In today's woozy economy, we should be heartened when we see high demand in a vital service sector like American K-12 education.
Demand for what, you ask?
Parents are responding in droves for school vouchers and K-12 scholarships, as more have been made available in 2011 than ever before.
So where is the demand?
For starters, we can look at my home state of Indiana. Three months ago, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the nation's broadest school voucher law for K-12 education, having the potential to untether students, families, teachers, principals, and other entrepreneurs. The new school voucher program is a substantial policy achievement and innovation in a sector that is desperate for bold ideas.
Indiana's new Choice Scholarship Program allows low-and-middle income Hoosier families to qualify for school vouchers or scholarships that pay for part or all of private school tuition. The program should have broad appeal. More than 500,000 students in the state are eligible. The program is also abundantly fair. A Choice Scholarship, or voucher, is determined on a sliding scale based on a family's household income.
In just a month's time, some 2,200 students have already applied for scholarships to transfer to private schools for the 2011-2012 school year. Most of these kids have tried the public schools for at least one year, but they are now looking for a school that is better tailored to meet their needs. Their decision to find a new school could be based on a school's academics, safety, mission, culture, location or other factors. It's now up to the family to determine what school makes the most sense.
Based on the history of other school choice programs around the country, we know that it takes at least a few years for the word to spread about school vouchers and K-12 scholarships. At first, many parents simply can't believe that they now have this option. Once they realize the opportunity is real, they often feel joy and empowerment. That is no exaggeration.
Indiana is not venturing into school choice territory alone. This year has emerged like no other where we've seen proposals for school vouchers and scholarships advance around the country.
Politicians -- left, right, and center -- are recognizing there is growing demand among American families who want a range of schooling options for their kids. They get that the debate around "school choice" is one in which life-changing events literally hang in the balance. If you have ever met a family who participates in a school voucher or scholarship program, you know that last sentence rings true.
Demand has transformed into action in statehouses throughout the country in 2011. We have never seen in a single year in which so many school choice bills have been introduced (105): resulting in eight new programs and expansion or enhancement of 11 existing school choice programs. There are now more than 30 school choice programs operating in 18 states and Washington, D.C.
By the end of this month, it is estimated that more than 200,000 students will be participating in school choice programs that offer vouchers and scholarships.
Yes, demand for school vouchers and scholarships grew in 2011. And this demand is likely to continue to grow as word spreads about new programs and because the best research available shows that school vouchers are gaining popularity, and they can work well for families while saving states and school districts money.
Survey research can detect shifts in public opinion and levels of demand. Just last week the newly released Education Next/Harvard-PEPG survey reported a jump in support for vouchers. In their article explaining the annual survey's findings, the authors conclude:
"On many questions of education policy, opinion has not changed materially over the past year..." they wrote. But the authors go on to state, "Only when external events require a rethinking of their position are they inclined to alter their views. For that reason, we find it to be of some significance that over the course of the past year the public has become much more supportive of school vouchers."
The school choice research on student learning and fiscal impacts is also compelling. Nine out of 10 random-assignment studies, the gold standard in the social sciences, have found statistically significant learning gains among some or all students who use school vouchers. Greg Forster, a colleague of mine, recently reviewed the empirical research on "competitive effects" and concluded that 18 of 19 studies showed that school voucher programs have improved academic performance at nearby public schools. Effects are small to moderate in most of these studies, which is reasonable since the programs are all currently small or thinly dispersed within a K-12 student population. It is important to note that no high-quality study has found a negative impact on student learning among voucher participants or impacted public schools.
Fiscal evaluations of existing school choice programs are also worth mentioning. In his most recent analysis of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, Robert Costrell estimates the overall annual fiscal benefit from the program reached $37 million in 2009. Last year, the Florida Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability reported that the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program saved taxpayers about $36.2 million in 2009 alone.
What can a policymaker do with these savings? These funds can be deposited into a state's rainy day fund, invested in infrastructure, applied to chronically stressed out programs (see Medicaid, state unemployment insurance, unfunded public pensions), or returned to taxpayers as a rebate.
School choice programs offer fiscal flexibility for policymakers, but more importantly, school vouchers and scholarships can present frontiers of opportunity for American families.
I'm spending time at the Indiana State Fair this week, and with others I'll be working a booth that will provide information about Indiana's new Choice Scholarship Program. In the uncertain and volatile economic time we live in, it's going to be nice to share good news... and maybe a deep-fried Reese's Cup or two... with Hoosier families.
DiPerna is the research director for the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, the legacy foundation of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman and his wife Rose.
This post first appeared on Education News.
Cathleen Falsani: The Divine Surprises of Adoption
Noel Ocol: Why My Daughters Go to Private School, Even Though I Can't Afford it -- Part 1
School voucher bills flood GOP-led statehouses
States Debate, and Pass, More School Voucher Bills Than Ever in 2011
Catholic schools lead rush for voucher approvals in Indiana
2 moms want to join state in fighting challenge to school-voucher program
Indiana receives more than 1000 requests for school vouchers
Here's basic information on school vouchers in Indiana
It is that simple. A “philosophical†position of this group might be that “free markets†yield “better†living. Of course, there is no way to offer an example of this as no market is ever “freeâ€.
Plausibly this is the most onerous economic philosophy/political philosophy to have been hatched. It has as its primary goal the undermining of all that is “communal†and “socialâ€. It is a philosophy of pure power as all of its tenets reduce down to management by the oligarchy (those most brilliant of market manipulators). If you want a window into the soul of this “elite†manipulation of government funding check out the blog of this WalMart scholar in Arkansas. http://jaypgreene.com/2011/08/12/indiana-families-line-up-for-vouchers-3/ (Don’t just read this entry–dance around in their ideology for a while.)
For more: http://btownerrant.com/2011/08/12/vouchers-as-feint-subsidizing-free-market-ideology/
That’s the portion of the property tax (millage) that goes to the school districts.
Here’s a quick overview of how FL schools are funded - mostly from property taxes and a portion of sales tax (I did not know that!) which is part of the state appropriation. But we do not have any sales tax.
http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdf
These vouchers are paid for by corporations (mostly) who get a tax break for providing them. So the savings is a ‘non-realized’ savings, because the state and the school system never got the tax revenue in the first place. The numbers are right, but what is incorrect is saying that the program saved the taxpayers about $36.2 million. Our property taxes didn’t go down, and we all paid just as much in sales tax as we would have otherwise.
In fact, if too many voucher students all resided in one district, the actual $$$ loss to that district could require an increase in property taxes. This is one of the main arguments against expansion of the program.
I’m not saying it’s a useless program and we should get rid of it - quite the contrary, it’s a decent compromise to a difficult problem - but IMO it is wrong to use this statistic in a way that implies voucher programs in general can produce such impressive ‘taxpayer’ savings.
These are very thoughtful posts.. I really appreciate it. Thanks for posting the link to the original source document, too. That's good for additional context.
>>>>>> So the savings is a ‘non-realiÂzed’ savings, because the state and the school system never got the tax revenue in the first place.
But, at least they will have lowered their overall expenditures because of having fewer students in the public school system. The net result (if no other financial/budgetary action is taken) will be higher per-pupil spending, more resources, for the remaining students in the public school.
So if it's not an actual savings, and people can define this different when it comes to school finance, I think it's reasonable to recognize the remainder funds are at least an additional benefit.
>>>>> but IMO it is wrong to use this statistic in a way that implies voucher programs in general can produce such impressive ‘taxpayer’ savings.
You make a fair point. The net additional funds in the system, because of the program, can be used (like I wrote) as a rebate to taxpayers which would represent a kind of direct savings, but like you imply it's not a given. Ultimately it's left up to the board, superintendent, and CFO on how they reallocate the extra funds at the local (or legislature wrt state) level.
"But, at least they will have lowered their overall expenditures because of having fewer students in the public school system. The net result (if no other financial/Âbudgetary action is taken) will be higher per-pupil spending, more resources, for the remaining students in the public school."
Let’s say such-n-such school with a population of 250 loses 10 students to vouchers. Using the savings number from the OPPAGA, the school loses $5871/student = $58,710 loss in funding from the state.
But it still costs the same to air condition 2 classrooms for 30 kids and one teacher, as it does to air condition 2 classrooms for 25 kids and one teacher.
10 kids not going to the bathroom or using the water fountain every school day does not significantly change the water bill.
The ten kids were in varying classes, so you can’t lay off any faculty.
The cafeteria staff and janitors still have to work pretty much as they would have if those ten kids were still there.
Principal, asst. principal, and all administrative staff workload is not significantly reduced because 10 kids got vouchers. The most important person in the school - the school secretary - will certainly not be laid off!
In other words, your expenses are still nearly the same, but your revenue has been severely curtailed.
There is no actual monetary gain here.
>>>>> In fact, if too many voucher students all resided in one district, the actual $$$ loss to that district could require an increase in property taxes.
On this point, I have to respectfully disagree. It might be helpful to use a hypothetical example, say, affecting Duval County in FL..
Let’s say over some amount of time, the county district loses 10,000 students to the scholarship program. That would be a reduction from roughly 120,000 to 110,000 students. When keeping some other indirect factors constant and focusing only on the direct cost/benefit of the scholarship student transfers, we should see no need to raise property taxes.
There may be less revenue (from state and federal) as a result, but there should be even lesser(?) total and per-pupil expenditures because of the reduction in enrolled students.
To keep going with the example, I'll use the latest available numbers (2007-2008) from the U.S. Department of Education...
Duval County's 2008 (rounded) stats with 120,000 enrolled students:
Local Revenues: $554 million
State Revenues: $578 million
Federal Revenues: $106 million
Total Revenues (local + state + federal): $1.24 billion
Total Expenditures (not including debt, capital outlay, etc.): $1.25 billion
Per-Pupil Spending (approx.): $10,400
Thanks for the new link.
The reason I was looking for the original source was because when I read this statement “Last year, the Florida Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability reported that the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program saved taxpayers about $36.2 million in 2009 alone.â€, I went, “man, that can’t be right. Surely we would have noticed that by nowâ€.
Now, the fixed link isn’t the original original either, it is just a three-page update, but I do see where you got your numbers.
http://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/information/ctc/files/OPPAGA_March_2010_Report.pdf
I wanted more info because that source was only 3 pages long, and I figured there had to be more details that would help me understand the whole thing. But now that I knew what I was looking for, I went to OPPAGA’s web site and found this:
http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/0868rpt.pdf
And it is very helpful. For example, the pie chart about who is using the scholarships - 12% high school, 20% middle school, 68% elementary school. Makes sense. Lots more elementary schools, tuition is cheaper. Also the map showing where they’re being used - Miami-Dade County tops at 25% of all voucher use.
But here’s what I think was missed: In the calculation of the per student savings (which I still think is inflated), the chart says “does not include local discretionary fundingâ€.
There were a couple incorrect hyperlinks in the original posting last night.. MarvinM pointed out one of them (thanks). The Huffington Post team did a swift job inserting the current links, which are probably the best references/sources to go with the text..
We have had 40 years of sub-standard education in America and particularly in the inner-city. We need a national voucher program to give these kids and their parents a real choice instead of sending them to the same school that has turned out multiple generations of under-educated kids.
The inner city education in America was bad before NCLB and has been bad since. Why on earth (other than caring about themselves more than the kids) would the various education unions around the country not favor a real, national program for vouchers?
In the school system, the service providers are the educational bodies, school administrators, teachers funded by property taxes, state and federal taxes, i.e. paid by tax payers, many of whom are parents. More importantly, the clients are the children and their parents.
Parents are showing that they would exercise choice and take up these vouchers. The educational establishment should get with the program.
I am fortunate to make enough that I can supplement the public school curriculum with an on-line class or two, as appropriate. My wife and I actively work with our kids on their studies to make sure that they do what is needed and do it well (they have to do it, we just make sure of it). She handles the language arts, I handle science and math.
But the school is not very important as long as it does not actively get in the way of learning. As long as the necessary courses are there, we will make sure that they learn. I add on-line when the school doesn't offer of have room for the classes I want for the kids. The kids leaned a long time ago that there were two standards - mine and the school's - and they had to meet both (mine are frequently higher).
My son is too attracted to TV. When school starts, we are killing the access altogether - it is too much of a distraction. It was a summer amusement where we allowed a few hours a day of TV and video games.
The link on 'reported' goes to a one-page document from The Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, not the authors of the original report which presumably included the data, which I was very interested to read.
I found the website to the FL Leg's OPPAGA, but it really would have been nice if the link to the document had been provided. This is a lot of stuff to sort through.
http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/summary.aspx?reportnum=10-26