In September, The New York Times published 30 Ideas for Fixing U.S. Schools, Ranked by Experts. I was among the 37 experts surveyed about the effectiveness and cost of various reforms. In an earlier post I discussed two ideas where I agree with the consensus. Here I’ll talk about one where I disagree: the value of school vouchers.
Vouchers allow public education funding to follow students to private schools. The key distinction from our current system is not who pays—the government funds education either way—but who provides the service. Must it be a government-run school, or can it be a private provider?
The panel ranked vouchers among the least effective and most expensive ideas. I see things differently.
Why? I believe one reason is that we are imagining different policies. Are we considering a small program with limited eligibility and few participating schools, or a mature system with a thick competitive market? Would schools be required to administer tests and report results so families could assess academic quality?
I envisioned a mature system with a robust private-school market and modest testing requirements. I believe such a system could lower costs, with modest improvements in student outcomes.
On the cost side, other experts may have been thinking of research showing that many voucher recipients would have attended private schools anyway. These students add to government spending without generating any savings. But this is unsurprising in smaller programs. Families already using private schools can immediately benefit from a new subsidy, while public-school families have relatively few new options. However, as programs expand, new schools can enter and existing schools can grow, giving more public-school families meaningful choices. Over time, I would expect a growing share of voucher recipients to come from public schools, creating opportunities for substantial cost savings.
In terms of improving academic outcomes, I believe vouchers can help, but they are no panacea. Families often prioritize other factors (e.g., safety, religion, sports) over academics, limiting potential academic gains. Moreover, even families who value achievement may struggle to identify effective schools. This is why I favor testing requirements, which can give parents information about academics, despite being generally wary of overregulation by the government.
Research based on short-term experiments and small-scale voucher programs cannot capture the full benefits of competition. This research can tell us how existing programs perform, but not what an established, competitive education market could achieve. Competition among private providers has improved quality and lowered costs throughout the economy. Why should education be different?
