Vouchers and 'competition'

The cornerstone of the pro-voucher argument has been that vouchers encourage 'competition between schools' and that competition improves quality - as it does in the marketplace (that is, under certain conditions, as any economist would tell you).

But when voucher proponents cite the 'evidence' that supports this claim, that's not what they're talking about at all. To my knowledge, there's not a shred of evidence that the quality of education in public schools is improved by the competition brought on by vouchers. It's an intellectual bait-and-switch.

What they're talking about are the students who use the vouchers, which is something else entirely. But even that evidence is spotty, which is somewhat surprising, considering: You're giving vouchers to students to allow them to move out of schools that have been identified as "failing", and putting them in schools that are - one would assume - at least 'average', statistically-speaking. (Certainly better than 'failing'!)  Many of of these schools are private and some of them are expensive. These kids have parents who are involved and motivated concerning their education. Wouldn't you expect these students, on average, to do better?

But what happens to the 95% of students who would remain stuck in the so-called 'failing' schools, which now have even fewer resources than before? This move towards taxpayer support of private schools not only ignores the historical lack of equity in educational opportunity, it exacerbates it.

If the supporters of vouchers were serious about improving the quality of education in our struggling schools, they would be promoting strategies that have been used successfully. Unfortunately, the following* doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

1. Create a shared vision in the school and build a sense of school community
2. Develop and nurture connections with the broader community
3. Focus on healthy students who come to school well-fed and ready to learn
4. Create a safe environment for students: physically, emotionally and intellectually
5. Focus on making students feel connected to school
6. Appropriate use of data for district, school, and classroom decisions
7. A school environment in which collaborative, shared leadership is encouraged
8. Empower teachers and and create opportunities for them to learn from each other
9. Require frequent and meaningful assessment for all students
10. Focus on academic rigor and implementation of appropriate curriculum
11. Outreach to, and training for, parents
12. High expectations for students and staff, including how everyone is treated
13. Link teaching to established curricular standards

The core argument of voucher proponents - about the value of 'competition' - hasn't been validated, hasn't been tested, and upon scrutiny, doesn't even make sense.  But taxpayers are being asked to spend many millions of dollars on it.

To quote from Rick Hess' recent blog post: "If 'reformers' think it's a winning strategy to push awkwardly constructed, ill-designed programs that are going to create entirely foreseeable problems, then I'd encourage them to check out the history of NCLB."

*Adapted from the PSBA white paper: Raising achievement in underperforming schools