Few pieces of education legislation filed this year have been subject to more debate than House Bill 944: Opportunity Scholarship Act. The bipartisan bill would award private school vouchers of $4,200 to a relatively small number of low-income children.
In May, members of the House Education Committee began consideration of the school voucher legislation. A standing-room-only crowd was on hand to observe the debate on the bill. As expected, droves of special-interest lobbyists and district school officials were on hand to object to various aspects of the legislation. Their remarks, however, were pedestrian compared to the statement delivered by Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson.
Atkinson and her advisers at the Department of Public Instruction believe the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” argument is the most compelling reason to oppose the bill in its initial form. She contended that private schools that accept taxpayer-funded voucher students should be subject to the same accountability requirements as district schools. These requirements include A-through-F school grades, standardized test scores, and public reporting of both.
First, what would happen if the House Education Committee had called her bluff? Specifically, if the bill sponsors had included school grades and accountability reporting in H.B. 944, would Atkinson have supported the bill?
I doubt it. She has not supported school choice measures in the past, and I suspect a few tweaks to the legislation would not change her mind. For this reason, I would rather Atkinson simply oppose the bill, rather than maintain the pretense that the state cares about the well-being of parents so much that it wants strong accountability measures for private schools.
Second, let’s consider the reverse scenario — private school accountability for district schools. Private schools live and die by the choices of parents. If parents are not satisfied with the educational environment of the private school they choose for their children, they will take their money and children elsewhere. That is a powerful incentive for private schools to ensure that the children they serve receive the education that best meets the needs of the children entrusted to them.
District schools need not worry about parental accountability. District schools are monopolies, and families have few alternatives, unless they are relatively wealthy, make sacrifices to pay private school tuition, forgo income to home school, or have a charter school in the vicinity. That is one reason our legislature mandates other forms of accountability, such as school grades and testing, to ensure that public schools spend billions in taxpayer dollars in productive ways.
Moreover, the district school establishment and its allies place little faith in the ability of parents to make sound decisions about the education of their children. In the eyes of many teachers, administrators, school board members, state education officials, and legislators on both sides of the aisle, parents are problems, not partners.
The establishment reasons that parents do not have the intelligence to make informed decisions about the education of their children and are thus obligated to delegate that responsibility to “the system.” And we wonder why district school parents no longer feel the need to be involved actively in the schooling of their children.
If we are going to talk about accountability in a meaningful way, we need to talk about all aspects of it. The accountability measures outlined by Atkinson represent one narrow aspect of the issue. Testing and grades are necessary because the state and nation have neutered an arguably more powerful and empowering form of accountability: parents.
As such, we should welcome efforts to substitute district school grades and testing requirements for parental accountability via school choice.
Dr. Terry Stoops (@TerryStoops) is director of research and education studies at the John Locke Foundation.