Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
VOUCHERS FOR WHAT?
As a follow-up to the debate that various TAPPEDers and ex-TAPPEDers and are having with respect to conservertarian claims about the efficacy of school vouchers, this from Justice Stevens's dissent in Zelman (although peripheral to the question of whether voucher programs that will cause funding to go almost exclusively to parochial schools are constitutional) seems worth quoting:
First, the severe educational crisis that confronted the Cleveland City School District when Ohio enacted its voucher program is not a matter that should affect our appraisal of its constitutionality. In the 1999—2000 school year, that program provided relief to less than five percent of the students enrolled in the district’s schools. The solution to the disastrous conditions that prevented over 90 percent of the student body from meeting basic proficiency standards obviously required massive improvements unrelated to the voucher program. Of course, the emergency may have given some families a powerful motivation to leave the public school system and accept religious indoctrination that they would otherwise have avoided, but that is not a valid reason for upholding the program.The most obvious limitation on voucher programs, as both Matt and Ezra note, is that there's nowhere for most students to go. A market in education wouldn't function like other markets. Whereas more customers (within reason) for a department store mean more profits, more students for a school makes it harder to educate everyone, and places substantial demands on physical spaces that can't be easily expanded. Even assuming that they provide enough money for students to have a genuinely wide theoretical range of private schools to go to, which in practice is unlikely, vouchers are only an effective solution for more than tiny numbers of students if there are lots of spaces in good schools for children to go to. Or, in other words, they only work if you assume away the problem you're trying to solve in the first place. The small numbers involved and the fact that schools are very far from being like markets in consumer goods also make large transformative effects created by vouchers exceptionally implausible. And, certainly, as Matt says, to talk about vouchers in the abstract without any details about what level of funding is on the table, how we're going to pay for it, and what slots are available for students given vouchers is entirely useless.
--Scott Lemieux
COMMENTS (4)
You'll drive yourself nuts trying to figure out how it's supposed to work. The point, ultimately, is not that it's supposed to work out for the students. Vouchers are nothing more than the opening wedge in defunding public schooling aponsored by people who think that taxes should be virtually eliminated and everyone should be responsible for paying their own way.
That some handfuls of people make it work for themselves along the way is neither here nor there except to the extent that it allows them to promote the idea further. If the rest of the kids end up with an individual voucher paying for some portion of tuition at the same school they would have attended anyway, that's a huge win. In other words, it's all about how schools are funded, it's not about "school choice."
By the way, CIBC just downgraded Citibank, predicting damaged profits for years to come.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2007 12:34 PM
I agree with Scott's conclusion, but the logic is bad.
"Whereas more customers (within reason) for a department store mean more profits, more students for a school makes it harder to educate everyone, and places substantial demands on physical spaces that can't be easily expanded."
Let's transpose:
"Whereas more customers (within reason) for a department store mean more profits, more fans at a stadium makes it harder to entertain everyone, and places substantial demands on physical spaces that can't be easily expanded."
Vouchers are scalable. The problems with vouchers are:
1. Because they are a rightwing idea, they'll be handed out in inadequate amounts. A few wingnuts actually believe in vouchers, but they are a cynical ploy for most.
2. We're dealing with a population that can't make decent choices. (There's often a reason poor people are poor.)
3. (Related to #2) The now-unemployed subprime lenders will move into the voucher business.
Posted by: Joe S. | November 1, 2007 9:50 PM
If more students in a school increase the difficulty of teaching, then why don't the public schools want to turn loose any students whose families seek a choice?
It's really just about the money, isn't it? A market is a market. The education market is no different.
Posted by: David Adams | November 2, 2007 10:14 AM
"3. (Related to #2) The now-unemployed subprime lenders will move into the voucher business."
Well, they're already there. Citibank has loan programs for private school students. Robert Rubin's Hamilton commission pushes vouchers. Hillary is the #1 Wall Street candidate.
Ya'll need to wise up. And they are promoting basically the same model in healthcare-- mandiated participation, some alleged government help, and you pay the rest. With what, for most people, I have no idea (but I bet Citibank does).
Posted by: Anonymous | November 2, 2007 12:07 PM