Utah’s Referendum 1 – School Vouchers

11.03.2007

School vouchers are the talk of the town these days here in Utah, and for good reason. The outcome of Referendum 1 could decide where your children go to school–that is, if it fails. If it passes, you can take your children to school pretty much wherever you durn well please. So why such resistance to Referendum 1? Let’s intimately converse.

Over the last few weeks I’ve had several discussions with people both for and against school vouchers. In my experience, there is a high correlation between opinion of school vouchers and opinion of the role of government in education. That is, those who feel that government should provide our children’s education are against school vouchers; conversely, those who feel that government should stay out of education are generally for school vouchers. That’s a simple enough concept. Still, some find the concept that education should be completely privatized to be far-fetched, radical, and on the fringe of insanity. But is it? I’ve consistently heard a few arguments advocating government-managed education and I have counter-arguments to accompany them:

(1) But it’s our children! Surely we can’t trust our children’s education to the corporate evils of America!

I say, why not? Since when has the government performed better than capitalism? If you haven’t studied Adam Smith or the concept of the “invisible hand” in the marketplace, it makes sense to think corporate America is evil. After all, they make such hefty profits by stealing your money and bombarding you with ads. When we mix that with thoughts of our children’s education, it can be a daunting image that make some appalled to idea. But should it?

One reason why government exists is to break up monopolies. Interestingly enough, a monopoly is one of the instances where capitalism doesn’t work as it should. A monopoly creates a situation where one company has such a large consumer base and so much leverage that no other company stands a chance entering the market. When there is only one provider of a type of good, both suppliers and consumers don’t have many alternatives. When consumers don’t have alternatives, the monopoly can charge almost whatever it wants. They can also run as inefficiently as they would like and still be profitable; after all, where else are the customers going to go? Because the company has amassed so many customers, they have such leverage that they can squash any competitor that dares to enter the market.

In contrast, what happens in a free market? It’s survival of the fittest. Businesses compete for your money. They have to or they don’t survive. How do they compete? They run more efficiently. They target specific needs. They innovate. They give you more for your money than the competitor. Standards? You set them. If they’re not meeting them, you go somewhere else. You look for something better because you can.

With that in mind, isn’t it interesting that anti-voucher citizens would trust in the government, the biggest monopoly of all, to provide their children’s education? To you, public school is “free” in the rhetorical sense. Private schools, on the other hand, cost you money. It’s amazing that private schools currently even exist. Their competition is giving away its products for “free!”

(2) Poor families won’t have access to a good education.

There’s a specific concept here that I want to avoid for now: vouchers won’t provide enough money for poor students to attend private schools. I’ll address this issue later. Right now, I’m talking in a more generic, yet even more extreme sense: if education was completely privatized–as in, we paid no taxes for schooling…there were no vouchers…there were no public schools…we only paid private schools out-of-pocket. The argument is still, if not emphasized even more, that poor students would not be able to afford an education.

I completely disagree. Any good set of parents will tell you that their children are one of, if not the, most important things in their lives. If that’s true, then their children’s education is at the top of their list of needs–yes, even above the satellite dish on the side of their trailer home. This may be on the edge of being politically correct for some, but I dare say that any man physically and emotionally “well” could pay for his children’s private education even without vouchers. Maybe not with his current working status, but, if he deemed it important enough, he could put forth the extra effort and prioritize well enough to provide for his children’s education.

What about the divorced mom trying her hardest to raise four children on her own? These cases do exist and should be treated, but a blanket approach of public education is not the solution.

What if a poor family made the wrong choice and decided to buy a giganto house instead of tending to their children’s needs? This is the harsh reality of life where the line is drawn for governmental blanket approaches. As long as humans are fallible, the government cannot and should not make parental choices nor attempt to bring all families to an equal status. If government attempted to solve such a problem, we would all be paying a new “housing tax” and the government in turn would give us assigned cookie-cutter houses of relatively equal quality to live in. Oh, and unless you decide to leave the neighborhood completely, you can’t switch houses. And no, you can’t choose a different builder or a different style. But hey, everybody has a decent place to live! And at least your house is “free,” right? Sound anything like public education? Frighteningly so.

So, back to the concept I mentioned before. Let’s say you were completely dismayed at the idea that a poor family would be striving to get the even the cheapest, lowest quality of education. How good of a school would the family need to afford to be deemed “fair enough.” In other words, if there were 1,000 schools of different qualities and costs, how many would a family need to be able to afford in order for their children to get a quality education? 300? 500? 700? Now that you have your answer, let’s look at a report by The Sutherland Institute. Before discussing the article, I will preface it by noting that The Sutherland Institute is a pro-voucher institution, but their report is specific and detailed and is by far superior than any of the gossip you’ll hear on the back row of Relief Society. As it states, excluding a few extreme outliers, the average annual tuition of private schools in Utah is $4,519.97. The value of a student voucher for the lowest-income family according to the actual Referendum 1 bill is $3,000. What does this mean? While the voucher won’t completely buy a poor family the best of education, it will close the gap enough to where, I believe, a poor family is in reach of obtaining a higher quality education than public schools currently offer. And, if the voucher system worked as planned, public schools would increase their value enough that the family wouldn’t need to choose a private school anyway.

(3) Referendum 1 is full of flaws.

While I beg to differ that it’s full of flaws, I do agree that it has flaws. Any bill that goes through legislation has flaws. Heck, the Constitution had flaws too and the authors knew it. In particular, they could not agree on the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of members in the House of Representatives, the question being whether slaves should be counted as citizens or not. Rather than stalemating the Constitution and dooming the country’s future, the Founding Fathers chose to confront the issue at a later time and came to a temporary agreement known as the Three-fifths Compromise. Just as the authors of the Constitution were able to set aside differences/flaws to accomplish a greater good, so must citizens treat Referendum 1. Does this mean that we must overlook massive loopholes and flaws that will seriously doom the final goals of a piece of legislation? No, but I personally believe the greater good of private education outweighs the flaws in Referendum 1.

So, if Referendum 1 were to pass, what should we expect? Considering $3,000 is only half of what a public school spends on a student, private schools are still at a severe disadvantage. Improvements will come slowly and it will take a while for the worst private schools to get weeded out. In countries like Chile and Sweden, two countries which have similar school choice programs, it has taken five or ten years. Still, I’m hopeful that the improvements will come.

This article hasn’t addressed every controversy surrounding Referendum 1, school vouchers, or private education. Nor was that my intent. Instead, I thought I would provide a base for an intimate conversation by stating the major arguments I have heard and my accompanying rebuttals. Surely it won’t appease all the concerns and I still plan on driving to the voting booth with my wife so we can negate each other votes. Now that I’ve taken my turn, I invite you to join….the Intimate Conversation.

Tags: , , , ,


Comments

11.04.2007 / Jason said:

Totally agree with you 100%… And my wife is totally against me. It’s interesting to note lol…

11.04.2007 / DAD said:

Besides the fact that the financial arguments against vouchers simply do not hold water, here are some of my reasons for supporting private over public education.

1. Separation of church and state has been corrupted to the point that it is used for exactly the opposite of what the founding fathers intended. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Which, being interpreted means, we can pray and study religion in ANY school and government shall have nothing to say about it. Public schools no longer have that freedom. Private schools do.

2. Tenure is a racket. Any employee should be subject to performance review and consequences regardless of longevity. Opponents say private school teachers will not be held to standards. Helloooooo!!!

3. People like myself who have spent 35 years in a chosen field can teach in private schools without a “certificate” whereas we are unqualified to teach in public schools.

4. This is simply a personal opinion, but public schools waste far too much money on extra-curricular activities. The list is endless and obvious.

5. Public school discipline is so restricted we now have to hire security guards, etc. I really don’t know how this works in private schools, but I would guess they have more latitude to deal with disciplinary matters and at far lower cost.

Those are just a few examples and I may not be entirely right on those, but the main point is that I really can’t think of many reasons why public schools should be preferred over private. In fact, I don’t even understand why teachers are opposed to referendum 1. There will be just as many students to teach and a more competitive environment for well qualified teachers to improve their position and compensation – just like in any other career.

11.04.2007 / Ladd Morgan said:

I think a lot of parents like public school because it simplifies their lives. It’s free, you don’t have to compete w/ your neighbors cuz all your kids go to the same place, supposedly public schools throughout the country have similar curriculum, you know your kids will be prepared for college, you feel like your kids will be well-prepared socially for the world, good govt-sponsored babysitting, etc. Public school is convenient…like Walmart. Unfortunately it isn’t nearly as efficient though. It is tailored to mediocre people. It is particularly inefficient for the smartest kids and the dumbest kids.

Regarding poor families, any market solution would certainly put them at a disadvantage. Politicians love to spot this type of inequality, but they don’t talk about the benefits of inequality (often subtle). Aaron has pointed some of them out.

11.04.2007 / Trevor said:

Vouchers, huh? Never thought too much about it.

[20 minutes of thought later…]

According to my understanding, a true market exists (1) if sellers have to compete with each other for my dollar and (2) if I have the choice of withholding my dollar and my purchase altogether.

If I’m understanding your argument, and if you want to create a true market for public schools, then you’d also have to let people withhold their purchase from schools and put it toward another good or service in the market.

Forcing buyers to purchase (and violating market rule no. 2) distorts the normally favorable outcome of the true market and creates an artificial floor for the price of school. It’s possible that you’d have many sub-sub-par schools worth $2000 or $2500 asking the full voucher price of $3000.

I think that in general, vouchers are a good idea. But I worry for the poorest of the poor whose parents do not look out for the best interests of their children. They may be a small minority, but I don’t worry about those of us with good families and good faith as much as I worry about the poorer among us.

[Bit of a change of subject…]
How will this voucher thing help/hurt illegal immigrants? I know this is a touchy subject, but I’ve been giving it a lot of thought lately and I think that children of illegal imigrants should be educated in our public schools. Not their fault they’re here, and it does us no good to have an under-class of illiterate, poor mexicans in our country.

11.04.2007 / Trevor said:

A friend of mine has something to say about this subject: http://onlifeandlybberty.blogspot.com/2007/11/school-vouchers.html

11.07.2007 / Trevor said:

Sorry it died.

11.13.2007 / Jennifer said:

Aaron,

Just want to say “Amen” to all what you and Dad have said here, as well as Jason’s comments. Exactly what I would say if given time to put it all in writing. Well done.

Jen

11.13.2007 / Jennifer said:

Just thought I would let you know that I drove all the way over to A.F. and waited in line for 30+ minutes just to vote YES on Referendum 1. We knew it would not pass, but just had to make our voice count. We have no intention of sending our kids to private schools, but anything that takes control away from government and turns it to the private sector gets my vote. Parents who pays taxes should have the right to use their child’s portion of the funds however they choose. In the end, parents get to choose what school is best for their child, public schools no longer need stinky satellite buildings, and schools and teachers actually have to compete and prove their worth. This business of teachers unions and tenure is for the birds. I studied business education and intended to be a high school teacher and I still don’t see how unions and tenure can be a good thing for students. Oh well, I guess we’ll just keep complaining about large class sizes and incompetent grouchy old teachers, not to mention the lack of appropriate services for children who fall between special education and mainstream success. You know the argument. Just thought I would vent for a moment.

11.13.2007 / Aaron Hardy said:

Hey everyone, thanks for commenting!

Trevor, I thought I should respond to your comments. You’re right, for a “true” market to exist, you need to have the choice to withhold your purchase. Fortunately, a market doesn’t have to be a “true” market to be more efficient than a monopoly. Or I guess…unfortunate…since the bill didn’t pass and we’re stuck with the monopoly.

Also, your worries are founded about the poorest of the poor whose parents do not look out for the best interests of their children. That is one of the downfalls of Referendum 1 (and the concept of agency in general.) But, I personally believe that the increased choice and increased performance for the majority of children outweighs the negative effects on the [hopefully very small] minority. Each person’s opinion on that matter is closely tied to his/her opinion on the worth of one child’s potential decrease in education compared to the worth of another child’s potential increase in education…and how many children will be on each side. I can’t think of any bill that hasn’t hurt ANYONE; granted, a child’s education is more touchy than most because of the lack of that child’s control in the matter.

As for illegal immigrants. I probably take a radical approach on the matter, but for me it’s not a matter of “it’s not their fault they’re here” or “it does us no good to have [fill in the gap] in our country.” When it comes to being illegal, I believe they shouldn’t even be allowed to step inside public schools (just as they shouldn’t be allowed inside the country) let alone be considered for educational subsidy by our citizens’ taxes. Does that make me a bad person? I guess you decide. For me, I would rather take an economic loss and even have some people hurt (even if it was me–yes, even as a child) than know our government isn’t even abiding by its own laws…or at least respecting the principle of them.

As a related note, for every dollar that I pay to the government that isn’t spent on military, business infrastructure, law enforcement, or worthwhile legislation, I’d pay another dollar to get it back. I find there’s value in sticking to your principles, even if it comes at a cost.

Thanks for the link and the comments!


Leave a Comment

Your email address is required but will not be published.




Comment