THE TRUTH ABOUT SWEDEN'S VOUCHER PROGRAM.
In the wake of President Obama's education speech last week, a few proponents of school vouchers are suggesting that the old sawhorse shouldn't be left off the reform table. The New York Times is featuring a video op-ed by Pacific Research Institute fellow Lance Izumi promoting Sweden's voucher program as a model for the United States. In Sweden, "parties of the left, center, and right all support the country's universal voucher system," Izumi says, "which has effectively defeated the status quo." Conservatives like this example. "Even in Sweden!" they exclaim, "socialists" support "school choice!"
But are American voucher proponents being honest in their support for Sweden's program? In short, not really: The Swedish program doesn't look anything like any voucher system in existence in the United States, or even any voucher proposal. The American idea of vouchers entails giving parents cash, usually up to a few thousand dollars, to send their children to local private schools instead of to failing public schools. In D.C., Milwaukee, and other cities that have experimented with vouchers, the vouchers are worth way too little to help poor families afford independent private prep schools; what they are really used for is to subsidize inner city parochial schools. And research clearly shows that students using vouchers perform no better academically than their socio-economically similar peers in public schools.
The Swedish system, on the other hand, looks a lot more like the American idea of a public charter school. The schools participating in the voucher program are managed by private, sometimes for-profit operators, but are prohibited from charging tuition. That means that poor students can enter lotteries to attend the same schools as rich students, without worrying about a gap between the value of a voucher and the cost of tuition. The voucher -- which converts into cold, hard government cash -- is the only entrance fee. It's a totally different theory.
--Dana Goldstein
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (8)
Ms. Goldstein's claim regarding the research on vouchers is false. For a summary of what the scientific literature actually shows, with supporting citations, please see: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/03/17/american-prospect-strikes-mother-lode-of-falsehood/
Posted by: Andrew Coulson | March 17, 2009 8:24 PM
Could you provide some on-line references to back up the statement: "And research clearly shows that students using vouchers perform no better academically than their socio-economically similar peers in public schools."?
Thank You
Posted by: Glen Hein | March 17, 2009 9:01 PM
Though I prefer the American voucher program, I think the Swedish System is a good compromise.
However, I'll bet you any amount of money you dare that the NEA will have none of either proposals
Posted by: Peter Kay | March 17, 2009 9:22 PM
A lottery? What happens if you don't win the lottery? Then you have no choice? How many children are lottery winners? Education by lottery doesn't sound like much a system to me.
Posted by: Edna | March 18, 2009 9:19 AM
If vouchers produce equivalent performance for "a few thousand dollars", then I would say your post is a ringing endorsement of the program.
Just think of how much money we could save at a time when state budgets are being squeezed!
Posted by: Bruce Morton | March 18, 2009 5:26 PM
Edna: For "primary schools" (grade 1-9) admission - if there are more applicants than vacant places - is based on a proximity principle (the closer to the school you live, the more likely you are to get admitted) and/or how long you (or your parents actually) have been queueing and/or whether you've got siblings in the same school. I don't think lotteries are used, ever.
Posted by: William | April 13, 2009 1:56 AM
For high schools (grade 10-12) admission is usually based on primary school grades (with some exceptions; schools with eg a music/art/sports profile might have additional tests).
Posted by: William | April 13, 2009 1:56 AM
We have no lotteries that I know of over here, just like William wrote.
I think that our system is a good compromise between the left and the right, the schools don't have to be unsure about sudden changes in the system due to elections...
Of course there's an debate about companies making profit, but most politicians are in favour.
Posted by: Magnus | August 5, 2009 1:18 PM