Solution 1: The School Choice

This solution to schooling problem is associated mostly with the Republicans, although not exclusively. Many Democrats also believe in school choice, although they tend to limit choice to the realm of public and semi-public (charter) schools. Many Republicans would like to extend school choice to private schools, and this more radical version of school choice is known as school vouchers. The idea belongs to free market economist Milton Friedman; it was pushed by every Republican administration since Reagan, but so far has not been widely implemented in the United States.

 

The idea is very simple: choice will create competition among schools, and competition will lower costs and improve quality of education for all. This works in other industries, why should it not work in education? The objections against school choice can be reduced to two major ones: (1) It breaches the wall separating church and state, because public funds can be used for religious education, and (2) it takes resources away from struggling public schools; instead of fixing public schools, school choice would, in effect, destroy the system of public education.

 

The first objection does not seem to be well grounded. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cleveland’s voucher program. Besides, many democratic countries (Ireland, The Netherlands, Sweden) have implemented voucher systems without becoming theocracies. Australia and Canada have used public funds for their Catholic systems for decades, and those two countries have not become less democratic.

 

The second objection is more difficult to dismiss. Indeed, it is likely that school choice, if widely implemented, may disproportionally benefit upper and middle class children. Lower class and minority children may find themselves trapped in failing schools with even fewer resources. Middle class children will flee to charter and private schools, taking public funding with them. There is an additional concern: for any competition to work, consumers must desire better services. With K-12 schooling, it may or may not be the case. If you are planning to send your children to college, good schooling makes a lot of economic sense. However, if your kids do not have a good chance of attending college, or are not interested in doing so, you may opt for easier, less challenging schools. This has nothing to do with cultural attitudes, or any ethical deficiencies. Poor people are rational economic agents, and realize that high school diploma can be somewhat useful, but knowledge gained in high school is not really useful. If that is the case, competition will not work as intended. This is not a small point, and casts much doubt on the entire school choice solution.

 

The public has a strong interest in subsidizing public education. To remain competitive and democratic, we need strong universal elementary and secondary education. The taxpayers should fund K-12 education, but there is no reason for governments to own and operate schools other than ensuring equal access and quality for all students. I am convinced this could also be done my directly paying to families if their children demonstrate achievement (passing tests and exams). And then, if they need help with learning, the family will decide what kind of help at what expense their children need to learn: a school, a tutor, or an on-line learning community.