breaking news

NEW DETAILS: Armed runner stopped sex assault on trails near Rainey Street, records show

Two Views: Why school vouchers won’t work — an economist’s perspective


The school-reform movement stands at a crossroads. One camp wants unfettered free markets, while charter school leaders and others want to offer families choice and preserve meaningful oversight and accountability.

This debate is playing out in Texas on Senate Bill 3, which would create two forms of school vouchers. Though packaged as savings accounts and tax credits, Senate Bill 3 is essentially a voucher bill that takes a raw free market approach.

As a free market economist who has studied school reform for two decades, I find this debate important. Economics 101 tells us markets are typically the most efficient way to allocate resources — that supply and demand is best for consumers. With good information and options to choose from, when the decisions of one consumer don’t affect others and certain other conditions hold, efficiency is exactly what we get. For most of life’s activities — from the grocery store checkout line to finding a job — markets are indeed the best approach.

But free markets don’t make sense for schools. Families expect schools to do a lot of things for their children — teach academic skills, social manners and good values — most of which families don’t have good information about.

The decisions made by each family also affect other families. Parents don’t need a Ph.D. to figure out that classmates and friends affect their children as much as teachers do. Research shows that families pay a lot of attention to who is in the schools they are choosing from. This makes schools a bit like country clubs, though exclusivity is unhelpful to making the market work.

Even if free markets did work well, it would be reasonable for policymakers to ask for some measurable results. It’s hard to think of another case where government writes checks to private organizations without checking whether taxpayers are getting anything for their money.

Reporting test scores is a start — but it’s not enough. To ensure high-quality choices for students and families, there must also be a mechanism to weed out consistently low-performing schools. For the reasons above and others, markets alone do this poorly.

Even if a free market for schooling were efficient, it’s hard to argue it would be fair. In the average free market, wealthier people get higher quality items while low-income families get the lowest. That might be tolerated when we are talking about buying breakfast cereal at the grocery store — but not when we are talking about schools.

Basic economics tell us that a government subsidy like a voucher will set a floor for private school tuition. But remember that private schools with the best reputations are also trying to be exclusive. Surveys of private schools suggest that the best ones are not interested in altering their admission standards to accept vouchers from public school students.

The research lines up with what basic economics predicts. Across many studies, students using vouchers end up with lower achievement levels than those in traditional public schools. The effects have been especially bad in states like Louisiana and Ohio, where voucher programs are most similar to Senate Bill 3. The results seem better for vouchers when we look at high school graduation rates and college-going, but there are only a few studies of those measures — and only in urban areas. The most convincing study shows no effect on college-going.

These results shouldn’t surprise us. Intuitively, we all understand that schooling is quite different than going to the grocery store.

To ensure quality, accountability and fairness, the government still needs to play a significant role. It might not be the role we have today. Having all schools run by school districts works in many places. In others, we can do better — and we must. But there is little reason to think a broad-scale, unfettered market with vouchers is the best solution. Basic economics, and evidence, tell us so.

Blind faith in markets is no better than blind faith in government. We need them to work together.

Harris is professor of economics, the Schleider Foundation Chair in Public Education and the founding director of the Education Research Alliance for New Orleans at Tulane University.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Dana Milbank: No one listens to women when they speak around here
Dana Milbank: No one listens to women when they speak around here

WASHINGTON — Over the weekend, the president of the United States retweeted to his 38 million Twitter followers a video clip doctored to show him driving a golf ball off the tee and between the shoulder blades of Hillary Clinton — “CrookedHillary” in the tweet — knocking the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential...
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Feisty, outspoken Dreamers are true Americans
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Feisty, outspoken Dreamers are true Americans

SAN DIEGO — Immigrant advocates have always said that Dreamers deserve to have a voice in their own fate. I definitely see the value in that — now that a group of these undocumented young people have used their voices to shout down Nancy Pelosi. Angry Dreamers called out the House Minority Leader Monday in her own back yard of San Francisco...
Roger Cohen: It’s act five of the Greek tragedy
Roger Cohen: It’s act five of the Greek tragedy

ATHENS, Greece — After almost a decade in Greece, David Horner, president of the American College of Greece, has seen it all: fury at Americans under George W. Bush, near reverence under Barack Obama, and outright dismay now that Donald Trump is president. “We’ve gone in short order from the outhouse, to the penthouse, to the loony...
Opinion: Huts burn, children die and Suu Kyi shrugs

A beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner is presiding over an ethnic cleansing in which villages are burned, women raped and children butchered. For the last three weeks, Buddhist-majority Myanmar has systematically slaughtered civilians belonging to the Rohingya Muslim minority, forcing 270,000 to flee to neighboring Bangladesh — with Myanmar soldiers...
Herman: Gov. Greg Abbott’s one-word answer to my two-part question
Herman: Gov. Greg Abbott’s one-word answer to my two-part question

It was a moment. A fleeting one, yes. And probably not the kind that, 20 years from now, you’re going to remember where you were when it happened. That kind of moment is reserved for huge moments, like remembering where you were when you got married. The event was Gov. Greg Abbott’s Monday announcement of what he called “probably...
More Stories