Some people advocate for public schools by suggesting that education is a public good. It’s not, but maybe this is a case of people mixing up terminology. To most non-economists, “public good” sounds like “something good for the public.” So maybe what they mean is to suggest that education has positive externalities. I benefit from being numerate and literate, but I also benefit when my neighbors are also numerate and literate.
This is fair as far as it goes, but it still doesn’t amount to an argument for the public provision of education. While standard economic theory says markets will fail to provide public goods, and therefore such goods should be provided by the government, it also says that goods with positive externalities will be provided by the market, but at a lower than optimal quantity. Positive externalities don’t call for the public provision of some good – at most, they call for subsidizing that good. Or in other words, the positive externalities of education can be an argument in favor of a school voucher system, rather than government-run schools.
The arguments for and against school vouchers is obviously beyond the scope of what I can cover in a single blog post. But there are two common arguments I hear against school vouchers that have never made any sense to me.
The first argument is the concern that if vouchers were an option and as a result private schools were more widely available to students, it would drain students away from public schools and severely undermine them. This outcome may or may not be what occurs, but even if the prediction is accurate, I fail to see what the problem is. Public schools are a means to an end, not some terminal good that is an end in themselves. So simply claiming that the scope of public schooling would diminish cuts no ice. And besides, saying “if people had a choice about where to send their kids to school then nobody would want to use the public school system” is not the powerful defense of public schooling that its advocates seem to think it is.
The second argument is that parents, not being professional educators, are unqualified to determine what constitutes a good education. Thus, if parents were allowed to choose where to send their children to school, they would be unable to make a well-informed choice. This has always struck me as unpersuasive, for at least two reasons.
The first reason is that this line of reasoning is one that even its advocates would reject when applied to other areas of life. Most parents are not professional theologians, but that doesn’t mean parents should not be allowed to choose their children’s religious upbringing. Most parents are not medical professionals, but that doesn’t mean parents shouldn’t be allowed to choose their child’s pediatrician or approve of what medical treatments their child will or won’t receive. The argument “If parents aren’t trained professionals in X, then decisions about X should be made by the state instead of by the parents” isn’t any more valid an argument when X is choosing a school – and to apply this argument only to the school system and reject it elsewhere is just special pleading.
The second reason is that parents do, in fact, make decisions about what schools are better for their kids all the time, and we all find it largely unobjectionable when they do. For example, President Biden, an opponent of school choice systems, sent his own sons to private schools. No doubt he didn’t make the choice about what school to send them to willy-nilly – I’ll bet he gave it a good amount of time, effort, and thought. I’m sure the same is true of other parents who send their children to private schools. What would the people who insist parents aren’t equipped to make good choices about schools say to such people? Would they say the time and effort the parents spent making sure they found the best possible option for their kids was wasted, because as mere parents and not professional educators, they lacked the knowledge to make a good choice? I doubt it.
People often put the same effort into making these decisions regarding public schools as well. When buying a home, a major factor many people consider is the school district to which they’d be assigned when they buy that home. If you’re the sort of person who is skeptical of school vouchers because you think parents are poorly equipped to judge what schools are best, imagine you’re in this situation. You are talking with some friends of yours, a young married couple, who are making their final decision on which house to buy. They inform you that they have finally chosen. It was down to two houses, the one on Oak Street, and the one on Van Buren. While they actually liked the house on Van Buren a little better, they have decided to go with the one on Oak Street, because the Oak Street house would put their kids into a better school district. Upon hearing this, would you say to them “Oh, don’t be silly! You’re not professional educators – you’re not qualified to decide what school would be better for your kids anyway! So, forget about that, and just get the house on Van Buren! You liked that one better after all, and there’s no reason for you to pass on the house you liked more because you think the other house would make for a better school choice!”
Clearly that’s not a reaction even most opponents of school choice would have. We don’t merely find it unobjectionable that parents would take the quality of school districts into consideration when deciding on what house to buy – it’s widely viewed as a wise and appropriate consideration. If anything, failing to account for that would be viewed as irresponsible and blameworthy. It turns out that parents making “school choices” for their kids already exists and is nothing to fear. Vouchers wouldn’t be putting parents into a new position they are unqualified to handle – they would just grant more parents the ability to make the same kind of choice that many others are already exercising without issue.
READER COMMENTS
steve
Oct 18 2023 at 4:12pm
I have no problem with school vouchers per se, though if the goal was better education we would just do what Massachusetts and New Jersey do and avoid what Oklahoma does. That said, school vouchers are being used to pay for religious schools. I do object to my tax money supporting another religion.
Steve
Jon Murphy
Oct 18 2023 at 5:02pm
Naturally, then, you oppose the use of Medicaid and Medicare at religious hospitals?
steve
Oct 19 2023 at 2:36pm
I work at a Catholic hospital that we staff when they need help. They dont try to teach kids Catholicism. A couple of the nurses dress like penguins and they dont do abortions or tubals. otherwise it’s the same as other hospitals. The schools do teach the religion. So my tax money goes to teach kids another faith. If those schools gave kids their choice of religious class so that they could each be taught their parents preferred faith I would be fine with it.
I am pretty sure people pay into Social Security though they may get out more than they receive, but in this case, and other govt benefits, it is adults spending money on something they want. As a practical matter there is no way to stop that, but since it doesnt really affect me or my kids much I dont care. Also,I could if I wanted, use my SS to donate to my church also. However, using my money to help teach other kids another religion when it can be taught at Sunday school or in specific ff hours religious schools as many faiths do I do not support.
Steve
robc
Oct 19 2023 at 3:18pm
But its not your money, its their money.
Whether or not we should be transferring money (no!) is another question entirely, but just like in my example below of tax refunds, voucher’s is the parents money coming back to them (and then following it along to the schools).
The way to make it more clear is to make it a tax rebate to parents of kids age 5-18. And then, separately, schools can charge whatever they want as tuition and public schools will charge the exact amount of the rebate.
That is mathematically exactly the same. Homeschoolers would keep the entire check (and many of them teach religion!), private schools would get all (or most*) of the check.
*This is my biggest problem with vouchers. It would raise the price of private schools. Lower cost ones might raise their price up to the voucher. No reason to charge less. Exclusive schools might raise their price by the amount of the voucher to keep the same amount of exclusivity. If you charge $25k and there is a $10k voucher, you cant let in the riff-raff who can afford $15k for their kids, so you raise your price to $35k. Widespread vouchers would cause the same kind of inflation we have seen in university tuition.
Jon Murphy
Oct 19 2023 at 3:29pm
They may not teach their patients Catholicsm, but those tax dollars are still supporting the Church financially.
robc
Oct 20 2023 at 9:15am
And healing patients is teaching them catholicism. Or at least one tenet of it.
Kevin Corcoran
Oct 18 2023 at 5:22pm
How much would you be willing to generalize this? After all, this general phenomenon isn’t limited to school vouchers. All kinds of government benefits people receive are in turn used to pay for or support their religious institutions or practices. Somewhere in America today, somebody (or likely, many people) used money from their Social Security check to donate to their church or mosque or synagogue, or purchase a Bible or Koran or Torah. In doing so, they are using money from a government benefit, funded by your taxes, in support of their religious practices. Would you try to forbid them from doing so? Would you say “Social security checks are being used to pay for religious services and programs. I object to my tax money supporting their religion”?
I’m an atheist and a big fan of separating church and state. I don’t want government supporting or subsidizing any religion. I’m also a libertarian and a big fan of the free market. I don’t want my tax money to be used subsidizing or supporting the corn industry. But if someone receives food stamps then goes to the grocery store and buys some corn, it seems strange for me to say this is a case of “my tax money supporting the corn industry.” If a retired grandma donates 10% of her Social Security check to her church as a tithe, it would also seem strange for me to object that she shouldn’t be allowed to do so, because as an atheist I object to “my tax money is supporting her religion.” It’s not as if the church itself is receiving a direct state subsidy. In both cases, someone is just receiving a benefit and deciding for themselves on the best way to use it. And it seems just as strange to me to make the same objection if someone wants to use the voucher they receive for a religious education, for the same reason.
Ruthi
Oct 19 2023 at 7:40pm
Two related thoughts:
Freedom of religion does not necessitate mandated secularism. The key point is there is no establishment of any one religion… voucher recipients are free to choose.
Bonus, I can see the value of added competition in the market. Religious schools likely have curricula that approaches education in different ways – whether through historical happenstance or as a consequence of specific doctrine. Different ways of solving for education is a good thing – it opens up more opportunity for finding successes – and isn’t this what the voucher idea is all about?
robc
Oct 19 2023 at 8:59am
So you have a problem with people donating part of their tax refund to their church? What if its part of the EITC refund that is above what they paid in taxes?
How is that any different?
robc
Oct 19 2023 at 9:03am
I should read before responding, Kevin said it better than I did.
Jon Murphy
Oct 18 2023 at 4:59pm
I think it’s also worth noting that school choice already pretty much exists at the higher education level as well.
Kevin Corcoran
Oct 18 2023 at 8:34pm
Good point. If some people are skeptical about the ability of adults to make a good choice about the right middle school for their child to attend, just wait until they find out that mere teenagers are actually allowed to choose what university to attend!
Jon Murphy
Oct 19 2023 at 9:33am
Not only choose what university to attend but choose what classes to take! The horror!
Dylan
Oct 18 2023 at 5:59pm
Good post. I’m generally favorable to the idea of school vouchers, however I think you might have not given full justice to the first and second argument. The version I’ve heard goes something more like, with vouchers you will siphon off the best students and the one whose parents are most involved. Leaving the worst students and the ones whose parents are not actively engaged in their children’s education. Those also tend to be the ones that are the most expensive to teach, so you pure public schools that remain might be in a bit of a pickle. I don’t find this entirely persuasive either from a moral view or practically, since I’m not convinced that would happen. But, I think it is a stronger form of the argument than the one you presented.
Also, an aside, but at least some forms of education appear to be going the public good route. Online education is mostly non-rivalrous, it is still somewhat excludable, I can get most of the content for free, but maybe not the extra features like a forum so that I can connect with people taking the same class.
Matthias
Oct 18 2023 at 11:25pm
If you follow Bryan Caplan’s Case Against Education you will learn of substantial negative externalities to education. IMHO hey outweigh the positive externalies by a lot.
So I suggest we privatise and tax education heavily. Instead of subsidising it, or even providing it free of charge.
(Obviously this is politically even less feasible than your voucher idea.)
Thomas L. Knapp
Oct 19 2023 at 6:13am
My case against vouchers is pretty simple:
The strings attached to them turn every school which accepts them into a clone of the government schools people are using them to flee.
They’re not a “step in the right direction.” They damage non-government education by making it de facto government education.
Barring separation of school and state, the only path toward better education for kids is for parents to just treat government school financing as a regrettable but unrecoverable loss, and cover the costs of actual education out of their own pockets.
robc
Oct 19 2023 at 9:10am
That is not even remotely empirically true. For example, my daughter attends a charter school. That is not even as separate as a true voucher, and the school is nothing like a clone of the local public schools.
Yes, separation of school and state would be the best approach. I rank the spectrum:
Public
Public charter
Private with voucher
Private without voucher
with moving down the list beting better.
Jon Murphy
Oct 19 2023 at 9:33am
I agree with robc. Your empirical claim stands on shakey ground. In higher education, virtually all universities accept government dollars. And, while there certainly are problems with that (speaking as someone who was abused by the Title IX system), universities actively compete with one another for students and consequently develop their own niches. My graduate education was in a very free market program. My current job is in a very free market program. Neither GMU or NSU are clones of other schools. We’re unique in our own ways.
But, taking your assertion to be correct, one then has to ask why you’re anti-voucher? If government schools are damaging, why reduce the ability for people to leave them?
The whole point of vouchers is to make that loss recoverable. When losses can be recovered, then it changes the incentives of both parties. If people flee government schools, those schools face mounting losses. They either need to reform or shut down. With no vouchers, there is no incentive to reform since the school faces no losses.
robc
Oct 19 2023 at 8:58am
Re: The first anti-voucher argument
I like to ask, “do you favor public education or public schools?”
Because, of course, vouchers help with the former, and as you point out, the latter is merely a mean to the ends, the end being public education. And vouchers are a better means.
David Seltzer
Oct 19 2023 at 3:12pm
Kevin: “education is a public good. It’s not.” Right! A public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Parents are restricted to sending students to public schools in a specific location. In our community, a parent can send their kid to public school in the next town if they pay for it. In this case, public schooling is a club good. As for school vouchers, let the tax payer keep his money instead of vouchers and let them CHOOSE for themselves. The person choosing private schooling pays for someone else’s kid with property taxes as well as private school tuition. In terms of well informed choices; Millions of people fly everyday because of nearly perfect information about air safety. I suspect many of those passengers are not familiar with Bernoulli’s Principle of lift but fly anyway.
JK Brown
Oct 26 2023 at 10:40pm
Public schools are not a public good, they are a political good. This is more so in areas, of diverse populations. Mises wrote about this in his ‘Liberalism’ (1927)
Assuming we do feel some public funding is a good idea, then vouchers are the only way to get around the fact that compulsory, public schooling has the core mission of indoctrinating the students to what those who control them desire. And parents are increasingly denied any input into the nature of the indoctrination. And increasingly, Malcolm X’s admonishment is relevant, “Only a fool would let his enemy teach his children.”
What is needed is lawsuits as many schools are active in preventing the students who want to learn from becoming educated by their unwillingness to maintain discipline. Even in well-ordered classes, desk audits have revealed that only about 10 minutes of every 50 minute class period is in actual instruction (See Glenn Reynolds/Instapundit) due to administrative, and other non-instruction duties and activities.
Comments are closed.