Texans for Parental Choice in Education

In the midst of the school choice debate, the free-market folks point out problems in the public school system.

It is almost reflex for public school teachers to take the criticism personally.

Public school teachers, we are not criticizing you or any particular person in the public school system. We are criticizing the economic structure of a monopolistic system.

Most employees in the public school are trying hard to do a good job in spite of the monopolistic system.

I don’t know of all the difficulties that public school teachers deal with, but I know a few.

1. You are not rewarded financially for doing a good job.
2. You have to teach things that you don’t believe are true.
3. You have pointless paperwork that eats up your time.
4. You have out-of-control and scary students that you can’t discipline. They cause chaos in your classroom. You have no discipline support from their parents or the school administration.
5. The teacher down the hall that doesn’t know how to teach and isn’t interested in learning, gets paid the same salary that you do.

Both you and your students are victims of a monopolistic system. It a system where excellence cannot be rewarded and incompetence cannot be discouraged. That is a system destined for mediocracy.

The only people that anger school-choicers are those that defend the system when they know better. These people (most union leaders) are desperately holding on to their political and financial power and don’t care about how it affects the students or teachers.

I know it is difficult to “come out of the closet”, because you fear retaliation from administration above you. Just remember that that fear is another symptom of how you are being oppressed by the monopolistic system.

Most Democratic legislators feel the same way. If they speak out about how market competition can improve a monopolistic system, the unions will retaliate by voting them out of office. They are oppressed by the system also.

Retired teachers, help us speak up for the teachers still suffering in the system. Please join the school choice movement so that the union leaders cannot say it is about public schools vs. private schools. It’s about a monopolistic system with no freedom vs. a free-market system where choices abound.

Bob in Texas

This is a must-see for school choice advocates. He makes the tragic nature of our school industry look funny.

In the next series of posts, I will answer various “problems” with school choice that opponents raise.

1. The “creaming” argument: School choice will allow private schools to cream off the best students, “leaving behind” the poor students in the public schools. Vouchers don’t create ‘choice’ for parents and kids; they create ‘choice’ for private schools at taxpayers’ expense.

2. The fixed cost argument: School choice would lower the revenue to public schools. Since public schools have large fixed costs, school boards will have to raise taxes to cover these costs.

3. No schools will accept the vouchers: Elite private schools are very selective and a voucher would not cover tuition. Many private schools would refuse vouchers if state accountability tests or standards were required.

4. The fly-by-night schools argument: Due to the huge sums of tax money that would be newly available under school choice, fly-by-night schools would open, looking only to make a profit.

5. The First Amendment argument: Spending public tax dollars for religious schools violates Texas state and US federal constitutional separation of church and state.

6. The “No Research Shows Vouchers Work” argument: No credible research shows that school choice raises student achievement.

The “creaming” argument: School choice will allow private schools to cream off the best students, “leaving behind” the poor students in the public schools. Vouchers don’t create ‘choice’ for parents and kids; they create ‘choice’ for private schools at taxpayers’ expense.

Answer: The “creaming” argument paints a rather grim picture of public schools. It is like students running from a burning building, where only the best students are allowed to escape the fire.

The logic that “parents have no choice, only schools have choice” shows no understanding of the free market. School choice is mutual choice with both parents and schools choosing simultaneously. Mutual choice insures that all agreements are mutually voluntary with no coercion on either side.

Maybe some schools are like burning buildings, but most public schools have a large group of families that are content with their school. Their students are doing well, making good grades, having friends, involved in extracurricular activities. These are the “better” students. Why would they be motivated to leave? Moving would involve changing teachers, friends, and a new environment where they may not be successful. The better students have no motivation to move.

Only the poorer students and their parents are motivated to find another environment where they might be successful.

Research confirms this logic. A Harvard research study (An Evaluation of the Horizon Scholarship Program, Peterson, et. al) of the private voucher experiment in Edgewood ISD in San Antonio, TX actually proves that the “creaming” argument is false.

The study found that there were very few differences between the voucher families and the families that didn’t choose a voucher.

The fixed cost argument: School choice would lower the revenue to public schools. Since public schools have large fixed costs, school boards will have to raise taxes to cover these costs.

Every business has fixed costs. Managing and controlling fixed costs is part of making a business efficient. There is an easy place for public schools to “cut fat” and reduce their fixed costs: non-teaching overhead.

In 2007 Texas public schools spent only 41% of their operating expenses on teacher salaries. (TEA Snapshot 2007 Summary) I would expect that the non-teaching 59% of the budget could be trimmed somewhere.

That is one of the big benefits of school choice, it will force public schools to economize rather than raising taxes for more administrators and administrative buildings.

No schools will accept the vouchers: Elite private schools are very selective and a voucher would not cover tuition. Many private schools would refuse vouchers if state accountability tests or standards were required.

Every voucher program in the U.S. has plenty of schools accepting vouchers. The Edgewood ISD private voucher program found students attending 57 different schools in the first year of the program. (An Evaluation of the Horizon Scholarship Program) The average tuition, nationally, at a private school is $3,116. (Private Scholarship Programs: A Matter Of Priorities) Clearly there are plenty of non-elite schools.

The fly-by-night schools argument: Due to the huge sums of tax money that would be newly available under school choice, fly-by-night schools would open, looking only to make a profit.

Horror of horror! Private schools profiting off of our children! What is profit? It is a financial reward for delivering a educational service of equal quality at a lower cost, or delivering a educational service of better quality at an equal cost. Efficiency delivers profits. Inefficiency delivers bankruptcy.

And what about those “fly-by-night” schools? My answer is, “Isn’t it wonderful that a bad school can go out of business and be only a temporary problem. How many bad public schools can’t go out of business because they get tax revenue regardless of whether they are good or bad.”