Reblogged: School Choice for Everyone

[Gus Van Horn blog]

Although I think that even voucher plans and scholarships are examples of improper government involvement in education, I might be able to support such measures as part of a transition from our current government-run educational system to a free market in education. That said, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal still raises some interesting points in his letter to President Obama asking him to drop a lawsuit against his state's program of helping low-income children in (particularly) bad public school districts pay for alternative schooling.

For generations, the government has forced these families to hope for the best from failing schools. Shame on all of us for standing by and watching generations of children stay in failing schools that may have led them to lives of poverty.

Unfortunately -- and setting aside for a moment the propriety of the government redistributing income -- neither this program nor Jindal go far enough:

Low-income families with children in schools graded C, D or F by the state are eligible to apply for a scholarship and send their children to schools of their choice.

Why should only poor children -- and those in government school districts deemed particularly bad by the very entity that runs them -- be the only ones with a wider range of educational choices? More to the point, why not (as a start) end the compulsory schooling laws that lock criminals up with actual students all day, and phase out subsidies to the "free" competition to private schools represented by "public" (i.e., government) schools?

If the free market is indeed better at educating, why only half-apologetically advocate it in the name of helping only the poor? Why not proudly and consistently uphold it so that everyone can benefit from it? Jindal's heart seems to be in the right place, but the causes of freedom and education are too noble to go begging for scraps.

-- CAV

P.S. I have not followed this story nor do I have time to dig deeper now. Perhaps the suit is partially founded on the objection that this program is funnelling money into religious schools. The government shouldn't be doing this. However, parents who really believe that their children should have religious educations should be free to send their children to religious schools at their own expense (or at that of willing donors).

If, as I think it possible with the religious Jindal, that having tax money flow into the coffers of religious schools is part of the motivation behind this program, it exposes him and other such supporters as the enemies of freedom that they are. It is wrong to steal money for any purpose, including education, regardless of whether it is good or bad, or secular or religious. It is also wrong to abridge religious freedom by having the government serve as a conduit for educational funding. Doing so at some point abridges someone's freedom of conscience by coercing him to fund the dissemination of ideas to which he is opposed.

-- CAV

Link to Original

[softwareNerd]

First time I've heard about this case. Reading up a bit, here's my summary of the situation:

There are some school districts where the courts and the Federal government have legal authority to ensure that a school policy help "desegregation"

The Feds say that in 34 schools covered under this authority, the ratio of blacks has risen after the students with scholarships left.

Jindal says that 90% of scholarships went to "minorities".

These two claims can be squared. For instance, if 91% of a school's kids are black, and if 90 out of 100 scholarships go to black kids (i.e. the group leaving has a lower ratio of blacks than the original student body), the percentage of blacks remaining will rise. 

 

According to the Federal government, this does irreparable damage to the process of desegregation.

Edited September 5, 2013 by softwareNerd

[Dante]

The desegregation case seems to be simply the legal pretense for trying to prevent this from happening.  I think the main reason the suit is being brought is that the teachers' unions (significant supporters of President Obama and Democrats in general) oppose the program.

[CrowEpistemologist]

I can't think of a better example of Objectivists compromising away the future by supporting half-measures like this. Vouchers and charters will kill real private schools by making them effective wards of the state ("my house, my money, my rules"). You really think taxpayers are going to say, "here's a bunch of money, spend it on whatever you like"? No chance in hell.

 

The solution is private schools and charity as a transition--all with zero dollars from unwilling tax payers. Vouchers and charters reinforce public funding of schools like never before, making it such that even richer people expect government handouts to pay for their kid's private schools.

 

P.S. Some of those private voucher schools are just as bad or worse than the public schools they are replacing. Remember that "parent choice" doesn't solve anything when the parents are the problem in the first place.

 

P.P.S. Not educating your child really is child abuse, and really should be against the law. In that sense schools--or some sort of valid schooling--must be compulsory.

[CrowEpistemologist]

And right on queue, there's this article in the WaPo:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/09/05/why-charter-schools-need-better-oversight/

 

Charters and vouchers are a giant bait-and-switch. Once they kill off actual private schools, the "oversight" will kick in and we'll be left with the same situation we have now but with no private schools at all.

[Dante]

I can't think of a better example of Objectivists compromising away the future by supporting half-measures like this. Vouchers and charters will kill real private schools by making them effective wards of the state ("my house, my money, my rules"). You really think taxpayers are going to say, "here's a bunch of money, spend it on whatever you like"? No chance in hell.

 

The solution is private schools and charity as a transition--all with zero dollars from unwilling tax payers. Vouchers and charters reinforce public funding of schools like never before, making it such that even richer people expect government handouts to pay for their kid's private schools.

 

The Objective Standard, an Objectivist publication, made this exact argument in 2011; article here.  They argue that education tax credits represent the true transition to more of a free market education, while school vouchers are simply a tool to eventually extend government control over the curricula of private as well as public schools.

[Dante]

And right on queue, there's this article in the WaPo:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/09/05/why-charter-schools-need-better-oversight/

 

Charters and vouchers are a giant bait-and-switch. Once they kill off actual private schools, the "oversight" will kick in and we'll be left with the same situation we have now but with no private schools at all.

 

I understand your point, but that article wasn't talking about oversight of the curricula of charter schools, but rather financial oversight of their balance sheets in order to prevent fraud.  This form of oversight is one that schools (and all other companies) should be subject to.  Of course, in a free market, this oversight would be demanded by customers and investors rather than required by law, but the fact remains that this type of oversight is perfectly valid and necessary.

 

The second half of the article discusses disciplinary policies set by schools, which is more clearly something that should be left up to each school individually.  However, nowhere does the author discuss oversight of the curricula of charter schools, which is what charter schools and school choice advocates should actually be afraid of.

[softwareNerd]

 

The Objective Standard, an Objectivist publication, made this exact argument in 2011; article here.  They argue that education tax credits represent the true transition to more of a free market education, while school vouchers are simply a tool to eventually extend government control over the curricula of private as well as public schools.

I doubt a tax-credit program is politically viable though. Compared to tax-credits, vouchers have a lot of features that fit well with altruism, yet they've been hard to pass. 

[CrowEpistemologist]

I understand your point, but that article wasn't talking about oversight of the curricula of charter schools, but rather financial oversight of their balance sheets in order to prevent fraud.  This form of oversight is one that schools (and all other companies) should be subject to.  Of course, in a free market, this oversight would be demanded by customers and investors rather than required by law, but the fact remains that this type of oversight is perfectly valid and necessary.

 

The second half of the article discusses disciplinary policies set by schools, which is more clearly something that should be left up to each school individually.  However, nowhere does the author discuss oversight of the curricula of charter schools, which is what charter schools and school choice advocates should actually be afraid of.

 

Charter and voucher schools typically take the same standardized tests as public schools. They can control almost everything with that. Without these tests there'd be no accountability, so it's a catch-22.

 

I think you underscored my point: that something taking tax money needs to be controlled--and will be.

 

Again, the problem is one of displacement: charters and vouchers kill real private schools. There's no way a true private school can compete against schools taking in government money. I believe there was an article somewhere on here about a study that showed a nationwide trend, showing that private schools are being converted to charters in droves.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Dante: thanks a ton for that link. I just got around to reading it. Excellent. Here's a relevant quote:

 

"Far from being a step in the direction of a free market in education, voucher programs extend the coercive arm of the government into private schools."

[CrowEpistemologist]

Here's a story highlighting exactly what I was talking about:

 

Catholic school looking to charter school option for survival

 

From the article:

 

"But going this direction means the school would have to expunge religious expression from its classrooms. Teachers would have to remove crucifixes from walls and eliminate Catholicism from the curriculum, and students would no longer be required to attend Mass once a month down the street at St. Matthew’s."

 

You think charter schools and vouchers are a step toward freedom? Think again. All they are doing is destroying private schools, and thus making sure that every single school in the USA is under government control.

 

Objectivists cannot possibly be in favor of charter schools and vouchers.

 

Making a bunch of Catholic priests toss aside their religion: there's some government control for you!