerned about this issue to concede a “right of exit.” Done; I’ll gladly do so. In fact, I’ll take this one step further — a “right of exit” already exists. It’s called “voluntarily enrolling kids in private schools.”
Indeed, that’s the funny thing about any public-private dynamic. Some people rely on public libraries to read books. Do they have a “right of exit”? Sure, they could go to Barnes & Noble and buy whatever they want. Some people rely on a public bus system to get transport them to where they want to go. Do they have a “right of exit”? Sure, they could go buy a car.
Of course, that’s not at all what Megan is talking about. She doesn’t really mean that kids should be “allowed to exit” the public school system — they already are allowed — she means taxpayers should subsidize an alternative system for those who don’t believe “the system works for them.”
That doesn’t stand up well to scrutiny.
Even at first blush, it’s an odd argument for a libertarian to make. If people don’t believe the public-bus system “works for them,” should they get car vouchers?
Let’s try a different example. If a family is struggling to afford healthcare, and they don’t believe the system “works for them,” should we offer them tax dollars to make whatever choice they want? I can’t say for sure, but I suspect Megan would decline.
But therein lies the point. In her series of posts, Megan suggests there should be a degree of social equality. She doesn’t hate public schools, she just wants kids to be able to leave the public system. Wealthy families and low-income families should have the same choice. If you disagree, then you’re necessarily hurting the poor.
That doesn’t make sense. Should wealthy families and low-income families have the same choices in healthcare? Housing? Nutrition? Transportation? No, Megan argues, just education. Hmm.
On a related note, Kevin Drum, who’s far more open to educational “experimentation” than I am, touched on the one point Megan seems unwilling to consider in detail: oversight.
If you’re going to receive taxpayer dollars, then you have to agree to taxpayer oversight. That means that NCLB applies to you. It means that minimum state curriculum requirements apply to you. It means that teacher union rules apply to you. It means you have a lot less authority to pick and choose which kids you’re willing to accept. And, yes, it means you can’t use taxpayer money to proselytize for whichever religion your board of directors happens to favor. Like it or not, that’s a no-no for public funds, especially when kids are involved.
But as near as I can tell, this is anathema to people who run private schools. They won’t accept any oversight, let alone the level of oversight that’s inevitable with any widespread voucher program.
And that’s when it really falls apart. When we give tax dollars to private schools with no oversight or accountability, the results are awful. As bad as regular ol’ public schools? Actually, worse.
So, what happens next in education policy? I think Matt Yglesias has the right idea.
One needs to go back to what we know about educating poor children. One thing we know is that it’s very difficult. The schools that do a good job of educating poor kids tend to expend more resources than do schools that do a good job of educating middle class kids. We also know that there are many schools that produce good overall results but that nonetheless produce bad results with their poor children. We know that some urban public school systems do better than others. We know that the charter school movement has produced some successful models, but also that market demand can keep a healthy number of non-successful charter schools operating because parents do a less-than-perfect job of making school placement decisions on the basis of evidence about educational outcomes.
If we’re concerned not about the “right” of exit (which already exists) but the practical ability to get a better education, then you need policies that increase the supply of schools that do a good job of educating poor children. Just handing a voucher to every family in DC that can manage to place a kid in a private school would be a nice subsidy to the parents at Sidwell and St. Albans and would presumably get some poor kids into better situations, but would still, in practice, leave most DC families right where they are today — with the “right” to send their kids elsewhere, but no practical ability to do so.
It’s a shame Megan is “done talking about vouchers.” I was just starting to enjoy it.