(Having surveyed the strings attached to school choice money in yesterday’s part 2, I now turn to the failures of school choice by their own standards.)

                With any government program spending our hard-earned tax money, we, the citizens, deserve to know whether or not such a program accomplished anything worthwhile.  For the most part we can all agree that educating children is a reasonable goal in general even if we might argue that it is not the government’s role Biblically.  From there, we can all agree that if the government says that a school choice program funded by millions of dollars was implemented to improve educational outcomes, then we should be able to measure those outcomes and see a difference.  The children who receive vouchers or educational savings accounts should fare better for having received the benefits. 

                At this point, things get a little murkier.  Determining whether or not a child or the whole group of recipients fared better depends greatly on what measurements are chosen as criteria for success.  A few hypothetical examples will demonstrate how the choice and methods of measurement can affect whether or not a program is deemed a success by anyone. 

                Let’s say 1,000 children receive the voucher or whatever it is ultimately called and attend a school of their parent’s choosing for 1 year.  At the end of that 1 year, some measurement must be taken of the students who remained in the public schools and those who escaped.  The chosen criteria must be applied to both groups in order to compare apples to apples.  The simplest and most often chosen criteria is the standardized test already administered by the state to all its public-school students.  This assumes that this test actually measures a child’s academic abilities.  Even if it measures academic abilities at that point in time, one must then ask if it predicts with any accuracy a child’s future success in life.  In other words, does it predict graduation rate from high school or college at the least or does it predict life success of future adults in terms of annual salaries or future career success? 

                While the debate over whether or not the current standardized tests actually provide a real prediction of student success could rage on for pages and hours, for the sake of this argument we will allow the proponents of school choice to have this criteria.  By doing so, we can look at their chosen method of assessing the success of their own programs.  At the very least, if they are going to spend millions of dollars, they should perform well by their own standard. 

                Before looking at their actual performance across a number of currently active school choice programs, we should recognize a couple of other criteria as well.  For some parents, the academic opportunities may be important but getting their child out of a physically dangerous school may be foremost on their minds.  In many urban schools, bullying, violence, even gangs may encourage parents to sign their children up for a school choice “run for your life” option.  While it is terribly sad that some schools have reached this boiling point, it is a reality of the government run system which has lost its control over their students.  The other reported criteria, even in the absence of physical dangers, has been simple parental satisfaction.  Surveys have looked at the parents’ satisfaction in regards to their child’s educational experience based on which school they attend. 

                Giving the school choice proponents the opportunity to prove the program’s benefits by comparing test scores, we would hope to see a consistent and significant improvement in scores for participants.  We could understand that such an improvement might need two or three years to manifest, but at some point in time, we should see an increase if the program was producing as the proponents claim.  In reality, the statistics do not give the proponents much to boast about.  In general, the students who do show the most consistent and significant score improvements are those in the lower economic classes.  Before looking at more details statistics, this might seem a worthwhile result as the marketed goals of school choice often focus on helping those who don’t have the financial abilities to attend private schools.  A problem arises when some state programs report participant numbers highly tilted away from these lower income students.  In some states, a high percentage of program participants end up being students who are already attending private schools before the school choice program and thus not reaching as many actually still in those poorly performing schools.  The left-leaning school choice opponents might have a point that much of the money is primarily benefitting those who already have the money to escape the public school system in the first place without the government assistance. 

                While I will include a bibliography of research reports for you to review at your discretion, a few further takeaways should be noted.  First, the results of these studies can be skewed by bias as any study can be manipulated, especially when the measured outcomes do not demonstrate large differences between the groups (public school versus school choice recipients).  Choice of outcomes can influence how report authors decide to publish their findings depending on their pre-existing opinions of school choice.  Therefore, we should look at several data sources before coming to a conclusion on school choice’s efficacy.

Catt, D., & et,  al. (2021, November 4). 25 Years: 25 Most Significant School Choice Research Findings. EdChoice. https://www.edchoice.org/engage/25-years-25-most-significant-school-choice-research-findings/

DeAngelis, C. A. (2018, Winter). What Leads to Successful School Choice Programs? A Review of the Theories and Evidence. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2018/what-leads-successful-school-choice-programs-review-theories-evidence

Dynarski, M., & et,  al. (2018, May). Evaluation of the DC opportunity scholarship program. Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184010/pdf/20184010.pdf

Figlio, D., & Karbownik, K. (2016, July). Evaluation of Ohio’s Edchoice Scholarship Program. Fordham Institute. https://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/FORDHAM%20Ed%20Choice%20Evaluation%20Report_online%20edition.pdf

Gleason, P., & et,  al. (2010, June). The evaluation of Charter School Impacts – Executive Summary. Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/pdf/20104030.pdf

Mills, Jonathan and Wolf, Patrick, The Effects of the Louisiana Scholarship Program on Student Achievement after Four Years (May 10, 2019). EDRE Working Paper No. 2019-10, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3376230 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3376230

Raymond, M. E., & et,  al. (2023, June 19). As a matter of fact: The National Charter School Study III 2023. CREDO. https://ncss3.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Credo-NCSS3-Report.pdf

Waddington, R.J. and Berends, M. (2018), Impact of the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program: Achievement Effects for Students in Upper Elementary and Middle School. J. Pol. Anal. Manage., 37: 783-808. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22086

                Second, regardless of inherent biases, we should all agree that the measured changes in children’s school performance has generally not been very large.  Even where there are clear and significant improvements in reading, math, or science scores, drilling down into the data often reveals that only a portion of the overall group in the study experienced that benefit while high percentages demonstrated either no benefit or a negative benefit.  In other words, only a percentage of the participating children benefit and only a portion of the participating schools demonstrate positive changes.  In fact, some show a decline in test scores versus the norm. 

                Third, after reading several research reports, we should all acknowledge that school choice comes in a wide variety of forms.  The multitude of factors such as how the money is transferred from government to parent (vouchers, tax credits, educational savings accounts) and the educational entities doing the education (charter schools, private schools, homeschools, or magnet schools) means that school choice cannot be considered as a single method of reform.  Therefore, basing the projections of a Tennessee program’s success off of other states’ records is like saying the Philadelphia Phillies will win their baseball game because the New York Yankees won their game the day before.  Simply implementing a statewide school choice program and expecting it to work like a panacea is simplistic and naïve. 

                Fourth, while the listed article “School Choice Primarily Benefits Students Who Weren’t Already in Private Schools” by the Heritage Foundation attempts to refute allegations that school choice primarily helps those already in private schools, they do not completely remove this concern (Greene 2023).  Their statistical analysis does correct some other reports’ overestimations of how many school choice recipients in Arizona, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin had already been in non-public schools.  However, two facts remain.  On one hand, in those states and in Florida (they do not address Florida statistics), a sizable number of program recipients were already outside of public schools even if it is not a majority as the original statistics were claimed.  Florida reports indicate that 69 percent of those newly receiving school vouchers had already been in private schools before vouchers were available.  On the other hand, other studies indicate that only a portion of the schools evaluated in studies show a statistically significant improvement in reading or math or other scores used for comparison.  In other words, becoming a school choice recipient does not somehow magically guarantee a child’s future success in school or life.

                In summary of evaluating whether or not school choice serves as a panacea for our national educational decline, I have to agree with the National Affairs article by Franklin Hess in 2010.  Mr. Hess  describes how school choice (also called “Educational Choice” or EdChoice) advocates have overpromised from the early days when President Reagan and contemporaries promoted this as a primary solution.  Such examples of overpromising while underdelivering in reality continue today.  While we can identify some studies that show some benefits for some students in some schools, ultimately school choice does not solve all our problems for all our students in all situations.  We need more proof of success before throwing more and more money after such hyped up schemes or else we just sound like public school advocates who keep lobbying for more and more money to fix their broken system.  We see how far that has gotten us so far as educational spending soars while scores plummet. 

Tomorrow we finish with Part 4, “Unintended Consequences” with a conclusion to the whole series.

Bibliography LINK

(Having introduced the topic of school vouchers in Part 1, I move the the first reason parents of all types should reject school vouchers.”)

                Free money is never free when the government writes the check.  There are always strings attached when the government offers money directly or pays for a program serving their public.  When it comes to education, there are varieties of such strings which parents of both homeschoolers and private schoolers should consider before accepting these proposed educational savings accounts (ESA).  While the vague and broad term, “accountability”, encompasses the big picture of our leaders’ mindset towards their money giveaway, other more focused terms fill in some details of what “accountability” to the government for these ESA’s looks like.  These include regulations, registration, pre-approval processes, standardized testing, and curriculum choices at the very least.  The final string that often binds the tightest at the end is the reality of non-discrimination laws especially if any of the money comes from the federal government. 

                With the debate heating up over whether or not such school choice is bad or good, we first hear from the public school advocates like teachers, administrators, and teacher’s unions that the public must have accountability.  We, the citizens of such a state concerned about their children’s future, cannot tolerate the thought that our tax money could be spent without such accountability for how it is spent and the results of the spending.  This is a natural inclination shared by most citizens of any state and is echoed by the very legislators contemplating and publicly commenting on the possibility of this bill.  We have heard state representative Sam Whitson here in Williamson County state on record that of course we must have accountability (Marshall 2023).  Others are likewise repeating this “accountability” refrain here and there so no one gets the wrong idea that we would hand out free money to parents without watching how they spend it.  Therefore, we have both the political left and the political right playing the same music on their string theory of “accountability”.

                This string theory sounds reasonable to most of us who know the history of what happens when no one watches how government money is spent.  The Tennessean article by Campbell et al describes some of the shenanigans already occurring with the money going to Tennessee charter schools.  Rather than recount the instances of known fraud in that article, I turn to the regulations intended to prevent such fraud.  No one wants our taxpayer money to be wasted on such fraud, so we attach regulations on how this money can be spent.  Some current and past examples of school choice related regulations gives us some concrete examples. 

                In Missouri, their school choice program included several regulations for homeschooling families which will likely rub us the wrong way.  In order to receive the government funding for their homeschool education, parents had to agree to the following.  They had to enroll with an Educational Assistance Organization who would monitor the spending of their money and their child’s progress.  Anyone over the age of 18 years old who lived in the home had to permit a background check with the State Highway Patrol.  Annual standardized testing, paid for by the parent, was required.  The state’s treasury department would track the child’s demographics and grades.  They would have a yearly audit of how the parents spent the money.  The program included hotline anonymous reporting systems which anyone could report your alleged fraud, potentially triggering surprise audits of parental spending.  Even after the child graduated, their future educational achievement would be tracked for years.  Both Democrats and Republicans required this level of accountability from Missouri parents simply wanting to homeschool their children with the government’s money. In this example from Missouri, we see the unavoidable necessity for homeschoolers to register with the state and submit to their intrusive oversight with implications for testing requirement, curriculum choices, and religious liberty implications enforced with monetary restrictions.

                Kirsten Lombard described the situation in Wisconsin for private schools who accepted voucher students with this string money in which those voucher-connected students must take common core assessments in order to participate in the voucher program.  She argues strongly that as these required common-core based tests continue, the participating schools will be forced to administer such tests to all students.  She presses the logic that the cost of maintaining two data systems for student tracking and the need to prove performance will require putting all the school’s children into the testing process. While Tennessee superficially claims to have rejected common core and other progressive curriculum like Critical Race Theory, we know that these philosophies continue to be promoted under different names and disguises.  Standardized testing becomes the open door for these curricular influences.

                We can see that Mrs. Lombards predictions have been born out by a few examples.  In New York, the system of Jewish schools called “yeshivas” operated for years as private schools but began accepting state funds through school choice legislation.  When the government was not satisfied with the schools’ outcomes, an investigation into the schools resulted in the schools being forced to comply with common core standards. 

               We also see that beyond forced curriculum and standardized testing, homeschoolers and private schools face other regulatory restrictions in what can be taught by those receiving state funding.  In Maryland a Christian school was forced to defend its right to express a Biblical view of marriage as between one man and one woman.  Initially the school was told it could no longer receive voucher funding (Kookogey 2019).  Then it was told that it would have to pay back $100,000 of funds it had already received. (Perkins 2019). Eventually, a judge sanely ruled that the school had religious liberty to express such a Biblical view without forfeiting access to these voucher funds, but 1 to 2 years was spent in limbo before the case was finally settled in 2021, having started in 2019 (Gryboski 2021).  While this school did win in the end, not all schools may be able to sustain such a legal battle and win. 

                Other examples of providing such funding but later taking it back can be seen in other states.  In Nevada the original legislation excluded a requirement for standardized testing of participating students.  Once passed, the state board of education added a requirement for private school families to administer yearly standardized testing.  The promised freedom in the passed bill was quickly taken away before the program was even implemented.  This occurred despite the fact that the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dale Erquiaga, testified before the Senate Committee on Revenue and Economic Development that no such requirement would be implemented.  While homeschooling families in Nevada can still forgo such standardized testing, their acceptance of state funding requires opting into this yearly testing according to Nevada legal code.  NRS 388.100-140 – OPT-IN CHILDREN

                West Virginia serves as another example where initial freedoms were almost stolen back from homeschool parents.  The state passed a 2021 school choice law in which homeschoolers had worked hard to enshrine legal protections for homeschoolers, thinking they had won, at least in 2021.  They made sure no regulations would be placed on homeschoolers who did not accept the offered money.  Only two years later, West Virginia legislators proposed a bill that would remove the safeguards and lump all homeschoolers into the same regulations by the state regardless of whether or not they took the “bribe”, (I mean voucher money).  Ultimately, this legislation was defeated, but once acquired freedoms are never truly safe as long as legislators believe they should control every aspect of a child’s education rather than leaving it to the parent’s discretion. 

                In summary and support of this string theory of puppeteering the world of private schooling and homeschooling, these examples could be enough to convince you, but the Cato Institute which offers some support for school choice had to admit this regulatory burden.  In a study looking at whether school voucher programs increased the regulations on private schools, they concluded that yes, this state funding source did exactly that.  In their words:

“Voucher programs are associated with large and highly statistically significant increases in the regulatory burden imposed on private schools (compared to schools not participating in choice programs). And this relationship is, more likely than not, causal.”

                Apparently, the string theory of government control of private schooling options through school vouchers is more than a theory, but closer to reality than we should feel comfortable with.

Tomorrow, Part 3 – Failures

Full Bibliography LINK

“Let’s stop and rethink the definition of public education,” she said. “Today it is often defined as one type of school funded by taxpayers, controlled by government. But, if every student is part of the public, then every way and every place a student learns is ultimately of benefit to the public,” DeVos continued. “That should be the new definition of public education.” — Betsy DeVos quoted by Jesse in Detroit Free Press.

As of December 2023, twenty states have some form of school choice expansion underway in which parents can choose their child’s school beyond accepting the local district where they live. According to Betsy DeVos, former Secretary of Education and early proponent of school choice, this opportunity benefits both the child and the public. This seems like a win-win situation until you read the fine print written boldly, “if every student is part of the public”.  The outworking of her new definition coalesces all education under the umbrella of government influence while purporting to free children from the government run public school system. 

This effort has been underway in Tennessee for a number of years as evidenced by the money trail described in a prior essay (LINK) and is attempting to cross the tipping point with Governor Lee’s current Educational Freedom visionary proposal.  Having taken root in the Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement act of 2022 (TISA), when it passed limited school choice for Memphis and Nashville schools, Governor Lee hopes to include the whole of Tennessee in school choice beyond these two districts.  Much concern and dismay has been publicized over the state of our public schools for years, but the post 2020 shutdown aftereffects are being used as the final straw to push our state over the threshold.  While proclaiming freedom, school choice advocates are in reality enticing those already enjoying educational freedom to submit their children and their schools to government regulation.  In exchange for some students escaping broken and failing schools, public money will be pumped into the private education system, radically altering it with the inevitable strings of government funding.

Promoters of school choice claim that those who could afford private school or homeschool have opportunities not open to many less fortunate children trapped in public school systems.  These escapees from the system left because they saw the problems of our public schools and wanted to be free from its grasp and adverse effects.  Homeschoolers particularly valued this freedom as they forsook not only the public side of education, but the paradigm of mass education solely in age segregated classrooms steeped in failing modern educational methods.  We (homeschoolers) recognized that the system was broken not only in where it took place (public schools) and in who ran it (government) but in the forms and objectives of modern educational philosophies.  The public schools were not only physically unsafe for many student, but intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually unsafe as they strive to now create woke global citizens rather than moral, productive, and mature men and women in community. 

As Tennessee contemplates our Governor’s proposed solution for the broken public school system, we must evaluate whether such a solution actually seeks to solve the problem at the root of the brokenness or is just a band-aid that allows the deeper rottenness to continue.  The proponents claim that this will give those students who currently do not have opportunities to leave the system, equal options to current private and homeschool children.  They express seemingly sincere concern that such trapped children are being held back academically by deprivation of opportunity and harmed physically in unsafe school districts.  They reassure everyone else that these educational savings accounts as the foundation for the Governor’s Education Freedom bill will not restrict nor hinder anyone else’s educational freedoms.  They thus claim that this is pure milk chocolate, sweet as honey for all with no bitter aftertaste for anyone. 

While many studies do indicate that parents of children who are enabled to leave dangerous or otherwise failing schools express higher satisfaction with the new schools, is this sufficient reason to accept the negative aspects?  While some studies show a mild academic benefit for lower income children who escape the public schools, does this justify the cost and clear downsides of the system?  Many conservatives will join in the calls for school choice believing that they can minimize the damage that the public schools are causing for our next generation, but again, what price are we paying and are we really diminishing the influence of the government on schooling?

In evaluating this proposal, we must take into consideration three likely negative aspects of the bill as well as its potential positive impacts. First, as with any government funding, strings will be attached to the money and thus to those who accept the money whether the parents or the schools in the program.  This will be called “accountability”, but ultimately places the government in control of your child’s education.  Second, we should measure the success of school choice by their promised outcomes.  If they want more children to have more opportunities and better life outcomes, then we should evaluate currently active school choice programs by these measures.  Third, as with any major policy enactment, we will find secondary and tertiary effects that may be unexpected and/or unwanted.  Proponents may argue that such downsides are “unintended” but worth the cost, but we should count the cost and determine for ourselves if we want to pay these delayed payments in other impacted areas. 

Tomorrow, Part 2, Reason #1 “Strings”

Bibliography for entire series.