Once again National School Choice Week has sprung upon us and we find ourselves unprepared. But that is understandable since few of us have heard of it, and not all who have are interested. But should we be? Government officials, school administrators, teachers, concerned parents—they all, it seems, lament the quality of education that our younger generations are receiving. So what are the solutions, and do they have anything to do with school choice? Many believe so.
The standard solution offered, and presently being advocated by most local, state, and national public officials, including President Obama, is greater “investment” in our schools (i.e., government spending financed by taxes). However, the historical record tells the tale that this well worn approach has contributed much to raising taxes but little or nothing to elevating educational attainment. According to the Cato Institute, from 1970 to 2006, national K through 12 education spending nearly tripled, while test scores among high school 17-year-olds remained virtually unchanged. Maybe more spending is not always the best solution. Maybe we ought to consider reasonable, cost saving alternatives.
As for the cost of elementary education, the Cato Institute has identified that there has been widespread misrepresentation by our public school administrators. In each of the eighteen major school districts across the country that were evaluated, school officials publicly reported the cost per student to be less than the actual school district expenses—often far less. The true figures were reduced simply via the exclusion of important categories of tax payer financed expenditures. Costs such as interest payments, paid retirement benefits, even athletics, were ignored. As for Los Angeles County
There are numerous and varied motivations behind the pervasive misrepresentations by public officials about the cost of educating our youth--many of which are obvious, and many not so. As for school choice alternatives, less fraud among self-serving public servants and lower taxes are but two of the potential advantages.
While the quality of education that private schools provide is a topic of debate, few would argue that it is below that of public schools. Moreover, a school choice voucher for a good deal less than the typical cost of a public school education, say $8,000 (most likely even less), would enable students in most states to attend their choice of a number of private schools—both religious and secular. And this would save considerable tax payer dollars. Even those without children ought to applaud this result.
Presently, a family that ops for school choice must pay a harsh “choice penalty.” Although their student will impart no cost burden to the local school district (and their absence will contribute to smaller class sizes), the family must pay their “fair share” no matter. There is no opting out, for any reason (except for some disadvantaged). And, of course, the family must foot the entire bill for their child’s alternative education.
Finally, a point most often considered irrelevant by school administrators and other public officials, school choice enhances personal freedom. Why, if it is reasonably possible and presents no harm to their neighbor, should any family not be allowed a choice as to how their child is educated--particularly if that choice results in a savings to other tax payers? More than serious consideration, does not school choice merit a real world audition?
