School Vouchers: Ultimate Public Accountability

In a landmark decision last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a school voucher program in which public dollars could be used by parents to send their children to religious or secular private schools. In light of this decision, CNN chose to rebroadcast "Private Schools/Public Money," a special focusing on the Milwaukee, Wisconsin school voucher experiments. The special was surprisingly fair and highlighted the major issues surrounding the school choice debate (though it never gave credit to Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize winning economist who first proposed the idea of school vouchers in the mid-1950s). Most troubling, the Left's arguments against vouchers highlighted a fundamental misunderstanding -- or rejection -- of the role of markets in allocating resources.

Barbara Miner, a Milwaukee-based journalist, offered the following critique of education privatization:

"It actually takes less to open a private school than to open a beauty salon, or a gas station, or a liquor store in Milwaukee. Not everyone who starts a school is really going to care about kids. They're going to care about the money behind that kid."

First, let's examine what Miner is getting at when she says that it "takes less" to open a private school than a hair salon. "Takes less" what? Obviously, Miner means that it "takes less" government approval or "takes fewer" government regulations.

Why does she assume that government regulations are good? Why should the federal government do a better job regulating schools than the private market? In fact, the federal government does a worse job. Consumers can best decide the type of schools they want, just like they can decide the types of lamps and irons they want. For liberals, it just feels like the government cares more. It's completely bizarre.

There is only one thing I conclude from Miner's first sentence -- government regulations on beauty salons, gas stations, and liquor stores ought to be lifted.

Second, Miner is upset that not everyone who runs a school will care about kids, but rather will only care about tuition dollars. This is the standard liberal indictment of capitalism and it just defies all logic.

Am I getting a bad deal on my computer because Gateway does not know or care about me? Are my Skechers bad running shoes because the manufacturer has not come over to my house for coffee and cake? Is my Arizona Iced Tea of poor quality because I haven't dated the owner's daughter?

The argument is absurd. Capitalism does not require there to be intimate personal relations between firms and consumers. Rather, it relies on the invisible hand allocating resources, driven by consumer demand for goods and services.

A private school will be forced to "care" about my child's education precisely because he is motivated by getting his hands on my tuition voucher. The fact that the private school is a profit-maximizer will ensure that the school will produce a product that I want to buy...and if that school does not meet my needs, I will take my voucher elsewhere.

"That's one reason they're called private is that there isn't a lot of public oversight. It's like private parks, private country clubs. You're not responsible to the public."

The notion that private firms are not accountable to anyone is just bunk. Private schools are accountable to its consumers -- parents. If a school does not provide services that parents want, then parents have total power. They can refuse to continue purchasing the service anymore. In fact, if they do not like the range of options that they have, these parents can join together and open their own for-profit private schools.

So why are Leftists hysterical about this? Simply stated, they do not want parents to have control over the content of their children's education. They want the state to have total control so that a politically homogenous curriculum can be imposed on young people. The Left's desire to replace the family with the state is nothing new -- it was a central tenet of Communism and remains an important part of socialist Europe.

Though most individuals associated with the Milwaukee Public School (MPS) system -- teacher's unions, school administrators, district employees -- ferociously protect their political interest, there are a few that understand the value of voucher programs to the public school system. John Gardner, a member of the MPS Board of Education, bravely spoke out in favor of competition in Milwaukee schools:

"The people who took money from MPS to wherever they are going are parents. And I think parents have the right and have the responsibility, actually, to take their tax money and take it to where they believe their children are going to get the best education...I like competition, but I also intend to win. Milwaukee public schools is going to be the best governmental urban school system in this country."

Citizens like Gardner understand that the best interests of parents, children, and the public school system are served when there is competition, when the government monopoly on education is broken.

Urban blacks are among the strongest supporters of school vouchers. Polly Williams (D) has represented northern Milwaukee in the Wisconsin state legislature for 20 years. She has formed alliances with conservative Republicans like Tommy Thompson and President George H.W. Bush.

"If someone had told me I would ever form an alliance with conservatives, Republicans, and corporate America, I would say no way. And here I was in alliance with people who I have never had any dealings with before… We just said if the state was going to pay for the miseducation of children in the public schools, surely they would not object to paying a small portion to allow parents then to pick a school outside of the public schools...What I'm fighting for is that no matter what the color, what the income, all children deserve the best.

Rep. Williams was savaged by opponents -- including members of her own party -- for her support for school vouchers. Opponents accused her of being the "black face on a right-wing idea." Some went further, calling her a sell-out.

Economist Walter Williams is fond of saying "If the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan set out to destroy black academic excellence, I doubt whether he could achieve as much damage [as done by the public school system]."

It is long past time that blacks (and whites) start looking to the market for solutions to government-created problems. The Supreme Court has helped push us in the right direction.

First, let's examine what Miner is getting at when she says that it "takes less" to open a private school than a hair salon. "Takes less" what?

The correlations aren't there to begin with.

There is no need to for government to regulate beauty salons. That's simply stupid. It's essentially a combination of job protection and revenue collection.

The government arguably does have an intesresnt in making education available to everyone, and it's inagruably been doing an absolutely awful job of doing that.

No correlation there. More media garbage.

No correlation there. More media garbage.

Perhaps you should read about the many regulations of beauty salons in the following book, and then compare such to the fact there is no jurisdiction at all of the State of FL over FL's private schools. That's a big difference -- and not "more media garbage."

Here's the book you might enjoy, so you have a better understanding of what the author of this article above meant:

The Future and its Enemies:
The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress

Author: Virginia Postrel

Summer is right in stating that beauty salons are more heavily regulated than private schools, at least in Florida.

Salons must meet many health and safety codes, and I believe they are required to hire only licensed cosmetologists.

Private schools only have to meet very minimal requirements, mostly concerning attendance, and record keeping.

As I have told Summer on another thread, I believe that the excessive regulations that public schools must comply with is one reason why they perform so poorly; too much time, effort, and money is spent on complying with regulations, that little resources are left for actual teaching.

Since public schools are increasingly being forced to compete with private schools due to vouchers, it would make sense for them to look carefully at the burdensome regulations that hamper their teaching, and look to eliminating much of the bureaucracies that exist. This would have the added side effect of putting the teachers and parents more in control of what goes on in the classroom.

The accountability of a private K-12 school with vouchers is simple.

Like a supermarket whose customers spend the vouchers called "Food Stamps," lousy product/service equals customers voting with their feet and going to competitor.

It's funny - but none of the liberal elites have ever suggested ending the voucher called "Food Stamps" just because government doesn't run the supermarkets itself.

Inside the NEA

It's funny - but none of the liberal elites have ever suggested ending the voucher called "Food Stamps" just because government doesn't run the supermarkets itself.

But you don't understand!!! Education is much more important for our children than food! I mean we can live without food for...mmmm...uh...Oh, nevermind!

Summer is right in stating that beauty salons are more heavily regulated than private schools, at least in Florida.

I never said they weren't.

Neither of the two of you seem to have read what I wrote there. What I said was: There is *no correlation*.

Attempts to make a correlations like that are distractions from the real issues. To wit: No matter how you slice the cake, our public educational system is a complete failure.

Attempts to make a correlations like that are distractions from the real issues.

The issue at hand is the degree of governmental oversight and regulation. The correlation is that both industries are subject to some degree of oversight, rightly or wrongly. You argue that beauty salons have no need of regulation, and I won't argue with you on that point, I'm more concerned with education.

My point is that while private schools are virtually free of governmental oversight, they have produced a better result than the heavily regulated public schools. If the burdensome regulations the public schools are forced to comply with could be greatly reduced, I believe this would help the schools improve, although it is only one step toward needed reform.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.