Tak Maga
Ward
English 10
March 12, 2018
School Vouchers: Hurting America’s Education System
An Analysis of Research Reports and Studies
This year, billions of dollars (CMD) have been spent on a policy that hurts America’s students. This statistic referrers to school vouchers, a topic of furious debate among the nation’s educators, researchers, and politicians. The current presidential administration, under Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, has aggressively pursued a school choice policy. DeVos is a vocal advocate of school voucher programs throughout the country. These plans would entail a gradual privatization of the public school system. Prospective students would receive a voucher that would allow them to pay for a participating private school. The government would then pay the private school the for the cost of that student. In theory, the extra cost of the vouchers would be offset by the lower number of students in public schools. The controversy that now exists is a result of reports that have been ongoing for some time. The reports find that voucher programs do not provide the results that were promised by advocates of school choice. While proponents of school vouchers support the theory that vouchers improve education, voucher programs must be discontinued. This action is necessary to improve the education of America’s students.
Clearly, the heart of the issue surrounding school vouchers is the question of whether the programs have hurt education. With new research being generated, it is now possible to definitively answer the question. School choice has hurt America’s education system and the students that it serves. The basis for school choice is that private schools provide a better education, and that by allowing more students to attend the schools, students will be helped. Using this logic, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Louisiana, Washington D.C., Florida, and New York are among the systems that have adapted a school choice system. The results have not been as rosy as were promised. Looking at the Milwaukee and Cleveland systems, it is clear what the actual effects are. In Wisconsin, according to an analysis provided by the National Educators Association, student achievement was “not significantly different for voucher students than for other… Milwaukee public school students.” (Pons). In Cleveland, it was found that “students attending the [new]... private schools were achieving at significantly lower levels… than their public school… peers.” (Pons). From this, the illusion of private school infallibility has been dispelled. The students that the programs were designed to help have been failed. Their scores have gone down, when compared to the public schools which they left. The Economic Policy Institute recently released a national report aggregating multiple studies of several voucher programs. Their results were striking. The institute's “research does not show that vouchers significantly improve student achievement.” (Carnoy). From Florida to Milwaukee, D.C., and other places across the country, investments have been made in a policy that is not shown to help the students. The increasing quality of public schools in the United States negates most of the arguments proposed by school choice advocates. Eliminating school voucher programs is an educational imperative.
In spite of the overwhelming evidence against school voucher programs, proponents of school choice have attempted to maintain their stance on other grounds. One argument presented argues on behalf of America’s low-income students. A large amount of voucher programs are aimed at allowing low-income students to attend private schools, therefore giving them the same opportunities as their higher-income peers. This logic, of attempting to increase equity in America, is fatally flawed. Seperate from evidence provided earlier, which proved that school choice decreased student performance, it is also possible to see that lower income students are even more vulnerable. The American Economic Association published a report earlier this year about the efficacy of the Louisiana Scholarship program. This program offered “disadvantaged” students the opportunity to attend private schools in the area. In a case that seemed to be a referendum on the inequality issue, the answer was a resounding no. Participating in the program would lower “math scores by 0.4 standard deviations and also reduces achievement in reading, science, and social studies.” (Abdulkadiroglu et. al.) After placing their trust in the school choice system, students were let down, with lower scores and a ruined education. This attempt to address inequality only aggravated the problem, with those who participated being placed back on the low rungs of the societal ladder. If one were to base conclusions on other means, there are other factors to consider. The Brookings Institution has released their analysis on the Louisiana voucher program as well. They analyzed how school-lunch eligible (lower income) students in the states mirrored the general increase in public school test scores. What this means is that it is likely that “Louisiana… public schools have surpassed their private schools (for low income students)… [because] voucher programs are based on the premise that students from low-income families are receiving a voucher will have access to [better] private schools… the equity rationale for vouchers is in doubt.” (Dynarski). This clearly addresses the argument that vouchers increase equity. Low income students in public are likely achieving higher scores than their private school counterparts. Therefore, school voucher programs do not decrease inequality in America’s education system.
Indeed, school vouchers accomplish little at a high price. On paper, administering school vouchers should not greatly affect the amount of money a school spends. The money given for tuition and other expenses is balanced out by the money that is saved not educating that student at a public school. However, that simplistic view cannot be adapted into a usable model. The Economic Policy Center’s report highlights that “Voucher programs have hidden costs…” (Carnoy). They found that costs can be higher because, among other factors, many private schools “free ride the bigger teacher labor market” (Carnoy), and administration costs would increase. The second factor is especially important. Many teachers start in private schools at a lower pay, as explained in the report. The incentive of the public system’s salary structure and tenure system effectively “subsidizes” the lower costs of teachers in private schools. In an increasing private marketplace, the teacher pipeline would shrink, increasing costs. This would compound with administrative costs, which “could raise public educational costs by 25% or more” (Levin and Driver). These costs could include anything from record keeping to parent information distribution. The increasing cost of administrative work and teacher shortages could have harmful effect on the education system. This is already being seen in several areas where vouchers were put into place. The National Educators Association looked at several of them. They found that in Milwaukee, a net loss of 22 million dollars was caused by its voucher program. In Cleveland, 10 million dollars of needed money was spent on vouchers. 4.8 million dollars were lost in a San Antonio school district after large amounts of students left their private schools to return to public ones. An estimated 3 billion yearly of a proposed California plan would have paid for students “who already attended private schools to continue, regardless of income” (Pons). The massive deficits that would be incurred by continuing to utilize school choice agendas are unacceptable. It is necessary to end such programs based on the debilitating costs that are needed.
Clearly then, there are more effective methods in which to better America’s education system. The focus should be on spending funds on improving the current systems, rather on diverting necessary money to private schools. As the Economic Policy Institute reports, supporting “privatization detract[s] from more proven methods of improving student learning” (Carnoy). The analysis shows how more things can be done to better public schools. Some items mentioned in the report include investing in teacher training, higher standards in subject areas, and health and nutrition programs. While not filled with glory, these basic policies would have a much greater positive impact than would be possible with a school voucher system. The National Educators Association corroborates this stance. In list of public school indicators of public school improvement, “competition through vouchers [is absent]... ” (Pons). More experienced teachers, a more stable school, higher test scores, and higher college admittance rates all point to the fact that there are better ways to help the students. It is unwise and improbable to try and maintain a school choice system. Money can be better invested in public schools to help the most pupils.
In fact, there is a serious chance that the money spent on school vouchers does not get to the student in the first place. The lack of accountability, and the waste, corruption, and money hungry practices that have been found show the dangers of school choice. Frequently, oversight of private and charter schools has been contracted to private companies. These companies do not have sufficient resources nor motivation to effectively police the schools under their jurisdiction. After a year long investigation, the Center for Media and Democracy published a report on the use of government funds for school choice programs. The center’s audit-like approach concluded that there was an “epidemic of fraud, waste, and mismanagement that would not be tolerated in public schools.” (CMD). Its findings include the fact that officials don’t know where money is going to, and the presence of “ghost schools”. These schools were given funds, but never opened or closed soon after doing so. In Michigan, 3.7 million was awarded to 25 schools that never opened its doors. California doled out 4.7 million for schools that soon closed. Millions of dollars, the exact amount unknown, has vanished into thin air. The oversight that exists or that is possible to exist is not sufficient. Throughout the sector, there is evidence of a lack of accountability that makes school choice an unpopular candidate. The NEA reported on such findings (Pons). It is frequent to find districtrics that spent 1.4 million on taxis for students (half a million dollars worth were for absent students), as was found in Cleveland. In Milwaukee, an Institute for Holistic Learning opened, where “children could stay at home and not be marked absent, because ‘technically they were still present’” (Pons). Other schools had teachers that were convicted for first degree murder (Ohio), or paid “teachers” $10.50 an hour (Florida). The fact that schools and policies, like the ones presented, were able to flourish is extremely disturbing. The mismanagement that has been found in the school choice plans is, simply put, unacceptable.
Thus, it follows from all of this insurmountable evidence that school voucher programs should be abolished. It has been proven that these school voucher programs hurt education, do not increase equity, incur high deficits, use money that could be better spent elsewhere, and have little to no accountability. However, first and foremost, they do not serve the student. The student, who is the focus of the entire argument, does not benefit. The student, who has placed their trust in the American education system, has been let down. The pupil has been mislead, and has been convinced of the efficacy of a program that produces no results for the kids that it serves. It is now necessary to right the ship, and focus the attention and resources of the national community into a system that will serve all who live here for generations to come.
Works Cited
Dynarski, Mark. “On negative effects of vouchers.” Brookings, Brookings, 12 July 2017,
www.brookings.edu/research/on-negative-effects-of-vouchers/.
Pons, Michael. “School Vouchers: The Emerging Track Record.” NEA, National Education
Association, Apr. 2002, www.nea.org/home/16970.htm.
The Impact of School Vouchers on Student Achievement: A Research Update. Keystone Research
Center, www.keystoneresearch.org/sites/keystoneresearch.org/files/EITC-Appendix.pdf
Carnoy, Martin. “School vouchers are not a proven strategy for improving student achievement:
Studies of U.S. and international voucher programs show that the risks to school systems outweigh insignificant gains in test scores and limited gains in graduation rates.” Economic Policy Institute, Economic Policy Institute, 28 Feb. 2017, www.epi.org/publication/school-vouchers-are-not-a-proven-strategy-for-improving-student-achievement/.
Waddington, Joseph, and Mark Berends. “Impact of the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program:
Achievement Effects for Students in Upper Elementary and Middle School.” Notre Dame's Center for Research on Educational Opportunity, CREO, 2015, creo.nd.edu/images/people/Waddington__Berends_Indiana_Voucher_Impacts_06.24.17.pdf.
Abdulkadiroğlu, Atila, et al. “Free to Choose: Can School Choice Reduce Student
Achievement?” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Jan. 2018, www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fapp.20160634.
“Charter School Black Hole: CMD Special Investigation Reveals Huge Info Gap on Charter
Spending.” PR Watch, Center for Media and Democracy, 22 June 2016, www.prwatch.org/charter-school-black-hole.
Levin, Henry M, and Cyrus E Driver. “Estimating the Costs of an Educational Voucher System.”
National Center for Education Statistics, Selected Papers in School Finance 1994, 1994, nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/96068ece.asp.
Ward
English 10
March 12, 2018
School Vouchers: Hurting America’s Education System
An Analysis of Research Reports and Studies
This year, billions of dollars (CMD) have been spent on a policy that hurts America’s students. This statistic referrers to school vouchers, a topic of furious debate among the nation’s educators, researchers, and politicians. The current presidential administration, under Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, has aggressively pursued a school choice policy. DeVos is a vocal advocate of school voucher programs throughout the country. These plans would entail a gradual privatization of the public school system. Prospective students would receive a voucher that would allow them to pay for a participating private school. The government would then pay the private school the for the cost of that student. In theory, the extra cost of the vouchers would be offset by the lower number of students in public schools. The controversy that now exists is a result of reports that have been ongoing for some time. The reports find that voucher programs do not provide the results that were promised by advocates of school choice. While proponents of school vouchers support the theory that vouchers improve education, voucher programs must be discontinued. This action is necessary to improve the education of America’s students.
Clearly, the heart of the issue surrounding school vouchers is the question of whether the programs have hurt education. With new research being generated, it is now possible to definitively answer the question. School choice has hurt America’s education system and the students that it serves. The basis for school choice is that private schools provide a better education, and that by allowing more students to attend the schools, students will be helped. Using this logic, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Louisiana, Washington D.C., Florida, and New York are among the systems that have adapted a school choice system. The results have not been as rosy as were promised. Looking at the Milwaukee and Cleveland systems, it is clear what the actual effects are. In Wisconsin, according to an analysis provided by the National Educators Association, student achievement was “not significantly different for voucher students than for other… Milwaukee public school students.” (Pons). In Cleveland, it was found that “students attending the [new]... private schools were achieving at significantly lower levels… than their public school… peers.” (Pons). From this, the illusion of private school infallibility has been dispelled. The students that the programs were designed to help have been failed. Their scores have gone down, when compared to the public schools which they left. The Economic Policy Institute recently released a national report aggregating multiple studies of several voucher programs. Their results were striking. The institute's “research does not show that vouchers significantly improve student achievement.” (Carnoy). From Florida to Milwaukee, D.C., and other places across the country, investments have been made in a policy that is not shown to help the students. The increasing quality of public schools in the United States negates most of the arguments proposed by school choice advocates. Eliminating school voucher programs is an educational imperative.
In spite of the overwhelming evidence against school voucher programs, proponents of school choice have attempted to maintain their stance on other grounds. One argument presented argues on behalf of America’s low-income students. A large amount of voucher programs are aimed at allowing low-income students to attend private schools, therefore giving them the same opportunities as their higher-income peers. This logic, of attempting to increase equity in America, is fatally flawed. Seperate from evidence provided earlier, which proved that school choice decreased student performance, it is also possible to see that lower income students are even more vulnerable. The American Economic Association published a report earlier this year about the efficacy of the Louisiana Scholarship program. This program offered “disadvantaged” students the opportunity to attend private schools in the area. In a case that seemed to be a referendum on the inequality issue, the answer was a resounding no. Participating in the program would lower “math scores by 0.4 standard deviations and also reduces achievement in reading, science, and social studies.” (Abdulkadiroglu et. al.) After placing their trust in the school choice system, students were let down, with lower scores and a ruined education. This attempt to address inequality only aggravated the problem, with those who participated being placed back on the low rungs of the societal ladder. If one were to base conclusions on other means, there are other factors to consider. The Brookings Institution has released their analysis on the Louisiana voucher program as well. They analyzed how school-lunch eligible (lower income) students in the states mirrored the general increase in public school test scores. What this means is that it is likely that “Louisiana… public schools have surpassed their private schools (for low income students)… [because] voucher programs are based on the premise that students from low-income families are receiving a voucher will have access to [better] private schools… the equity rationale for vouchers is in doubt.” (Dynarski). This clearly addresses the argument that vouchers increase equity. Low income students in public are likely achieving higher scores than their private school counterparts. Therefore, school voucher programs do not decrease inequality in America’s education system.
Indeed, school vouchers accomplish little at a high price. On paper, administering school vouchers should not greatly affect the amount of money a school spends. The money given for tuition and other expenses is balanced out by the money that is saved not educating that student at a public school. However, that simplistic view cannot be adapted into a usable model. The Economic Policy Center’s report highlights that “Voucher programs have hidden costs…” (Carnoy). They found that costs can be higher because, among other factors, many private schools “free ride the bigger teacher labor market” (Carnoy), and administration costs would increase. The second factor is especially important. Many teachers start in private schools at a lower pay, as explained in the report. The incentive of the public system’s salary structure and tenure system effectively “subsidizes” the lower costs of teachers in private schools. In an increasing private marketplace, the teacher pipeline would shrink, increasing costs. This would compound with administrative costs, which “could raise public educational costs by 25% or more” (Levin and Driver). These costs could include anything from record keeping to parent information distribution. The increasing cost of administrative work and teacher shortages could have harmful effect on the education system. This is already being seen in several areas where vouchers were put into place. The National Educators Association looked at several of them. They found that in Milwaukee, a net loss of 22 million dollars was caused by its voucher program. In Cleveland, 10 million dollars of needed money was spent on vouchers. 4.8 million dollars were lost in a San Antonio school district after large amounts of students left their private schools to return to public ones. An estimated 3 billion yearly of a proposed California plan would have paid for students “who already attended private schools to continue, regardless of income” (Pons). The massive deficits that would be incurred by continuing to utilize school choice agendas are unacceptable. It is necessary to end such programs based on the debilitating costs that are needed.
Clearly then, there are more effective methods in which to better America’s education system. The focus should be on spending funds on improving the current systems, rather on diverting necessary money to private schools. As the Economic Policy Institute reports, supporting “privatization detract[s] from more proven methods of improving student learning” (Carnoy). The analysis shows how more things can be done to better public schools. Some items mentioned in the report include investing in teacher training, higher standards in subject areas, and health and nutrition programs. While not filled with glory, these basic policies would have a much greater positive impact than would be possible with a school voucher system. The National Educators Association corroborates this stance. In list of public school indicators of public school improvement, “competition through vouchers [is absent]... ” (Pons). More experienced teachers, a more stable school, higher test scores, and higher college admittance rates all point to the fact that there are better ways to help the students. It is unwise and improbable to try and maintain a school choice system. Money can be better invested in public schools to help the most pupils.
In fact, there is a serious chance that the money spent on school vouchers does not get to the student in the first place. The lack of accountability, and the waste, corruption, and money hungry practices that have been found show the dangers of school choice. Frequently, oversight of private and charter schools has been contracted to private companies. These companies do not have sufficient resources nor motivation to effectively police the schools under their jurisdiction. After a year long investigation, the Center for Media and Democracy published a report on the use of government funds for school choice programs. The center’s audit-like approach concluded that there was an “epidemic of fraud, waste, and mismanagement that would not be tolerated in public schools.” (CMD). Its findings include the fact that officials don’t know where money is going to, and the presence of “ghost schools”. These schools were given funds, but never opened or closed soon after doing so. In Michigan, 3.7 million was awarded to 25 schools that never opened its doors. California doled out 4.7 million for schools that soon closed. Millions of dollars, the exact amount unknown, has vanished into thin air. The oversight that exists or that is possible to exist is not sufficient. Throughout the sector, there is evidence of a lack of accountability that makes school choice an unpopular candidate. The NEA reported on such findings (Pons). It is frequent to find districtrics that spent 1.4 million on taxis for students (half a million dollars worth were for absent students), as was found in Cleveland. In Milwaukee, an Institute for Holistic Learning opened, where “children could stay at home and not be marked absent, because ‘technically they were still present’” (Pons). Other schools had teachers that were convicted for first degree murder (Ohio), or paid “teachers” $10.50 an hour (Florida). The fact that schools and policies, like the ones presented, were able to flourish is extremely disturbing. The mismanagement that has been found in the school choice plans is, simply put, unacceptable.
Thus, it follows from all of this insurmountable evidence that school voucher programs should be abolished. It has been proven that these school voucher programs hurt education, do not increase equity, incur high deficits, use money that could be better spent elsewhere, and have little to no accountability. However, first and foremost, they do not serve the student. The student, who is the focus of the entire argument, does not benefit. The student, who has placed their trust in the American education system, has been let down. The pupil has been mislead, and has been convinced of the efficacy of a program that produces no results for the kids that it serves. It is now necessary to right the ship, and focus the attention and resources of the national community into a system that will serve all who live here for generations to come.
Works Cited
Dynarski, Mark. “On negative effects of vouchers.” Brookings, Brookings, 12 July 2017,
www.brookings.edu/research/on-negative-effects-of-vouchers/.
Pons, Michael. “School Vouchers: The Emerging Track Record.” NEA, National Education
Association, Apr. 2002, www.nea.org/home/16970.htm.
The Impact of School Vouchers on Student Achievement: A Research Update. Keystone Research
Center, www.keystoneresearch.org/sites/keystoneresearch.org/files/EITC-Appendix.pdf
Carnoy, Martin. “School vouchers are not a proven strategy for improving student achievement:
Studies of U.S. and international voucher programs show that the risks to school systems outweigh insignificant gains in test scores and limited gains in graduation rates.” Economic Policy Institute, Economic Policy Institute, 28 Feb. 2017, www.epi.org/publication/school-vouchers-are-not-a-proven-strategy-for-improving-student-achievement/.
Waddington, Joseph, and Mark Berends. “Impact of the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program:
Achievement Effects for Students in Upper Elementary and Middle School.” Notre Dame's Center for Research on Educational Opportunity, CREO, 2015, creo.nd.edu/images/people/Waddington__Berends_Indiana_Voucher_Impacts_06.24.17.pdf.
Abdulkadiroğlu, Atila, et al. “Free to Choose: Can School Choice Reduce Student
Achievement?” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Jan. 2018, www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fapp.20160634.
“Charter School Black Hole: CMD Special Investigation Reveals Huge Info Gap on Charter
Spending.” PR Watch, Center for Media and Democracy, 22 June 2016, www.prwatch.org/charter-school-black-hole.
Levin, Henry M, and Cyrus E Driver. “Estimating the Costs of an Educational Voucher System.”
National Center for Education Statistics, Selected Papers in School Finance 1994, 1994, nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/96068ece.asp.