McCain and Vouchers

The centerpiece of John McCain's talking about education policy is the need for more "choice" (i.e., vouchers) but as voucher advocate Neal McCluskey is noting there's really no there there:

All that McCain’s plan offers in terms of specifics is that he’d reapportion federal money slated for attracting, rewarding, and training teachers; somehow give principals more control over their budgets; and expand the use of online education. Oh, and importantly(though most voters, concerned primarily about their own kids, probably won’t care), McCain would increase funding for D.C.’s school-choice program.

This is just really odd. You can believe whatever you want about vouchers and still obviously a proposal for a modest increasing in funding for a pilot voucher program in the District of Columbia is neither here nor there in terms of really improving education in America. This basically reflects what I was saying the other day about Grand New Party -- if you're committed to the kind of tax and budget policies that McCain is committed to, it's just not possible to put meaningful domestic policy reforms on the table. I don't think vouchers are the solution to the problems in American schools, but whatever the solution is -- even vouchers -- would require some real fiscal muscle to actually change anything.

Photo by Flickr user lkbm used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Actually, just reforming how schools are funded on the local level could do a lot. In my area there are a lot of smallish districts, and the schools get most of their funding from local property taxes. The obvious result is that richer kids get a heck of a lot more funding per capita than poorer kids. Yet if you normalize things like test scores for incoming socioeconomic characteristics, it appears there are sharply decreasing marginal benefits to all those extra public school dollars being spent on rich kids. And all this encourages income-segregation in the local communities, regardless of whether higher-income parents would otherwise prefer such a result.

Personally, in a world in which it is increasingly unlikely for kids to end up living in their local community as adults, I see no real reason to preserve the hyperlocal funding of public schools. And such a reform would require no new cash--indeed, it might actually allow a reduction in total education spending (an idea which scares teachers, but I think a lot of money is being wasted on "gold-plating" richer public schools with things like posh sports venues--a nice luxury, but not necessarily of any educational benefit).

Posted by DTM | July 18, 2008 2:33 PM

I don't think vouchers are the solution to the problems in American schools, but whatever the solution is -- even vouchers -- would require some real fiscal muscle to actually change anything.

I don't know. I've always seen support for vouchers as a thinly veiled attempt to defund the public schools. The argument being that 1.) The government is bad at everything --> 2.) Public schools are failing --> 3.) if we spend money for education it should at least go to vouchers --> 4.) But really, the government shouldn't be in the education business, so just let people buy the education that they can afford.

Once every child is homeschooled or in a private school, the need for vouchers disappears along with all government funding for education.

You're arguing about point 3.) but McClusky has skipped to point 4.)

In fact, if you go to his own page at the CATO institute, he makes the point pretty expicitly:

[W]hen evaluated using academic results, the strictures of the Constitution, and plain common sense, almost no federal funding [for education] is justified. For all those reasons, the federal government should withdraw from its involvement in education and return control to parents, local governments, and the states.

Posted by Jinchi | July 18, 2008 3:18 PM

@Further to MY: As a matter of basic arithmetic, any meaningful voucher scheme would be expensive. Why?

(1) Before you've moved one kid from public school to private, you have to give all the kids already in private school vouchers.

(2) You can't give a public school student a voucher for 100% of his/her fractional share of the public school budget, because schools have a lot of fixed, long term overhead.

You can avoid these problems without spending any new money (1) by means-testing the hell out of the vouchers, so that the kids already in private school won't get squat, and (2) by limiting the voucher amount to the marginal cost to the public schools of an additional student. The result, however, would be a piddly little voucher available to no one that can actually use it.

@DTM: Presumably, the suburbanites taxing themselves up the wazoo to pay for really nice public schools do not think they are throwing their money away, or otherwise they would vote down the taxes. That suggests that they will be less than pleased with attempts to "reform" their local schools by taking their money away.

Posted by alkali | July 18, 2008 4:42 PM

The problem is not money. The problem is the level of federal involvement. All of the "reforms" pushed by the Feds (both parties) have increased the number of requirements, and decreased the level of flexibility that the schools have. Teachers are generally incapable of making their own choices about how to teach, because of the raw fear (at the school and district level) in having any mandated test come out with sub-par numbers.

You want better schools? Cut federal funding and the strings that come with it, and let the schools get back to actually teaching.

Block grants might work, if I thought it was possible to use them without strings. I don't, so all I'm left with is getting the Feds the heck out of the game completely.

Posted by James Robertson | July 18, 2008 4:43 PM

alkali,

As an aside, I think those parents are: (A) being misled by things like test scores and college admissions without versus controlling for socioeconomic factors; and (B) stuck in a bit of a collective action problem insofar as their property values depend on keeping up the relative reputation of their schools, creating a race to the top when it comes to funding.

But, yes, I understand people heavily invested in the current system are likely to oppose change. But they can be overruled at the county, state, and even federal level.

Posted by DTM | July 18, 2008 5:09 PM

Actually, just reforming how schools are funded on the local level could do a lot.

But in the current context that Matt was discussing, I'm not sure how much the feds could do to reform local funding.

Posted by Glaivester | July 18, 2008 5:27 PM

"Personally, in a world in which it is increasingly unlikely for kids to end up living in their local community as adults, I see no real reason to preserve the hyperlocal funding of public schools."

The first sentence has nothing to do with anything.
Parents will pay a premium to live in school districts that have better achievement.
Home values rise and fall in part due to the quality of local public schools. Districts with poor quality schools typically have lower house values ending up with less property taxes collected, less to spend on schools, and so on.
Why would parents (or any other property owner) in a high achieving district be willing to sacrifice potential property value of their biggest asset - their home?

Posted by CParis | July 18, 2008 8:33 PM

Glaivester,

Well, the federal government could do all sorts of things if it wanted to about the funding of schools, but I agree it probably won't.

CParis,

In the quoted passage, my point is just that there is no real policy justification for the hyperlocal funding of schools.

As I noted to another poster, however, I agree that those heavily invested in the current system are likely to try to protect those investments. And I would further agree that is true whether or not there is a general policy justification for their doing so. So assuming these people won't be subject to moral persuasion in sufficient numbers, they would just have to be outvoted.

Posted by DTM | July 18, 2008 10:31 PM