Proponents

Those who favor school choice argue that they should be permitted to spend their tax dollars at the educational facility of their choosing, allowing parents to be able to choose which school they want their children to attend. They assert that implementing a voucher system would promote competition among schools of all types. The logic of such capitalist competition, proponents say, would be a greater incentive to improve the education system as efficiently as possible. Poorly performing schools would face closing unless they improved themselves, thereby attracting more students and funding. Those schools that best used their resources to educate would theoretically draw more students. In that way, accountability would be localized and not imposed by government standards. Further, it is noted that school vouchers allow for a greater possibility of economic diversity because the poor—under that system—can attend private schools that were previously inaccessible.

Some studies support the hypothesis of reduced racial and economic segregation through the abolishment of territorial-based school allocation in the public monopoly system (where students are assigned to schools according to territory, thus dividing students between richer and poorer neighborhoods), as well as greater free choice and quality improvement by forcing schools to compete among themselves by offering more diverse and interesting programs.

Critics of the voucher system note that, in some systems, it is possible to have choice between schools within the public school system without vouchers.

Furthermore, the choice exercised by parents within the voucher system often results in the selection of a religious school, so that public funds are given to a religious institution. Theoretically, a religious school which endorses extremism could be eligible to accept taxpayer funded vouchers. However, most legislation on vouchers would include a provision that public funds may only be spent on education, not other religious activities.

Many argue that given the limited budget for schools, a voucher system weakens public schools while at the same time not necessarily providing enough money for people to attend private schools. (The opponents assert a tendency of the costs of tuition to rise along with its demand, which would compound the problem.) Opponents also claim that the vouchers are tantamount to providing taxpayer-subsidized white flight from urban public schools, whose student bodies are predominantly non-white in most large cities. Proponents such as Milton Friedman respond that the poor have an incentive to support school choice, as their children attend substandard schools, and would thus benefit most from alternative schools. Consequently, minorities, especially blacks, would benefit and contribute to the diversity of private schooling. The rich on the other hand, already attend schools of remarkable quality in affluent suburbs and would have no incentive to switch schools. In short, the more decrepit the school one attends, the more incentive he has to switch schools and thus benefit from school vouchers.

Interestingly, some fundamentalist groups side with liberals in opposition to school vouchers, albeit on different grounds. The general fundamentalist opposition is based on the source of the vouchers, which would be the government. Fundamentalists (who strongly oppose any government oversight of their operations) state that, if a church-run school accepts a government voucher, they have thus allowed the government the "right" to dictate the school's operation and, by extension, the church's operation as well. Therefore, the government could order the church to stop speaking against practices such as abortion and homosexuality, since it now "controls" the church through its acceptance of government funds. Other liberals believe it is unconstitutional to provide government funding for church-run schools as it promotes the state sponsoring relegion.

Some generally support school vouchers only coupled with standard tests, they reason that if there are not standard tests the schools in the school voucher system will give more students passing grades or "lower their bars" in order to attract students.

Further more criticism comes from various rich and poor people, assuming their vouchers will actually meet their taxes. Poor people believe that their vouchers will be worth less to schools and so selectivity in private schools will tend to be more biased against them, rendering their children with increasingly detoriating classmates and hence a slower learning curve ending in below average performance.

Logic dictates that the government might try to face this problem making rich people's vouchers equal to poor people's voucher and hence making the already rich school systems -and arguably better performing- (ex:Beverly Hills Unified School District) vulnerable to reduced funding.

Education is a rivalrous good. That means that only one person can enjoy each education spot. If there are twenty places for students in a class and the quality of teaching isn't compromised, students can only be aggregated if only a limited number are taken. It is also an excludable good, because someone can easily be prevented from attending classes offered. With such characteristcs, education can be classified as a private good, which are, according to economic theory, usually better provided by the market than by the government. But education is a service that contains several positive externalities, which is why the government chooses to fund it.

A minority of voucher opponents in the U.S. object on radically different grounds from the above mentioned. These opponents believe that granting government money, even indirectly, to private and religious schools will inevitably lead to increased governmental control over non-government education. Individuals who oppose vouchers on these grounds are often libertarian; a few of them go so far as to call for the abolition of all government sponsorship of education in the U.S. The Alliance for the Separation of School & State opposes education vouchers on the grounds that "if vouchers become commonplace, private and religious schools will become more and more like public schools" Other libertarians, such as Milton Friedman, fully support school vouchers, though his plan assumes no additional regulation of private schools.

In addition, economists point to the theoretical (but unproven) problem of "cream skimming," a variety of adverse selection in the educational market. With a presumably greater pool of applicants, the private schools will be more selective over which students to admit, possibly excluding those who belong to the "wrong" religion or ethnicity, those with disabilities such as autism or multiple sclerosis and those with disciplinary problems. On the other hand, by law the public schools have to educate everyone, so that they become a "dumping ground" for those students unwanted by the private schools. This further undermines the reputation of the public schools, leading to a vicious circle that tends toward the total abolition of the public schools and the end of universal education. However, logic dictates that private schools may spring up to meet the demand of those empowered by school choice and thus negate this possible disaster.

Often, the low costs of the private schools benefiting from voucher funds arises from the non-union status of their staffs and their limited overhead because of their exemption from laws protecting those with disabilities and the like. Government regulations aimed at making the private schools act like "good citizens" threaten to make them be exactly like the public schools.

Education Voucher Information: Inside
[ Controversy ] [ Implementations ]