School Vouchers: A critique
Here is a little note I wrote recently on the topic of school vouchers. I'm reprinting here to make it available on the blogosphere.
This document provides a critique of the voucher system that is currently being considered by the Government of India and has received support from various quarters [1]. We have reason to believe that one of the models the Government has in mind is the voucher system as implemented in various parts of the world including specifically the United States. Indeed, the World Bank, in various publications, has cited the United States as an example of the success of the voucher system. In this article, we critically analyze some of the arguments given in favor of the voucher system, specifically its “success” in the United States.
We begin by addressing what educational voucher proposals are. Overall, educational vouchers could be privately or publicly funded. Our focus is on publicly funded vouchers. World Bank reports [2] define vouchers as follows: “A tax funded education voucher in the most widely known sense is a payment made by the government to a school chosen by the parent of the child being educated.” The idea is that the government provides parents with a voucher which can be used to pay a part of or the full fees in private schools. Using this voucher, the parents have a choice as to where to admit their children. The idea is to provide vouchers for parents that are economically disadvantaged. However, in cases where voucher systems have been implemented [5,7], not all such parents are guaranteed vouchers. Rather the vouchers are distributed randomly among parents. It is important to keep this point in mind when we assess the cost of voucher systems. These costs can potentially be capped by not providing vouchers to all the underprivileged. We feel more fundamental arguments can be provided against the voucher system. We proceed to do this by listing some of the key arguments given in favor of voucher systems and arguing against them.
Vouchers increase parental choice while reducing their financial burden
The basic argument here is that vouchers enable increased parental choice. Given that the quality of public schooling is often undesirable (even in the United States), it is very natural for parents to want to switch their children over to better alternatives if available and affordable. Vouchers alleviate the burden of expenditure on the parents thus enriching their options.
In India’s case, the quality of public education is indeed abysmal, perhaps best illustrated by the alarming drop out rates from schools that has been well-documented [4]. Parental frustration with public schools is understandable and justifiable. Thus, efforts to increase their choices where possible have to be commended.
But we argue that choices can very well be increased by enforcing reservation in private schools. The November 2005 draft of the Right to Education Bill in India [3] stipulated that private schools (and state schools of “specified categories”) have a responsibility to provide free education to at least 25% of children admitted to class 1, from among the children belonging to the “weaker sections” of society. We observe that this stipulation very well serves the purpose of enabling a wider choice of schools for the parent of the child being educated. Further, the financial burden on economically and socially weaker families is addressed by other provisions in the draft bill that stipulate free and compulsory education. Thus, the main differences between the voucher system and this reservation clause are that with the voucher approach, (1) private schools are not required to meet any financial burden, and (2) there is no obligation on the private schools to admit children of disadvantaged children. The additional benefit offered by a voucher program is far from clear. On the other hand, voucher programs entail a higher cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, the vociferous support for vouchers seems strange given the stringent opposition to reservations in private schools since the claimed benefit is the same.
Competition between public and private schools will improve the quality of education overall
Another point made in favor of voucher systems is that they tend to increase the competition and hence positively impact the quality of public schools. But this argument hardly addresses the causes of lack of quality in public schools. Without doubt finance is a key factor that can improve public schooling dramatically in India. Indeed, this was the rationale behind the recommendation of the Kothari commission that the State invest at least 6% of its GDP on education. Instead, India spent about 3.52% of its GDP on education in 2004-2005, of which a mere 1.43% is on elementary education, as opposed to the 3% recommended by various CABE committees [4]. Thus, if the investment in voucher systems comes at the cost of investment in public schooling, as has been in the case in the United States [5], there is even less reason to believe that the quality of public schooling would improve. Rather, our expectation is that this would only exacerbate the causes lying behind the poor quality of public schooling.
Educational Vouchers have been tried out with success in various parts of the world including the United States
While there have been several cases of privately funded voucher programs in the United States, the main publicly funded voucher programs have been in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida [5]. The oldest of these is the voucher program in Milwaukee that was started in 1990. These are touted as success stories even by the World Bank [2]. However, official research reports that the results are inconclusive. The non-partisan United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) came up with a report on the effectiveness of school vouchers in Milwaukee (Wisconsin) and Cleveland (Ohio) [5]. One of the several questions they addressed was “What is known about student academic achievement within these voucher programs?” Their research “found little or no difference in voucher and public school students’ performance”. The report also cites other studies that did find that voucher students performed better in some subject areas. It argues that “none of these findings can be considered definitive because the researchers obtained different results when they used different methods to compensate for weaknesses in the data.” Further, while several studies have argued that vouchers helped improve the racial composition of schools by helping students from poorer backgrounds, the GAO report observes that “whether the racial composition changed as a result of the voucher programs is unclear”. Instead, commenting on these studies, the GAO report states that “They reached conclusions about the voucher programs’ effect on racial composition within voucher schools without considering the full range of factors that could account for changes in the composition.”
Given this background, it would be a grievous error to conclude that voucher programs in the United States are an unmitigated success. Further evidence for the same is found in the fact that all statewide referendums on school vouchers since the 1970s have been defeated.
In conclusion, we find that arguments that promote educational vouchers as a symbol of free competition and capitalism [1] must be viewed with substantial skepticism. The research on voucher programs implemented worldwide including specifically the United States is inconclusive at best. Even the limited cases where vouchers have been found to help [7] can be interpreted as an argument in favor of reservations in private schools that serve pretty much the same purpose, but at a lower cost to taxpayers.
References
1. Capitalism and our schools: Gurucharan Das.
2. EDUCATION VOUCHERS IN PRACTICE AND PRINCIPLE: A WORLD SURVEY: World Bank
3. Right to Education Draft Bill
4. Where do children go after Class VIII? Vinod Raina:
5. School Vouchers: Publicly Funded Programs in Cleveland and Milwaukee. United States Government Accountability Office.
6. Milwaukee Voucher Program.
7. Vouchers for Private Schooling in Colombia: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment. American Economic Review, 2002.
This document provides a critique of the voucher system that is currently being considered by the Government of India and has received support from various quarters [1]. We have reason to believe that one of the models the Government has in mind is the voucher system as implemented in various parts of the world including specifically the United States. Indeed, the World Bank, in various publications, has cited the United States as an example of the success of the voucher system. In this article, we critically analyze some of the arguments given in favor of the voucher system, specifically its “success” in the United States.
We begin by addressing what educational voucher proposals are. Overall, educational vouchers could be privately or publicly funded. Our focus is on publicly funded vouchers. World Bank reports [2] define vouchers as follows: “A tax funded education voucher in the most widely known sense is a payment made by the government to a school chosen by the parent of the child being educated.” The idea is that the government provides parents with a voucher which can be used to pay a part of or the full fees in private schools. Using this voucher, the parents have a choice as to where to admit their children. The idea is to provide vouchers for parents that are economically disadvantaged. However, in cases where voucher systems have been implemented [5,7], not all such parents are guaranteed vouchers. Rather the vouchers are distributed randomly among parents. It is important to keep this point in mind when we assess the cost of voucher systems. These costs can potentially be capped by not providing vouchers to all the underprivileged. We feel more fundamental arguments can be provided against the voucher system. We proceed to do this by listing some of the key arguments given in favor of voucher systems and arguing against them.
Vouchers increase parental choice while reducing their financial burden
The basic argument here is that vouchers enable increased parental choice. Given that the quality of public schooling is often undesirable (even in the United States), it is very natural for parents to want to switch their children over to better alternatives if available and affordable. Vouchers alleviate the burden of expenditure on the parents thus enriching their options.
In India’s case, the quality of public education is indeed abysmal, perhaps best illustrated by the alarming drop out rates from schools that has been well-documented [4]. Parental frustration with public schools is understandable and justifiable. Thus, efforts to increase their choices where possible have to be commended.
But we argue that choices can very well be increased by enforcing reservation in private schools. The November 2005 draft of the Right to Education Bill in India [3] stipulated that private schools (and state schools of “specified categories”) have a responsibility to provide free education to at least 25% of children admitted to class 1, from among the children belonging to the “weaker sections” of society. We observe that this stipulation very well serves the purpose of enabling a wider choice of schools for the parent of the child being educated. Further, the financial burden on economically and socially weaker families is addressed by other provisions in the draft bill that stipulate free and compulsory education. Thus, the main differences between the voucher system and this reservation clause are that with the voucher approach, (1) private schools are not required to meet any financial burden, and (2) there is no obligation on the private schools to admit children of disadvantaged children. The additional benefit offered by a voucher program is far from clear. On the other hand, voucher programs entail a higher cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, the vociferous support for vouchers seems strange given the stringent opposition to reservations in private schools since the claimed benefit is the same.
Competition between public and private schools will improve the quality of education overall
Another point made in favor of voucher systems is that they tend to increase the competition and hence positively impact the quality of public schools. But this argument hardly addresses the causes of lack of quality in public schools. Without doubt finance is a key factor that can improve public schooling dramatically in India. Indeed, this was the rationale behind the recommendation of the Kothari commission that the State invest at least 6% of its GDP on education. Instead, India spent about 3.52% of its GDP on education in 2004-2005, of which a mere 1.43% is on elementary education, as opposed to the 3% recommended by various CABE committees [4]. Thus, if the investment in voucher systems comes at the cost of investment in public schooling, as has been in the case in the United States [5], there is even less reason to believe that the quality of public schooling would improve. Rather, our expectation is that this would only exacerbate the causes lying behind the poor quality of public schooling.
Educational Vouchers have been tried out with success in various parts of the world including the United States
While there have been several cases of privately funded voucher programs in the United States, the main publicly funded voucher programs have been in Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida [5]. The oldest of these is the voucher program in Milwaukee that was started in 1990. These are touted as success stories even by the World Bank [2]. However, official research reports that the results are inconclusive. The non-partisan United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) came up with a report on the effectiveness of school vouchers in Milwaukee (Wisconsin) and Cleveland (Ohio) [5]. One of the several questions they addressed was “What is known about student academic achievement within these voucher programs?” Their research “found little or no difference in voucher and public school students’ performance”. The report also cites other studies that did find that voucher students performed better in some subject areas. It argues that “none of these findings can be considered definitive because the researchers obtained different results when they used different methods to compensate for weaknesses in the data.” Further, while several studies have argued that vouchers helped improve the racial composition of schools by helping students from poorer backgrounds, the GAO report observes that “whether the racial composition changed as a result of the voucher programs is unclear”. Instead, commenting on these studies, the GAO report states that “They reached conclusions about the voucher programs’ effect on racial composition within voucher schools without considering the full range of factors that could account for changes in the composition.”
Given this background, it would be a grievous error to conclude that voucher programs in the United States are an unmitigated success. Further evidence for the same is found in the fact that all statewide referendums on school vouchers since the 1970s have been defeated.
In conclusion, we find that arguments that promote educational vouchers as a symbol of free competition and capitalism [1] must be viewed with substantial skepticism. The research on voucher programs implemented worldwide including specifically the United States is inconclusive at best. Even the limited cases where vouchers have been found to help [7] can be interpreted as an argument in favor of reservations in private schools that serve pretty much the same purpose, but at a lower cost to taxpayers.
References
1. Capitalism and our schools: Gurucharan Das.
2. EDUCATION VOUCHERS IN PRACTICE AND PRINCIPLE: A WORLD SURVEY: World Bank
3. Right to Education Draft Bill
4. Where do children go after Class VIII? Vinod Raina:
5. School Vouchers: Publicly Funded Programs in Cleveland and Milwaukee. United States Government Accountability Office.
6. Milwaukee Voucher Program.
7. Vouchers for Private Schooling in Colombia: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment. American Economic Review, 2002.
posted by Raghav Kaushik | 8:48 PM
|
0 comments
