The Voucher Band-Aid

U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings says school vouchers are "an idea whose time has come." Ms. Spellings's high-level advocacy of a uniquely conservative concept is a victory for Milton Friedman, the late Nobel laureate, and a litany of conservative thinkers since who have taken what was once a heretical idea and brought it into the mainstream. While the argument in favor of empowering parents and students seems unassailable, it could also be said that voucher advocates have ignored the various unintended consequences, contradictions, and faulty assumptions inherent in the school choice debate.

To begin, parents exercise a great deal of choice in picking schools for their children. Some extend their work commute, while others pay more to live in a smaller house that is based in a district with good schools. Some put off the American dream of home ownership because they can only afford to rent in the school district they desire, while others take advantage of the lower prices offered in underperforming school districts and use the money saved to pay for private schools. The choice argument offers up the notion of "children stuck in failing schools" that is belied by the certain reality that many parents make living decisions based on good and bad schools.

That residential real estate ads frequently tout the school district is a strong signal that market forces are at work in the education process. San Marino, Calif., is a well-to-do suburb of Los Angeles that abuts similarly wealthy Pasadena. Homebuyers in the latter pay less for the lower quality education offered in the city's schools, while San Marino residents have traditionally paid more for their homes to access its better schools.

For parents in San Marino who've perhaps made various economic sacrifices to access San Marino schools, there exists a potential unintended consequence of vouchers. Should other students be allowed to "free-ride" on those sacrifices, and will there be a fall in San Marino property values if one of the suburbs' most attractive features is reduced by government fiat?

A realistic reply would be that not every parent can afford San Marino housing, and other well-to-do areas that possess higher performing public schools. The reply would be valid, but also somewhat contradictory. For years conservative education-reform advocates have made the point that money does not predict educational outcomes. Along those lines, the reality that there exist rich school districts should not matter in the education debate.

While voucher proponents don't say that all students are equal in terms of talent, explicit in their argument is that some kids go to schools that in fact teach, while others are stuck in schools that don't, and the latter are falling behind the students lucky enough to attend good schools. Vouchers would equalize that which isn't equal, as in the children in the poorly performing schools would have a way out if voucher programs were in place.

The above makes sense at first glance, but doesn't the choice about neighborhood and school district say a lot about the parent, and as such the child? Many of the areas surrounding downtown Los Angeles are instructive in that while they're now described as "inner city," they were once middle class areas with good schools. The middle-class families left what is now the inner city, and the schools are worse as a result.

In a 2005 Wall Street Journal editorial, Milton Friedman lamented the quality of New Orleans schools, and said they had been failing pre-Hurricane Katrina "for the same reason that schools are failing in other large cities, because the schools are owned and operated by the government." To Friedman and others, vouchers are the answer, but are some schools bad for lack of competition, or are they bad because parents of students of to whom education was of utmost importance left them? Don't values, and in particular those values that put a premium on education, trump the perceived lack of competition as regards schools, not to mention the existence of evil teachers' unions?

In a 2005 Wall Street Journal interview Thomas Sowell seemed to say as much. Mr. Sowell described the immigration to New York's Lower East Side of Russian Jews and southern Italians who arrived in the early part of the 20th century. Despite sitting side by side, the educational outcomes of both were different. Simply put, Jews valued education more and this showed up in results. Explaining the disparity, Mr. Sowell said the students "don't come into that school building with the same mindset. And they don't get the same results." Have modern schools failed for lack of vouchers and unyielding teachers' unions, or are they bad because the values of the parents and the children in those failing school districts are inimical to impressive educational outcomes?

Voucher advocates point to higher test scores among students who've accessed them, but isn't it also true that the first-movers on voucher programs are the students and parents most concerned about education, and who in aggressively pursuing the small opportunities available, are the most likely to achieve positive outcomes? How many of the students presently accessing the voucher programs wouldn't have eventually done what parents have been doing for some time, as in escaping bad schools on their own?

The evacuation of many New Orleans residents to Houston after Hurricane Katrina is perhaps a worthwhile example of what might occur if vouchers were made universal. According to USA Today, the evacuees "scored considerably worse on a statewide standardized exam than Texas children;" with only 58% of the third-grade evacuees passing the reading portion, versus 89% of all students, while 46% of evacuees passed the fifth grade reading test against 80% statewide. According to New Orleans West, a charter school created exclusively for evacuees, Principal Gary Robichaux, a "lot of [New Orleans] schools were chaotic."

If vouchers were a universal right, would many private schools actively recruit and admit students from "chaotic" school districts? Given the competition that exists to attend many private schools in a largely voucher-free environment, affirmative assumptions to this question seem a bit far-fetched.

Moving to better performing public schools, has the parental outcry that would result from the influx of unruly students been considered? Assuming parental response were somehow sanguine, would good public schools actually improve as a result of this influx?

It's once again easy to blame educational failures on unions and schools that don't teach, but isn't there some self-selection among quality teachers occurring too? Indeed, what quality teacher would want to pursue teaching at schools populated by unruly and disinterested students, not to mention the parents who would allow their children to approach education in such a way?

Voucher advocacy also arguably contradicts deeply held conservative views about personal responsibility. Voucher proponents rarely blame the students or their parents for the failure of schools, but instead blame teachers' unions and their teachers for students that can't read and write. It could be argued that a voucher is yet another handout; this one absolving students of any responsibility for their poor educational outcomes.

In his 1981 classic, "Wealth and Poverty," George Gilder wrote, "Decent housing is an effect of middle-class values, not a cause." Mr. Gilder's point seemingly applies to schools too. Good schools are a reflection of the good values of parents and students who put a premium on education. Without them, vouchers likely will be another government handout, bringing with them all the negatives and unintended consequences that other handouts have traditionally brought.

Mr. Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets, and a senior economist with H.C. Wainwright Economics. He can be reached at [email protected]