RALEIGH – Although politicians frequently discuss the issue of parental choice in education as if it were simply a matter of speculating about positive or negative outcomes, I’ve pointed out several times in the past that we don’t have to guess.
Beyond our borders, countries have structured their educational systems in a variety of ways. Some – such as Chile, Sweden, and the Low Countries – have school-choice programs that significantly reduce the penalty parents must pay when choosing schools other than the ones to which their children are assigned by government bureaucrats. The details differ, and reveal the limitations and drawbacks of each choice system. But outcome data reveal their promise.
Andrew Coulson, an education analyst at the Cato Institute, released a new study last month that compiled dozens of studies of these school-choice programs. The outcomes under consideration included test scores, gains per dollar, parental satisfaction, school safety and discipline, and graduation rates. Coulson found overwhelming evidence for the proposition that private schools outperform government ones on these measures most of the time. More importantly, he found that as a whole, national educational systems that maximize market competition produce better educational outcomes that those based on a monopoly model.
Coulson stressed the varied educational settings from which his study’s results arose. “These findings,” he wrote, “span some of the most diverse cultural and economic settings on Earth: from the United States to Colombia, from the urban slums of Hyderabad to the fishing villages of Ghana. The parents whose children benefit from market-like school systems range from some of the most privileged on the planet to some of the least literate and most destitute.”
He also warned that school choice programs that appear to inject competition into education but assert significant state control over participating schools’ autonomy aren’t worth pursuing. “The challenge is to … ensure all families have ready access to the marketplace without compromising key features of markets that are responsible for their superior performance: professional autonomy for educators, unfettered choice for parents, and some direct payment of tuition by parents.”
Coulson’s findings suggest that the best approach would be to offer educational tax credits to individuals or businesses that spend or give money to educate school-aged children. The dollar-for-dollar credit would max out at a certain per-pupil expenditure. Poor families without a tax liability would benefit, too, because donations to the scholarship-granting organizations serving them (like the Children’s Scholarship Fund of Charlotte, which JLF launched a decade ago) would also be eligible for the credit.
Structured carefully and explained clearly, school choice programs are political salable, practical, fair, and offer a real hope of reducing longstanding performance gaps. We’ve let tunnel vision and the labor-union mentality of the North Carolina Association of Educators stand in the way of progress long enough. No more excuses. No more delay. Let’s get it done.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.