School Vouchers

A school voucher, also called an education voucher, is a certificate by which parents are given the ability to pay for the education of their children at a school of their choice, rather than the public school to which they were assigned Proponents assert that implementing a voucher system would promote "free market" competition among schools of all types, which would provide schools incentive to improve. Successful schools would attract students, while bad schools would be forced to reform or close. The goal of this system is to localize accountability as opposed to relying on government standards. Proponents also note that school vouchers would 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. Critics of the voucher system note that it is possible to have a choice between different schools within the public school system without vouchers. A key reason given for being allowed to choose private schools is the belief that private schools offer better education -- a belief disputed in a 2006 Dept. of Education study. This report concludes that average test scores for reading and mathematics, when adjusted for student and school characteristics, tend to be very similar among public schools and private schools. However, it is important to note that test score data is not the only measure of school performance and achievement. One argument against vouchers is that, 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. The opponents assert a tendency of the costs of tuition to rise along with its demand, which would compound the problem. Opponents also claim that the vouchers are tantamount to providing taxpayer-subsidized "white flight" from urban public schools, whose student bodies are predominantly non-white in most large cities. 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. On the other hand, 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. Other opponents in the U.S. object on different grounds. They believe that granting government money, even indirectly, to private and religious schools will inevitably lead to increased governmental control over non-government education. Individuals who oppose vouchers on these grounds are often libertarian; most also call for the abolition of all state sponsorship of education, which they believe to be wrong in principle. (Their position has not succeeded legally.) The Alliance for the Separation of School & State opposes education vouchers on the grounds that "if vouchers become commonplace, private and religious schools will become more and more like public schools." Moreover, they suggest that if it is wrong in principle for the government to tax in order to fund public education, then one should not accept any portion of the ill-gotten money to fund private education.