The following is the executive summary from a paper written on this topic. For more information or to purchase a copy of this paper, contact us.
The evidence regarding the effectiveness of "school vouchers" is unclear. The lack of clarity on this issue can be attributed to: the fact that the implementation of voucher programs is relatively new (Center for Education Reform, 2000), the programs that are in place are on such a small scale as to offer no opportunity for analysis in preparation for a large scale effort (RAND, 2001), and finally because there are many types of "voucher" programs and none look alike (GAO, 2001 & 2002).
The data that does exist is mixed and there is no consensus on the value of a school voucher system. While studies show that there is no academic advantage in the first year to a voucher user, some studies show significant advantage after three or four years. Additionally, a recent GAO report shows that the societal aspect of vouchers is apparent and parents who stick through the process are genuinely happy with their choice.
Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida have had good success with limited programs. Privately funded "voucher" programs are growing in number and significance. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of including religious schools in voucher programs. All the trends lead to more use of vouchers to help those in need.
What about those who want in but can not due to a financial cut-off or not winning the voucher lottery? The voucher system is proving a nice alternative for families that may not have the dollars but have the smarts to know that a good education matters. The big question is can a voucher system be implemented on a large scale that is fair, doesn't skim the cream, and actually improves the public schools left behind.
Originally submitted on December 27, 2006.
Under the voucher or tax credit system, the state education system would be forced to implement a sweeping set of reforms to their promotions structure, pay scales and curriculum in order to effectively compete against the private sector. This is good for students and parents, but bad for the teachers unions that keep wages artificially high and promote teachers based on seniority instead of performance. Perhaps not surprisingly, the education unions firmly oppose any notion of breaking up the government monopoly in education by providing choice and funding students instead of schools.
Although political opposition has thus far prevented the universal implementation of vouchers or tax credits, America and New Zealand have experimented with school choice through targeted voucher programmes and charter schools. The closest countries to the system espoused by Milton Friedman are the Netherlands and Sweden , where independent schools are funded at the same rate as government schools.
Originally submitted on January 4th, 2007.
As I lacked an understanding of the voucher system, I asked a few people and got a variety of answers around the concept of making private education accessible to those who cannot otherwise afford it. Now, the question no one provided a satisfactory answer to is “To what end?” The fact is that a gifted student can obtain a scholarship to attend a private school which is otherwise unaffordable. That is how I finished my high school education in a private school after my father died. One may then argue that vouchers are targetted at the “second tier” student who does not qualify for a scholarship. Again I ask, “To what end?” Most private schools are college prep schools. A second teir student whose family cannot find a way to pay for a high school education will probably have a difficult time with college, both academically and financially. Are we doing a student a favor by lining them up for 6 years of college loans with no degree in the end? The fact is that not every one is meant to go to college. (I would aruge that many students in private, college prep schools are not college material, either but that is not the topic of this article.) The concept of a quality education should be measured by its alignment to the talents of the student receiving it, not by its price tag.
Having said all of that, I firmly believe that the government’s educational monoploy should be challenged. However, I would suggest the challenge comes more from parents willing to home school or find creative solutions than from an artificial attempt to “socialize” education.