Learn more about the book here: www.cato.org/books/fighting-freedom-learn

Susan Pendergrass speaks with James Shuls, fellow at the Show-Me Institute and head of the Education Liberty Branch at Florida State University, and Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute about their new book, Fighting for the Freedom to Learn: Examining America’s Centuries-Old School Choice Movement. They discuss how the fight for educational freedom long predates modern debates over public schooling, why early advocates viewed schooling as a family and community responsibility, and how today’s school choice expansion connects to America’s founding principles. The conversation covers the history of the common school movement, the roots of residential school assignment, and why educational freedom has always been central to the American story, and more.

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction

02:33 The Genesis of ‘Fighting for the Freedom to Learn’
05:41 Historical Perspectives on School Choice
08:04 The Evolution of Common Schools and Their Impact
10:59 The Role of Religion in Early Education
14:01 The Shift Towards Standardization in Education
16:43 The Need for School Choice in Disadvantaged Areas
19:29 The Historical Context of Property Taxes and School Assignment
22:17 The Recent Surge in School Choice Movements

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Certainly looking forward to this conversation with two very, very smart people: Dr. Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute and Dr. James Shuls of Florida State University. James, can you first tell us about this new center that you are in charge of at Florida State University? I think it’s innovative and really cool, and I’d like to hear a little bit more about it before we talk about your book.

James Shuls (00:21)
Absolutely. So I’m with the Institute for Governance and Civics, and it was created by the legislature a couple years ago. And while I would like to take credit and say I’m in charge of it, as you sort of said there, Susan, I’m not in charge of the Institute, but I’m one of the branch heads. So the IGC, as we call it, has four branches. We focus on economic liberty, constitutional liberty, conscience liberty, and education liberty. I’m the head of the education liberty branch.
And so part of what we’re doing is outreach to K–12 schools, helping to focus on civics instruction, improving knowledge and preparation for teachers as it relates to civics and governance and those sorts of things. At the same time, we’re writing about issues of educational liberty from a school choice perspective, which is exactly the topic we’re talking about today.

Susan Pendergrass (01:12)
Yeah, so you guys have a book that you just co-edited, Fighting for the Freedom to Learn: Examining America’s Centuries-Old School Choice Movement. How did you come up with this idea, and why did you decide to put this book together?

Neal McCluskey (01:27)
Sure, I’ll go with that. The idea behind the book stems from just about everything I ever do, which is I got angry about something, and I was like, well, somebody ought to do something about this. If you work in school choice advocacy for more than a day or so, you’ll quickly hear that school choice started by people trying to avoid desegregation in the South. And that’s always given as the origin. And even if somebody wants to say, well, you know, Milton Friedman wrote this essay in 1955—and he really wrote it before 1955—we know that that was really just taking advantage, at the very least, of this backlash against desegregation.
And it just drives me nuts. There is a very long, rich history of the idea and practice of school choice. So I thought, you know, somebody ought to do a book on that, and we can hit, sort of semi-chronologically, all the different eras in which this happened and the ebbs and flows. The Cato Institute and the Center for Educational Freedom, which I direct, also had something called the School Choice Timeline—this interactive online timeline that I put together also because I was angry. In particular, I wrote a chapter about the gap where not much was going on in school choice, and I wanted to explain the gap.
But we have lots of chapters—one on how progressives were really into school choice for a while, and how schooling worked before the common-schooling movement, and all sorts of stuff like that. The genesis was aggravation on my part, at least, about always hearing this narrative that school choice stems from efforts to avoid desegregation. And then I said, you know, James Shuls—there’s a guy who probably is angry a lot, too. Maybe he’d like to get in on this.

James Shuls (03:17)
Yeah, that’s right. Susan, I’ve been on the podcast before talking about some of my scholarship related to Virgil Blum. He was a real strong school choice advocate starting in the ’50s, did a ton of work, and gets absolutely no credit. I was angry that Friedman gets all the credit—he wrote this paper in 1955, yada, yada, yada—and then in the 1990s we get school choice programs. It’s like, well, a lot happened in that yada, yada, yada period that we’re not covering.
I had been writing about that when Neal came along with the idea to do the book. Part of what we’re doing as we frame this is saying: looking at school choice today through the current lens we have is the wrong way to do it. We think of school choice today as opting out of the public school system—but that only works to frame it that way if there is a public school system. Before common schools were around, people were still advocating for their kids, still trying to get schools created. So there was lots of stuff that wouldn’t fit the framework we have today.
What we’re saying in this book is these impulses for educational freedom have always existed, and we’re essentially tracing them from colonial times to today.

Neal McCluskey (04:36)
James’s stuff on Blum was also a major reason I thought, here’s a guy who could really contribute to this. I just stumbled on Blum in large part because of what James wrote. I was like, why do people not know about this guy?

Susan Pendergrass (04:41)
We did a whole podcast on it. I’ll tell you what makes me mad is that in the last month or two, tops, there have been articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post talking about low-income families—both in Florida and Arizona—generally Black and brown parents, who are participating in this right-wing conservative movement to kill the public school system because they think they deserve to be able to choose where their kid goes to school.
Even locally in political groups, people say, well, that’s a MAGA person, which means they support charter schools. When those two things get put into a sentence, it really makes my blood boil because I’ve been working in this space a long time. As we’re going to find out more, school choice is not a new thing at all. The latest iteration of it is not a MAGA thing or five years old or a COVID thing. Since at least 1990—at least 35 years—parents and activists like Howard Fuller were saying, hey, this isn’t right. We’re literally assigning kids to the worst schools and not letting them out. We ought to let them out.
Somehow this has become the Republican agenda to kill teacher unions and break up the public school system. Nothing could be further from the truth. That makes me mad. That’s why I’m really glad you guys put this book together. Let’s go back—not to the very beginning of the country—but pre–industrial revolution, pre–John Dewey, before standardized schools, attendance zones, and district lines. What did it look like, say 150 years ago? Did parents decide where their kids went to school, or did you have to go to a certain school because that was the one you helped pay to create? How did it work back in the day?

James Shuls (06:50)
I’ll jump in here because I’m awfully angry about this. Before common schools, there was a wide mixture of different types of schools. You had dame schools, private schools, public schools, and publicly funded private schools.
What you get in Charles Glenn’s chapter, “Emergence of the Common School Ideology,” is an understanding of the movement towards common schools. The impetus behind them was really to separate schooling from the family and the community and to use schools for social change. That’s the difference that comes in here—schooling would be used for social change.

Susan Pendergrass (07:29)
Mm-hmm.

James Shuls (07:35)
—to create and form Americans. Some people look at that and say it’s a good thing, but there are certainly negative side effects as well when you separate the impact of community and families. An interesting element that comes out in this book is that the common school ideology and the public school system that has come in its wake was created to form a certain kind of American citizen.
Then we get into Neal’s chapter, where Neal talks about the sort of gap where things aren’t happening. It’s because these systems were under attack. You see a reemergence in the 1950s—not just because of Brown and segregation—but because you start to have a return to some of these values and a return to trying to connect schooling and the family and the church.
When you look at school choice with this longer arc, rather than looking at the ’50s as your starting point, you see the various impulses that were leading pre–common schools, how common schools helped to squash some of those things, and how we’re starting to come back to a decentralized and pluralistic system.

Susan Pendergrass (08:50)
Certainly the common schools—also called public schools before 1900—were Protestant. They absolutely taught religion. They didn’t stop teaching religion until the Catholics started showing up. Then it was, yeah, maybe we get religion out of schools, right? Because we don’t want Catholicism in a public school. Public schools taught Protestantism; they just didn’t want to teach Catholicism. People think there’s always been separation—no religion in public schools—and that’s not true.

James Shuls (09:16)
That’s a key point in Matthew Lee’s chapter: Catholics turned to private schools. He would say it’s not necessarily school choice because the Catholics were saying you had to go to the Catholic schools—so no choice among Catholic schools. Nevertheless, the Catholic schools came up because the public schools were Protestant. Protestants went in—though not all in. There were some segments, which Neal could talk about, with the Lutherans.
By and large, Protestants supported the common school movement. Then there was a movement to secularize public schools. Again, that’s part of what happens in the 1950s with the return of Protestants starting to support school choice—because their capture of the public school system had been weakened and there were no longer Protestant schools.

Neal McCluskey (10:10)
Just as a pitch for the book: there’s so much good history in here that we won’t be able to talk about. You definitely want to get the book. It’s worth noting that for much of our early history—colonial period, early republican period, even into the common-schooling period—there wasn’t a separation people would recognize if you say, well, this is a public school and this is a private school. There were schools. There was education.
Government was sometimes involved in assisting private schools. Going back to British traditions, someone would provide—usually from the proceeds of owning land—funds to help maintain a school. In America, land was the one thing in superabundance, so that wasn’t as profitable. Governments would sometimes say, look, you’re running a school here; we’ll give you a little money to do it. There was often cooperation between government and schools.
The first voucher program that we’ve at least been able to catalog was in 1802 in Pennsylvania—specifically in Philadelphia. So this is not new. Go back more than two centuries and you had people like Paine and John Stuart Mill talking about helping people to consume education by funding parents so they can choose, not by funding schools.
Even as we have common schools, they were extremely localized. Think of the one-room schoolhouse—it was also the meeting house and often the church—serving pretty homogeneous communities. Even within what eventually became common schooling, there was a lot of differentiation where people could get the schooling they wanted. It’s only as progressives consolidate control that we move far away from that community-level, very small schooling.

Susan Pendergrass (12:13)
I thought it was so odd that Maine and Vermont have had town tuitioning of high schools for a couple hundred years. Where the town didn’t want to build a high school, they just paid tuition for their high school students to go to a different school the student picked. In some cases it’s a boarding school, even overseas. They were challenged in the Supreme Court within the last couple of years, even though those programs have existed for hundreds of years.
All of a sudden, people who don’t like the voucher idea went after Maine for town tuitioning, even though that program has been in place for so long.

James Shuls (12:53)
That radical right-wing bastion in Maine.

Susan Pendergrass (12:55)
—decided at a town meeting to do it. I think as you get into the earlier or middle part of the last century, you start building up this industrial education complex: we’re going to be the great equalizer; everyone’s going to have the same kind of school; 20 kids and a chalkboard and teacher; separate kids by age, not ability; common standards; and we’re going to be in charge of it.
Anyone who disagrees with what’s being taught there is seen as a radical who wants to break the system and doesn’t understand the importance of it. That’s what I feel has been happening lately, where any parent—my own experience: I homeschooled one of my kids and was considered a radical because why wouldn’t I accept that the public school to which he was assigned would be best for him? The idea that uniformity is what we need.
I still think there are a lot of people within the public education establishment who say uniformity is the key. We are clearly seeing a backlash, but the uniformity principle—maybe 75 years, maybe the 1950s—would you say?

Neal McCluskey (14:15)
It depends. In the early republican period, people like Benjamin Rush said we need schooling for everybody to make them into good citizens—into “republican machines,” his term. Horace Mann certainly wants to standardize people. Not because of Catholics at the beginning—they hadn’t come in at great numbers—but because he saw people coming in from the countryside.
New England industrialized first—relatively poor farming area, but lots of rivers to run factories. These early factories with big water wheels. Mann saw parents coming from the countryside and thought they were all idiots. He thought we needed to take their kids away from them and standardize them. So we started it even at the very beginning.
It gets even more standardized as more immigrants arrive and people get scared of them. One overarching theme of the history of school choice: it’s about people who do not fit into whatever mold the elites decide. Catholics didn’t fit the Protestant mold. In my research, Germans were most disturbing for people because they spoke German—people said, they really need to speak English. We have a thread of fear of Germans going back to colonial Pennsylvania.
The chapter on African Americans is particularly powerful: it talks about a system that never wanted to incorporate them. They needed freedom to get the education people were denying them. That’s the big theme—people who don’t want to be standardized or who are refused help need school choice to get something out of education.

Susan Pendergrass (16:13)
I’ll only say that’s true today. It’s ironic that the kids with the least options—the most disadvantaged kids in the worst schools—are the ones people openly talk about denying options to. Even in Missouri, when public school choice is considered, some of the lowest-performing districts say, okay, but not us. We can’t let kids out of our district because we’re one of the worst in the state and everyone will leave and take money.
They want to draw a line and say, whatever unfortunate child got assigned to this school, we cannot let them leave. That’s flipped on its head. That child needs choices as much as every other kid. They say, no, we have to lock those kids in and strap them to the deck of a Titanic. Why do you think that is, James?

James Shuls (17:07)
I’d say Ron Matus’s chapter on the progressive movement toward school choice is terrific for the points you’re making. There was a tremendous progressive move for school choice in the ’70s and ’80s that culminated in the early voucher programs.
They were making exactly the cases you’re making: we should not assign students to failing schools; school choice was progressive in that it allowed disadvantaged students to opt out and get the type of school that would meet their needs, and to bring competition into the marketplace. The progressives were making the case for school choice exactly because the most disadvantaged students needed it the most.
That’s why the recent idea that school choice is a MAGA movement is off. The progressives got there first, as Ron and others explain.

Susan Pendergrass (18:12)
One last thing. I have a hard time articulating to folks who believe there’s an ironclad connection between property taxes and school assignment that goes back to the beginning of time and must continue until the end of time: if you pay property taxes here, your kid goes to school here; if you don’t, your child doesn’t get to go to school there. I don’t want any kids coming into my kid’s school if their parents didn’t pay property taxes.
I think that is particularly strong in Missouri. In St. Louis County we have dozens of school districts within one county. People feel very strongly—even supporters of school choice—about this property tax/school assignment idea. They can’t get past it. What would you say to that? You lived in St. Louis, James; what do you say?

James Shuls (19:13)
We didn’t write the book through this specific lens, but if you read closely you see this: the system evolved over time. You had a radically decentralized system. Horace Mann and the common school movement advocated for state structures and more organization. Over time it evolved to the system we have today.
From the founding, the idea of residential assignment where local property taxes only follow the kids—and the high level of state and federal regulation—was not anyone’s early vision. It’s not the system most people would advocate if they could design it from scratch. We get wedded to the structures we have.
What we have to do is step back and ask, is this the way it should be? I think the answer is no. We shouldn’t have systems that restrict resources to small local communities and assign students, because we get the problems we all see: high-poverty districts with struggling schools and students assigned to terrible schools with little opportunity for the types of coursework and experiences that lead to success. The system we have isn’t inherently good just because it’s the system we have.

Neal McCluskey (20:57)
We probably needed a chapter on the history of taxation to answer this directly. My suspicion is that for a lot of our history we didn’t have a lot of income tax or other taxes, and drawing on the English tradition, we probably funded things at the community level with property taxes—very local and democratically controlled.
It’s not until the industrial era, with consolidation, that communities stopped running their own schools. My guess is that’s the history of a lot of this property-tax and local-tax funding. But things have obviously changed.
My colleague Colleen Hroncich always points out: it might have made sense to have local public schools when nobody had a car and most people walked places. You couldn’t travel 10 or 20 miles every morning to drop your kid off. That doesn’t make sense now—we have modern transportation—so we don’t have to be shackled to the school a mile or two away.

Susan Pendergrass (22:04)
See you next time. I also think that starting in the 1950s—partly because of Brown v. Board—states and then the federal government started tinkering with the distribution of tax dollars to districts to give more money to poorer districts and less to wealthier districts. That’s been going on with funding formulas. I’m not sure any of them have had an impact on poor kids or reducing achievement gaps, but they thought that moving levers at the state and federal level would get a different outcome.
In my opinion, wealthier districts with higher property tax bases and more local funding aren’t really impacted by those. Now they say, you can move kids around—but not from us—because we’re not part of that system where you move money around. We’re happy with what we’ve got. If you can afford to live here, fine; but they want to be left out of it.

James Shuls (23:10)
Sorry to interrupt you. I wanted to weigh in on that last point, because—reason to listen to the podcast and get the book—this is not in the book, but Virgil Blum had some correspondence with Milton Friedman back in the ’50s and ’60s. They weren’t closely associated; they were operating in different circles. But Blum sent Friedman something he had written and asked for feedback. Friedman responded.
One thing he said was, when it comes to the voucher idea, he thought it should start at the higher education level, not K–12. Then he said it should be at the level where the taxation or the money is supplied. So in K–12, that probably means vouchers should come from the local community, not from the state or the federal government.
So to your point: we had a system that relied more on local tax dollars, and Friedman was saying the vouchers should be local. But we’ve shifted over time to a system that provides a lot more money from the state and federal government than it used to. If you look across the country, every school choice program is a state system—very rarely do you have a district creating a voucher system. It almost always comes at the state level. Even Friedman was wrong from time to time.

Susan Pendergrass (24:44)
On that note, I know you have a chapter on this, but what about this explosion of school choice? Now it feels unstoppable. We have more than a dozen states with universal-ish programs. At least five states have truly universal school choice systems. Why now? Why has it picked up steam so fast after barely making progress through the ’90s and early 2000s?

Neal McCluskey (25:17)
Jason Bedrick has a particular take on it—which I think is probably right—but I think it has deeper roots. Generally, the idea is people are unhappy and increasingly unhappy with how they’re being served by public schools.
My theory—and I think a lot of people hold this—is that COVID made people realize that in a public school system, if a powerful minority or majority wants X and you want Y, someone loses. Many parents who wanted in-person school—generally well-heeled and used to getting what they want—suddenly couldn’t get it. They realized the system didn’t work for them even if they liked it in theory.
Anecdotally, in rich places like Montclair, New Jersey, people were at each other’s throats because many wanted mutually exclusive things. Then you had ideological battles over vaccination and mask requirements. Many say that virtual school let parents see what their kids were learning, and they didn’t like it—books like Gender Queer, how African American history is taught, etc. We haven’t shown concretely that anger was because of peeking into the classroom via Zoom, but it certainly coincided. People were angry.
Jason argues that, yes, people were unhappy, but it wasn’t really COVID; it was the strategy of reaching out to red-state parents in environments where you could get school choice, saying: public schools are teaching stuff you don’t like; you don’t want your kids trapped in that. All the big school-choice gains were in red states—the red-state strategy worked. Now the future is moving into purple and blue states. I think that’s right too, but the underlying driver is people realizing one system can’t fit everyone.

James Shuls (28:32)
I’ll weigh in here too. Friedman made the free-market case for school choice in the ’50s, and that case continued to today—choice, competition, rising tides lift boats. You also had the progressive case in the ’70s and ’80s—students shouldn’t be trapped in failing schools; create programs to help the most disadvantaged. Those arguments kept creating small, targeted programs, but not a wider audience.
A third element—cultural, right-leaning values—added a new coalition. It layered on top of the free-market and progressive cases. I wouldn’t say the movement is completely going to the right; it’s making arguments that appeal to those individuals.
If you go to a rural Missouri voter and say “choice and competition,” with one local public high school and one elementary school, that doesn’t land. If you say the most disadvantaged students in St. Louis and Kansas City need choice, the rural voter may not care. But if you weigh in on some conservative values, you reach a new audience. Maybe that’s part of what’s happened.

Susan Pendergrass (30:24)
Just a bigger tent. It’s clear we’ve only scratched the surface of your book—this is only a 30-minute podcast and there’s so much more in there. A lot of it is so intriguing—going back to the history of this country and realizing the system we have now is relatively new compared to the various systems we’ve had.
Parents don’t really care what the name is on the outside of the school. They care about how their kids come home at the end of the day—how much they appear to be learning. They want them challenged; they want them safe. That’s universal. Whatever system gets them there, they don’t care what it’s called or what it looks like. If they thought they’d get it out of a uniform system and now they don’t…
There’s so much in this book. You picked a lot of great authors—12 leading education scholars. When will folks be able to buy this book and read it themselves, and where?

Neal McCluskey (31:37)
It comes out November 11th. I think it’s available online—online bookstores everywhere—as well as the Cato website, Cato.org.

Susan Pendergrass (31:43)
And can folks reach out to you guys if they have any comments or questions?

Neal McCluskey (31:53)
As long as it’s nice stuff, they can reach out to me.

Susan Pendergrass (31:55)
I can’t promise them.

James Shuls (31:55)
The nice stuff can reach out to me; the negative comments go to Neal.

Susan Pendergrass (32:00)
Well, it’s great. Thank you so much for coming on and talking about it. It’s a fantastic book, and I highly recommend folks get it and read it themselves.

James Shuls (32:09)
Thank you.

Neal McCluskey (32:09)
Great, thanks.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Long Fight for Educational Freedom with Neal McCluskey and James Shuls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The Role of Culture and Character in Education with Jason Bedrick appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Education Choice in Rural America with Jason Bedrick appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Have you ever wondered: Do the narratives continually pushed by defenders of the status quo in education actually hold up? Are they fact or just plain fiction? Is the proverbial sky falling in education as opponents would have us believe?

On March 9, 2022 EdChoice’s Jason Bedrick, Director of Policy, and Mike McShane, Director of National Research, joined us for a virtual event to challenge these narratives and share their published papers on two specific topics. Bedrick’s Who’s Afraid of School Choice? follows up on some of the dire predictions that school choice opponents have made over the years and sees how little they match reality. McShane’s The Accountability Myth attacks head-on the argument that public schools are accountable while private schools are not.

The post Watch: School Choice Mythbusting appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Register here to reserve your spot for this virtual event today!

The post School Choice Mythbusting Virtual Event appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Watch the recorded program here

PROGRAM AGENDA

 Program Open

Dr. Susan Pendergrass – Director of Research and Education Policy at the Show-Me Institute

 The ABCs of school choice: What types of programs exist, how do they work and which states have them?

Dr. Michael Q. McShane – Director of National Research at EdChoice

School choice programs: How are they administered and held accountable?

Jason Bedrick  – Director of Policy at EdChoice

What, if any, Constitutional concerns should be considered?

Rachelle Engen – Educational Choice Fellow at Institute for Justice

How could school choice programs be tailored for Missouri and what would it mean for existing school funding?

Dr. James Shuls – Associate Professor at the University of Missouri – St. Louis

Question & Answer Session

Moderated by Dr. Susan Pendergrass

Program Close

Panelist Contact Information

Presenter Slides

Tax Credits, ESAs, and School Choice – Dr. Michael Q. McShane

ESAs and Accountability – Jason Bedrick 

What, if any, constitutional concerns should be considered? – Rachelle Engen

Additional Resources

EdChoice Legislator Training Hub

The ABCs of School Choice

What is an Education Savings Account (ESA)?

Commentary: A crisis of trust

New Poll Shows Missouri’s Educational System in Crisis

SMI Podcast

The post Legislator Training Resource Page – Education Choice in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The study was noteworthy because it found negative academic results for some of the students who participated in the program, which is a departure from what careful study of the program has found in the past. There is more to the most recent study than meets the eye, and many caveats that readers should take into account, as ably explained by Jason Bedrick and Marty Lueken of EdChoice here.

But I want to highlight how differently these two outlets covered that study. The Washington Post, which serves the city where the voucher program operates, wrote an even-handed analysis titled “Voucher critics are seizing on D.C. test scores. They’re missing the point.”

The piece is worth reading in full, but the second paragraph is key:

With the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program reauthorized by Congress this week, it is important that any assessment be complete, clear-eyed and not formed through the prism of those advancing special interests or narrow political points. What should be taken into account along with test scores is the positive difference the program has made in the lives of thousands of families, and how it and the thriving community of charter schools have enriched school choice and helped improve public education in the city.

The Washington Post piece acknowledges that the study’s findings demand attention, but examines them in the real-world context of an education environment where many factors other than test scores (e.g., graduation rates and demand among parents for alternatives to public schools) deserve consideration.

By contrast, the op-ed in the Post-Dispatch describes the findings as helping to “debunk the notion that voucher-enabled students in private schools produce better outcomes than those attending public schools.” It doesn’t, but that’s beside the point.

What is more surprising to me is the Post-Dispatch’s closing admonition that we should “trust the data, not loosely grounded ideology.”

Where was this attitude when studies of private school vouchers found positive results for students? Like this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. (I could go on, but this is just a sample of studies that found positive test-score results for students who participated in voucher program or whose test-scores were driven upward as a result of voucher programs. I didn’t even touch the large empirical literature on civic effects or parental satisfaction.)

Even when all of these studies had been published, the Post-Dispatch was still publishing editorials like this one, and this one. Physician, heal thyself.

Those closest to the action in DC see much to admire in the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, and a few recent studies need to be put in the context of the multi-decade literature on school choice. Then, and only then, can we have a real discussion about school choice as part of a solution to vexing problems in education.

The post The Washington Post and St. Louis Post-Dispatch: A Study in Contrasts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With respect to a uniform system of public education, Judge Eric Johnson argued “The Legislature can provide for a uniform system of common schools, free from religious instruction and open to general attendance by all Nevada children, and still adopt other suitable means of encouraging education.” Pretty airtight logic there.

With respect to the state’s Blaine Amendment, as my friend Jason Bedrick points out over at the Cato Institute’s blog, the court argued that the state’s Blaine Amendment “was not intended to preclude any expenditure that has an incidental benefit to religion, where such is made for a primary secular purpose.” It built upon this reasoning by arguing that the ESA “was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing financial assistance to parents to take advantage of educational options available to Nevada children.” The fact that some religious organizations might benefit is “ancillary and indirect.” Game. Set. Match.

This ruling matters for those of us hoping to see an ESA program created in Missouri. Missouri has an extremely restrictive Blaine Amendment that libertarian legal scholars have feared would preclude any kind of private school choice program that is not funded through tax credited donations.  If the standard jurisprudence on these programs concludes (correctly, I’d argue, for what its worth) that ESAs are created primarily for the secular purpose of educating children and that religious organizations only benefit second-hand, it might change the state of play here.

All told, last week was a great one for school choice, and I hope that the Judge’s decision will be supported if and when his ruling is appealed.

The post Education Savings Accounts Found Constitutional in Nevada appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My friends Adam Peshek, Matt Ladner,  Jason Bedrick, Lindsey Burke, and Jonathan Butcher have written what I think are fair explanations of the findings.  Based on survey research and buttressed by the enrollment patterns of schools participating in the program, it appears that the requirements that the program placed on schools kept good schools from participating.  This drove students into lower-quality schools and, not surprisingly, worse outcomes.  Yet another reason to remember that program design matters.

Let me add two points:

First, we should be Bayesians.  To borrow from the branch of statistics, when trying to understand a phenomenon we should make assumptions about how it works, test them, update our assumptions based on the results of our tests, test them, update again, and so on, in a slow march toward the truth.  Study after study has supported the belief that private school choice programs benefit the students who participate (across a number of indicators). This study should decrease our confidence, but—especially given the issues that Peshek and others raise with the fundamental design of the program—it should not decrease it a great deal. That said, there is clearly a lot going on here, and we need to keep digging and updating what we know.

Second, and more importantly, if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. For years now, advocates (present company included) have used state math and reading test scores as the primary means to argue that school choice “works.”  In addition to probably not capturing everything that we want out of schools, we should also take into account that it appears that more and more families are opting into private schooling  to get away from schools that they think are obsessed with standardized testing . We should not be surprised when we look at standardized test scores from private schools and see that these students are scoring lower.  In fact, we should probably expect it.  But, if we’re going to support our arguments for choice with test scores (using them to show either shortcomings in public schools or the benefits of choice), we have hitched our wagon to them and can’t be surprised if people attack vouchers when poor test score results come out. Similarly, advocates (present company included) have treated voucher programs as interchangeable when talking about their effects, even though they differ in meaningful ways. If we’ve talked about their benefits without taking program design into account, we can’t be surprised if people attack their shortcomings without doing it either.

I hope this study causes a course correction in the school choice community on several fronts (understanding the costs of regulation, how we think about test scores, the fact that all voucher programs are not created equal). It should be a wakeup call, not a death knell.  

The post New Study Shows Negative Effect for Vouchers. We’ve Got Some Explaining To Do. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In February, the Show-Me Institute released “Live Free and Learn: A Case Study of New Hampshire’s Scholarship Tax Credit Program,” written by Jason Bedrick of the Cato Institute. Bedrick also discussed this school choice program at an event we hosted at Lindenwood University (see video above [starts at 4:00]). At the time, he noted that the scholarship program was being challenged in the New Hampshire courts. Yesterday, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a big win for the families benefiting from the program.

Blogging about the ruling, Bedrick writes:

“The New Hampshire Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s flawed and unprecedented decision, which had forbidden scholarship recipients from using the funds at religiously affiliated private schools. The lower court held that the scholarship funds constituted ‘money raised by taxation’ and therefore violated the state’s historically anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment, which states:

“[No] money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools of institutions of any religious sect or denomination. (New Hampshire Constitution, Part II, Article 83)

“The New Hampshire Supreme Court did not address the merits of the lower court’s decision because it held the petitioners were unable to demonstrate that ‘their personal rights have been impaired or prejudiced.’ Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court, in rejecting the petitioners’ standing in ACSTO v. Winn, held that the tax-credit funds did not constitute public money because they had not ‘come into the tax collector’s hands.'”

Like New Hampshire, Missouri has a Blaine Amendment that prohibits public dollars going to religious institutions. That is why this ruling is important for private school choice supporters in Missouri to take note of this case. Because the funding in a tax credit scholarship program does not enter into the public treasury, the funds should not be considered public dollars. For this reason, a tax credit scholarship program may have the best chance of passing constitutional muster in the Show-Me State.

The post Vindication for New Hampshire’s Scholarship Tax Credit Program appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On Thursday, the Missouri Legislature passed Senate Bill 493. Described as the “transfer fix,” the bill contains many provisions. One is the ability of students to use public dollars to attend a nonsectarian private school. If you believe the hype, I should be celebrating. After all, I am a proponent of private school choice. Sadly, I have been wrestling with whether this is even a victory for the school choice crowd.

Don’t get me wrong. I am glad that the legislature moved in a bipartisan manner to get this bill passed. Unlike the education establishment, I am willing to compromise and there are many needed aspects in this bill. Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel as if the students who need educational options got the short end of the stick with this deal.

Am I being too cynical? Should I be celebrating? To answer this question, I asked several school choice policy experts this question:

Is this a win for school choice or does it do more harm than good?

Here were their responses:

Mike McShane – Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute

The number of hoops parents and schools are required to jump through in order to participate will most likely prevent students from ever accessing a private education. This is Potemkin private school choice.

Patrick Wolf – Professor and 21^st Century Chair in School Choice at the University of Arkansas

I wouldn’t expect more than a handful of families to navigate all of those huge roadblocks to exercise private school choice, especially since religious schools are excluded from the program. When families have a broad set of private school choices, nearly 80 percent of them choose private schools with a religious ethos. That is their preference. This is essentially a private school choice program without the private school choice part.

Jonathan Butcher – Education Director at the Goldwater Institute

I don’t think it does more harm than good, but I’m not sure it will accomplish anything. At least not right away.

Matt Ladner – Senior Advisor of Policy and Research for the Foundation for Excellence in Education

The academic catastrophe going on in Kansas City and Saint Louis have been well understood for decades. On the private side of things, this legislation brings to mind an inspector on the Titanic making conditional offers of an approved life vest three years in the future.

Jason Bedrick, policy analyst at the Cato Institute, and Jay Greene, head of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, both pointed to the exclusion of religious schools and the testing requirement as very negative aspects of the bill.

“It’s especially painful when a ‘school choice’ program is designed in such a way that its passage is, to say the least, no cause for celebration,” Bedrick wrote.

Greene cautioned that this legislation might stifle future pushes to create school choice programs in Missouri.

A fix to some of the transfer issues was needed and on balance, the bill is mostly positive. But given these comments, I think my initial reaction was correct – this is not a school choice bill. It addresses some issues, but it does not expand options for students.

Summary of the private option:

Students in unaccredited schools within unaccredited districts are free to transfer. They must first apply to an accredited school within their district. If there are no spaces, they are able to transfer to another district or, upon voter approval, a private school. The private school must be located within the unaccredited district, nonsectarian, accredited, administer state tests, and meet a few other criteria. There is no transportation for transfer students.

The post Senate Bill 493 Is Not A School Choice Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Show-Me Institute and the Hammond Institute for Free Enterprise at Lindenwood University hosted a discussion about tax credit scholarships, explaining what they are and how they might be beneficial to Missouri. During the event, Jason Bedrick and Jonathan Butcher presented information from their recent Show-Me Institute case-studies and Paul DiPerna presented the findings of a new poll. The discussion also included a legislative panel that included Missouri Senators John Lamping and Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Missouri House Speaker Tim Jones. You can view the papers and video of the presentations via the links below.

• Bedrick case study:
• Bedrick presentation:
• Butcher case study:
• Butcher presentation:
• DiPerna presentation:

The post Expanded Opportunities: A Discussion About Tax Credit Scholarships appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When I speak about tax credit scholarships, I get a lot of questions: What is a tax credit scholarship? How would that work? What are the chances of that passing in Missouri?

If you want to find out the answer to these and other questions, join us on April 25 at Lindenwood University in St. Charles, Mo. We are partnering with the Hammond Institute for Free Enterprise at Lindenwood University to present a dynamite event, “Expanded Opportunities: A Discussion About Tax Credit Scholarships.”

Jason Bedrick, of the Cato Institute, and Jonathan Butcher, of the Goldwater Institute, will present information about how these programs are working in other states. You can download their recent case studies for the Show-Me Institute about the New Hampshire and Arizona programs directly from our website.

Attendees also will be able to take part in a panel discussion with Missouri Sen. John Lamping (R-Dist. 24), Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D-Dist. 14), Missouri Speaker of the House Tim Jones (R-Dist. 110), and Rep. Michael Butler (D-Dist. 79).

RSVP online, mark your calendars, tell your friends, and join us on April 25.

The post Mark Your Calendars For Our April 25 Tax Credit Scholarship Event appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a new case study for the Show-Me Institute, Jason Bedrick notes that more than half the scholarships awarded in 2013 were used for homeschooling expenses. And the families who enrolled in the program were, for the most part, extremely pleased with the opportunity, more than 80 percent, in fact. Homeschool families also saw more academic improvement than their private school counterparts. They appreciated the fact that they were in control, that they were able to adjust the curriculum according to their children’s needs, and that they had more options for different or harder classes. Many of them mentioned that it helped strengthen family relationships.

I have nine siblings. When I was growing up, my parents wanted to make sure that my siblings and I received an education that met our individual needs. They explored public and private schools and each of us was homeschooled at one time or another. The beauty of homeschooling is that it allows parents to tailor the curriculum for their children. Additionally, homeschooling benefits the state because it saves taxpayers money. However, for families like mine, it can be financially difficult. That is why New Hampshire’s tax credit scholarship program is particularly interesting. It could enable more families to homeschool and benefit both families and the state.

As Missouri looks at options for expanding school choice and implementing tax credit scholarship programs, it should seriously consider expanding these to include homeschooling.

The post Don’t Forget About Homeschoolers! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Today, we are pleased to announce the release of “Live Free And Learn: A Case Study Of New Hampshire’s Scholarship Tax Credit Program,” by Jason Bedrick. Bedrick is a policy analyst at Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. Previously, he served as a legislator in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, a small state with the “fourth-largest English-speaking legislative body in the world.” After his time in office, he was instrumental in the passage of the Granite State’s tax credit scholarship program.

His paper describes the particulars of the New Hampshire scholarship program. It also provides data from the first survey of scholarship recipients. The survey indicates that most of the scholarship recipients were from low-income families. The tax credit scholarship allowed many students to attend private schools that they would not have been able to afford without the support that the program offered.

As you might imagine, parents who received a scholarship for their child tended to be very satisfied. In fact, “All of the scholarship recipients who attended a public school in the previous year reported greater satisfaction with their current school” (p. 19).

I encourage you to take a look at “Live Free And Learn.” And stay tuned for our next two tax credit scholarship case studies.

The post Announcing New Case Study: Live Free and Learn appeared first on Show-Me Institute.