School vouchers fail another accountability test

Proponents of private school vouchers have been making the same arguments for over a decade now. Near the top of the list is the notion that using public funds to pay for private school tuition offers students at under-performing public schools a better chance at a quality education.

What usually goes unsaid, however, is that private schools are free of state regulation and accountability. That’s what makes them “private.” In a public school system, there’s a series of checks and balances, and rigorous rules governing curricula and teacher standards, but private schools can do what they please. If parents are unhappy with what happens in a public school, they can go to superintendents and school-board members. If they’re unhappy with what happens in a private school, they can take their money elsewhere.

In 2004, a Republican Congress and Republican president created the first-ever federally-funded voucher program, in Washington, D.C. Like with all voucher schemes, there was little oversight and no accountability — Congress just handed over the money to unregulated private schools, in the hopes that everything would work out fine.

It didn’t.

A voucher program designed to send low-income children in the District to better-performing private schools has allowed some students to take classes in unsuitable learning environments and from teachers without bachelor’s degrees, according to a government report.

The shortcomings are detailed in a draft prepared by the Government Accountability Office about the $12.9 million D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. The GAO said the program lacks financial controls and has failed to check whether the participating schools were accredited.

Republican lawmakers crafted a policy whereby federal funds would flow to private schools with no checks to certify whether all of the participating schools had the required operating permits. The results put kids at risk.

The schools were largely allowed to self-report that they were in compliance with city regulations, the report says, increasing the possibility that students were being ill-served without proper oversight.

“Self-certification without review to verify that the certifications are factual increases the risk that federal funds intended to allow children from low-income families to attend private schools will result in some students attending schools that are not in compliance with the District law,” the report says.

The Washington Scholarship Fund, which operates the program under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education, told GAO investigators that it conducted site visits at 42 schools, but the GAO could confirm a visit to only one school.

Some schools told fund officials that they had certain amenities, such as a gymnasium or an auditorium; the report says they did not. Parents might have been misled when they reviewed the list of participating schools and their programs, the report says.

Gregory M. Cork, president and chief executive of the fund, said it has no capacity to enforce whether private schools comply with D.C. laws.

Of course not. That would mean accountability, which Republican policy makers intentionally rejected as part of this program.

Look, this isn’t complicated. Before vouchers, private schools operated independently of this oversight altogether. Anyone could open up a private school, charge whatever they wish, and teach whatever they wish. They could even discriminate openly among student applicants and school employees. There are no mandated standards, their budgets are private, their students don’t have to take standardized tests, and their curricula is completely unregulated. If parents like the school, they pay the tuition. If not, they go elsewhere. The state had no role whatsoever.

Vouchers changed the game. As in the DC system, Congress subsidizes private schools — but demands nothing in the way of oversight. The private schools accept public funds with one hand, but cut any attached strings with the other. “We’ll take your money,” the schools tell us, “but not your regulations.”

Indeed, when education advocates recommend some level of oversight, they’re immediately shouted down by voucher proponents. In Wisconsin, when policy makers were given the chance to study the success of voucher school performance, they rejected it. In DC, some Dem lawmakers recommended that publicly-financed private schools meet the same standards as publicly-financed public schools. Republicans swiftly dismissed the idea out of hand.

It’s a system that doesn’t, and can’t, work.

Republicans swiftly dismissed the idea out of hand.

Faced with a choice between providing a public education, and providing no education at all or a poor one, and accepting their premises, providing no education at all or a poor one is the least dangerous alternative. Better a generation should go unlettered than they acquire a taste for the contents of the public fisc.

We’re dealing with people for whom, unlike most other words — grapefruit, mountain, Tuesday — there is no entity to which the locution ‘public’ corresponds. It is, like ‘thnork’ or ‘promble’, something you can utter, but which does not signify anything.

  • “The private schools accept public funds with one hand, but cut any attached strings with the other. ‘We’ll take your money,’ the schools tell us, ‘but not your regulations.'”

    When did Blackwater get into the private education business?

  • Wisconsin voucher data


    There have been a number of empirical studies of competition effects of voucher and charter school programs on student performance in U.S. public schools (see Belfield and Levin 2002 for a review; also Chakrabarti 2005), and in several other countries with national voucher or choice plans, such as Chile, New Zealand, and Sweden.1 Although most such studies suggest, at best, a positive but small effect of private and charter school competition on student achievement, some research in the United States has claimed a much larger impact (Hoxby 1994; Hoxby 2003).

    In this report, we make a somewhat different argument concerning vouchers and competition than has been made in the past. We suggest that a voucher program on a large scale, such as introduced in Milwaukee in the late 1990s, may have had a positive effect on student achievement in Milwaukee’s traditional public elementary schools (as argued by Hoxby (2003) and Chakrabarti (2005)), but that this effect seems to have been a one-time response of all public schools to a change in contextual conditions rather than a continuous and differentiated improvement based on the degree of competition in the Milwaukee school market (see Van Dunk and Dickman 2003).

    Golly, the U.S. must be really good at creating amazing private schools. Only ours seem to make a big impact on student performance. The whole world could learn a lot from us! At ;east, that’s ONE interpretation of such data.

  • There’s a simple mathematical fallacy when it comes to these voucher schemes. A family has to have the money to make up the difference between what the voucher pays and what the school costs. Wealthier families can. Poorer families can’t.

    If money is diverted from public schools into vouchers, poor families who can’t make up the difference between the voucher value and private school tuition must still send their kids to public schools, that will have even less resources than before.

    Vouchers therefore only serve to exacerbate the already unacceptable inequities between rich and poor in America. They drain resources from the many in order to heap further benefit on the few who don’t need it.

    So even setting aside the oversight and quality issues addressed in this post, school vouchers represent terrible economic policy and are morally wrong.

  • Republicans support greater “accountability” for public schools (“No Child Left Behind”) because in their world, public schools are substandard. At the same time, they support vouchers for unaccountable private schools. Of course this is inconsistent and contradictory, but when did that ever bother a Republican?

    Haik @ #4 is correct, but I think that there is another more sinister element to the voucher schemes. These people hate the idea of public schools, and want to see the entire public school system abolished.

    There are varying reasons why they hate public schools. Some believe that public schools teach “liberal” ideas like environmentalism and evolution. Others believe, for ideological reasons, that no government (not even local government) should be in the business of educating children no matter what the public schools teach.

    It’s nutty. It’s crazy. But it’s what we’re up against.

  • Oversight would introduce reality into what is nothing but an ideological proposition, and so cannot be permitted. Public is bad, private is good. End of argument.

  • Libra – “childrens do learn” – isn’t W the proof? Haik – exactly my argument against vouchers. Where I live, the proposed voucher of $600 is a far cry from the $4000 archdiocesan tuition or the $20,000 private school tuition. Unless these schools would be required to take qualified low income children, make up the difference in the tuition, transport them, subsidize extra curricular activities, books, computers, uniforms, etc and submit to reporting & oversight – these vouchers are just another subsidy for those who could afford the whole tab anyway.

  • It’s a system that doesn’t, and can’t, work.

    Well, putting aside many caveats, it can theoretically work. But as Milwaukee has found out, the level of oversight required when spending public money – oversight which conservatives may well be against, but moderates who were previously convinced of the merits of school choice reasonably demand – you are left with a quasi-public system not unlike Charter schools. A system that both conservatives and liberals despise for entirely different reasons.

  • This is an interesting discussion. It’s good to see people engaged. I guess I’ll try to speak to a few things that have been said..

    #2 2Manchu

    Comparing Blackwater to those who work for private schools, any schools, is classless. You’ve inflicted damage on yourself with that statement.

    #4 Haik Bedrosian

    That is a pretty elitist argument. Basically, as I understand you, you think poor people are not willing to pay anything for their child’s education. Implying that minorities and low-income people do not value education. Is that really what you mean?

    Do you want some evidence? Go to the Children’s Scholarship Fund website.

    Since 1999, more than 80,000 low-income families have contributed an average of $1500 to tuition payments for their kids to go to private schools. More than 1.25 million families have applied for these scholarships, which are the same thing as privately-funded vouchers… But so far private philanthropy has not been able to keep up with the demand coming from low-income families. There is clear demand to have an alternative to certain district assignment public schools.

    Why as a society shouldn’t we take this opportunity to publicly support any family to attain the best possible education for each child?

    Without a doubt certain families (particularly those in urban areas) do want more options, and for those who don’t, they can stay at their public schools if they are happy with them. A voucher system is an easy, options-driven finance system. Private and public schools can participate together in a voucher system.

    A voucher system offers a *way to choose* schools.

    The concept dictates absolutely nothing about how schools should be run, or what classes should be taught.

    Anything to suggest otherwise is paranoia, and that’s it.

    There are excellent and bad public schools, and there are excellent and bad private schools. All voucher supporters want to do is change *the way* we finance schools. We believe families should be the ones to control the flow of dollars (vouchers, scholarships, grants) that finance traditional, public charter, or private schools.

    Believe it or not, a limited, progressive voucher system is already in place for higher education.

    Have any of you received any of the following federal grants for college?

    Pell Grant
    FSEOG Grant
    Academic Competitiveness Grant
    National Smart Grant

    All of these grants can be used for tuition at public and private universities. Is this immoral? Or rather, is this system a smart, flexible way for people to choose the best education for their personal circumstance?

    The GI Bill of the 40s and 50s was essentially a voucher system for military veterans. About 7.8 million of 16 million World War II veterans had participated in an education or training program at private and public universities.

    So there are historical precedents for voucher systems. All we need to do is extend this kind of rationale to preK-12 school systems.

    Oh, and we need to forget church-state issues. The Supreme Court has ruled that voucher systems are constitutional. That’s not a problem.

    There is growing demand for voucher systems, and we as a society have a responsibility to meet this demand, especially when it comes to education.

  • I will let every one in on the real reason they want a voucher program: a) fundamentalist christian indoctrination; b) so they can grow up learning to hate gay people; c) learn to become religious xenophobes. There it is.

  • Pingback: Balloon Juice
  • Pingback: Balloon Juice
  • Paul, you have some of the most baseless arguments imagineable. Let’s start with:

    “Implying that minorities and low-income people do not value education. Is that really what you mean?”

    I know, issues of inequality and competition hit the right-wing myopia, but answer this; if a poor family and a wealthy family both “value” a resource equally (let’s say, 9 out of 10 mythical “value points”), and the resource is limited, who will receive the resource? Right, the wealthy family.

    “Believe it or not, a limited, progressive voucher system is already in place for higher education.”

    You don’t say!! If you want our public system to have the massive differences of educational quality and opportunity that afford graduates of Cal Berekly compared to Phoneix University, the voucher system is for you!

    “There are excellent and bad public schools, and there are excellent and bad private schools. ”

    Tell us, Paul, how will parents determine which schools are “excellent” and which schools are “bad?” If you say “test scores,” than all schools with large populations of poor kids are “bad.” If you don’t say “test scores,” than I’m impressed! I await your wonderful new tool that will allow people to make objective qualititative comparisons between schools! You are a genius!.

  • Paul wants all primary school students to experience the differences in educational quality and opportunity that are experienced by graduates of Yale, compared to graduates fo Phoenix University.

    Paul, please inform everyone of the tool you will use to determine which schools are “bad,” and which schools are “excellent.”

  • Soory for the partial double post; the website said the initial comment could not be posted.

  • Private schools don’t cost the same.
    Government provides vouchers for private school.
    How much should they make out the voucher for?

    The lowest amount charged by the private schools?
    Fill up the cheapest school and move up until you run out of students?
    Can a parent “trade up” for a fee?
    Can the student trade to the top of the stack for a higher fee?
    Can those who attended private school already apply for a voucher and just pay the difference?

    Can anyone else see how complicated and possibly ugly this could get in no time at all?

  • I’m getting the feeling that conservatarians don’t really want some people’s kids educated at all, including their own, if the charter schools teach religious dogma instead of science.

  • Comments are closed.