MENU

I Run a Private School – and I’m Against School Vouchers

By Marsha Familaro Enright

April 27, 2015

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

Many people across the political spectrum are concerned about the dire state of government schools today. Not only are too many students arriving at college illiterate, innumerate, and ignorant, but many have had to survive a dangerous and destructive time in government schools.

But I have an entirely different reason to oppose vouchers, and it revolves around the phrase “ensuring a minimum standard for all schools where vouchers could be spent.”

Free society advocates argue that a market solution—thriving competition—is the key to change. In his 1960 Constitution of Liberty, Friedrich Hayek proposed a plan to take the government out of the business of schooling by providing parents with publicly-funded vouchers with which to pay for any school of their choice:

“As has been shown by Professor Milton Friedman (M. Friedman, The role of government in education, 1955), it would now be entirely practicable to defray the costs of general education out of the public purse without maintaining government schools, by giving the parents vouchers covering the cost of education of each child which they could hand over to schools of their choice. It may still be desirable that government directly provide schools in a few isolated communities where the number of children is too small (and the average cost of education therefore too high) for privately run schools. But with respect to the great majority of the population, it would undoubtedly be possible to leave the organization and management of education entirely to private efforts, with the government providing merely the basic finance and ensuring a minimum standard for all schools where the vouchers could be spent.” (F. A. Hayek, 1960, section 24.3)

Many free society advocates have been campaigning for voucher systems the past 25 years, and some locales (Milwaukee, New Orleans) and states (Florida) have instituted them.

The main opposition to school vouchers argues that they threaten to put public education in direct competition with private education, reducing and reallocating public school funding to private schools. Of course, the teachers’ unions and National Education Association are against them.

But I have an entirely different reason to oppose vouchers, and it revolves around the phrase “ensuring a minimum standard for all schools where vouchers could be spent.” Contrary to the opponents who worry that vouchers will undermine the public schools, I’m sure they will undermine—level—the private ones.

That’s because whomever controls the money, controls the curriculum.

I founded and have been running Council Oak Montessori School for children 3 to 15 years old for 25 years. We are a classic Montessori school; we do almost nothing like a traditional school, yet we’ve been cited in Chicago Magazine as one of the best private elementary schools in the city. Our outcomes are remarkable, but not easily standardized. Our students generally do well on standardized tests, but that’s not why we’re good.

What truly sets us apart is that our students are good at finding what they love to do and being good at it—and that’s not always an academic path.

Instead, we produce students who maintain their delight in learning, work hard, and know how to behave well with others while retaining their independence. Many do exceptionally well academically, but that depends on the individual. What truly sets us apart is that our students are good at finding what they love to do and being good at it—and that’s not always an academic path.

Council Oak has graduates who struggled mightily with their academic work – and yet, are now designers at Google, illustrators for the movies, gemologists, and auto mechanics. We also have graduates who didn’t want to do much but math—and are engineers and research scientists mad for learning history and reading literature. They just needed to develop their interest in their own time.

Montessori alumni include Google’s founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, videogame pioneer Will Wright, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, Julia Child, and rapper Sean “P.Diddy” Combs.

“I think it was part of that [Montessori] training of not following rules and orders, and being self-motivated.”

Queried by Barbara Walters about the source of their creativity, Google co-founder Larry Page said, “I think it was part of that [Montessori] training of not following rules and orders, and being self-motivated, questioning what’s going on in the world, doing things a little bit differently.”
But, Traditionalists just don’t get Montessori. They have objections up the wazoo, despite our 100 years of experience. It’s too different, too child-centered, too individualistic.

I’ve seen what happens to Montessori programs under the thumb of traditionalists—in Chicago public school Montessori magnet schools, and in private Montessori schools run by traditionalists—caving to parent fear and peer pressure—and there’s plenty of that to go around.

So, I can imagine what would happen under a voucher program, and here’s what I fear for the private schools: only the richest private schools would be able to continue without taking vouchers. Inevitably, there would be corruption. This would lead to government oversight, and before you know it—boom! We’re back to the government controlling the curricula, teachers, and program. The differences between private schools will be fundamentally wiped out. What bureaucrat is going to miss out on determining the standards centrally? Once government bureaucrats begin regulating, you’re down the same slippery slope that got us into our current educational mess.

It’s happened elsewhere: Belgium is a good example. In 1917, they instituted a voucher program to enable students to go to private and religious schools. Over the years, the schools have come to be more and more regulated by the state, so that now, there is no longer a significant difference between private and public schools.

But we don’t really need the European example; just look at the dire consequences of Federal student loans at the college level today. The Feds have become an octopus, encircling and strangling our colleges and universities with regulations, mandates, and controls. Between them and the New Left manning the professoriat, the market in college education is hugely diminished. Diversity in ideas remains only in a few places.

The only completely privately-funded college I know of is Hillsdale College, in Michigan. They chose to stay privately funded because of affirmative action: they were started in the 19th century by abolitionists who did not believe in discriminating based on race. In the ‘70’s, they were required by the Feds to employ affirmative action if they wanted to use Pew grants. But they considered affirmative action a form of racial discrimination. Rather than continue with it, their trustees decided the college should become entirely privately funded.

And now Hillsdale stands as one of the only ideologically unique higher education institutions in the nation. Too bad more places haven’t had the integrity to follow that path.

Returning to our fundamental problem: what about the kids! What about the millions that are getting a terrible education in public schools. Aren’t we concerned with all those individuals? Should we advocate that they languish just because of what might happen 50 years down the road? Maybe we should just bite the bullet and use vouchers and charter schools (don’t get me started on those crony capitalist institutions!)?

I think there’s a much better way to transition to a free market in education: tax credits for education.

Tax credits are via individual tax returns, not controlled and handed out by some government bureaucracy.

A person could get a tax credit for any amount donated towards a student’s tuition and fees, whether the child was related to the donor or not. Private charities like The Donors Trust would arise to administer the scholarships. Of course, there’s still the specter of the government regulating the use of the tax credits, a serious concern. But the fact that tax credits are more arms-length from government regulators is a big plus.

Right now in the States, individuals deduct millions of dollars of donations to educational non-profit organizations on their tax returns without much interfering oversight. It’s true that these organizations are approved by the federal and state governments for donations. Such entities must maintain a high level of transparency, including annual audits in some states. In my experience, once approved and following their missions, the educational organizations are most often left alone to provide their services

If you’d like an idea of what a real free market in education could be, see Common Ground Against Common Core. In the final chapter, “Liberating Education,” I outline the rich market in schools that would ensue if we had no government education program, but a completely private market—and how everyone could be educated in it, no matter their wealth or penchants or problems. The evidence is there.

 

 

(Visited 764 times, 1 visits today)
       
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Christmas
John Christmas
9 years ago

There is a huge issue that always seems to be missing in the debate about education. Intelligence is mostly genetic. Different genetic groups have different average intelligence levels. Therefore, some people will always perform well no matter how their education is organized, and some people will always perform badly no matter how their education if organized. For example, I see a trend on Facebook with posts suggesting that if the whole world mimicked the educational system in Finland, everyone would be as smart as the Finns. However, this is impossible. A quick online search shows that the average IQ in Finland is 97 (10th best in the world) and the average IQ in Equatorial Guinea is 59 (worst in the world). Can anyone seriously believe that this difference is caused by the educational systems in those countries?

Marsha Familaro Enright
Reply to  John Christmas

John, you’re making the assumption that IQ actually tests intelligence. What do you mean by “intelligence”? You have to answer that question first before you can
say “it is mostly genetic” or “it doesn’t depend on education.” See info about the Flynn effect for some idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Now, I’m not saying there aren’t inherent differences in individual mental abilities; that’s obviously true just as there are inherent physical differences. However, mental abilities are highly affected by learning. If that weren’t true, how did we ever get out of the caves? What we do know about education is: those systems which best suit individual learning have optimal effects.

goodold_lucifer
goodold_lucifer
9 years ago
Reply to  John Christmas

Can anyone seriously believe that this difference is caused by the educational systems in those countries?

Sounds plausible. What are the main differences between those “educational systems”?

Phil Fishman
9 years ago
Reply to  John Christmas

Hello John. There is no doubt but that one component of intelligence is genetic. The other is environment, and how much each component imparts is an open question. But, again, it is undisputed that we all use only a small part of our brain power, maybe 10% or so. So with the proper environment of which schooling is an important part, I can envision a situation where EG kids could compete intellectually with Western European kids. Just look at the Charter school in Washington DC and how it compares to the affluent public schools in the area.

Vinay Kolhatkar
9 years ago
Reply to  John Christmas

Regardless of IQ, the purpose of education should be to, first, inspire the child to do his best, and second, to give him the tools to undertake that journey.

Mike N
9 years ago

Excellent article.

Marsha Familaro Enright
Reply to  Mike N

Thank you !

goodold_lucifer
goodold_lucifer
9 years ago

Do you call it “RIFI” for the short version?

Marsha Familaro Enright

Yes.

Phil Fishman
9 years ago

Ms. Enright, You make an excellent case against school vouchers, but I remain a supporter as well as a supporter of charter schools, which you apparently also oppose. I believe we are in agreement that education in public schools is in horrible shape, in good part due to teachers’ unions. So we have to do something to change the situation. Your suggestion of tax credits, I think, would not improve the situation, since it would discriminate against low income or no income families. What would be wrong with a voucher system, allowing schools the prerogative to participate or not?.

trackback

[…] I Run a Private School – and I'm Against School Vouchers | SAVVY … […]

indipete
indipete
9 years ago

Phil Fishman contends that tax credits would “discriminate” against low income or no income families. While that’s not the word I would use, and while I’m not sure that would in fact occur (private non-profits created to channel aid to low/no income families might be created,) I do think the concern he raises would be a common, if not valid one, and would make it difficult for tax credits to be enacted.

I think vouchers might be workable, Marsha, if the offending phrase you cite — government’s authority of ‘ensuring a minimum standard for all schools where vouchers could be spent” — could be removed and explicitly replaced with something like “appropriate standards for schools will be determined exclusively by the legal parents/guardians of the children attending.” The only control government would have would be to prevent fraud; to prevent voucher money being used used for the parents’ benefit. Government would still have some control through school accreditation, but that would be true with tax credits too.

Under this approach, some parents might be misuse the vouchers, but most would probably act reasonably in what they saw to be the best interest of their children. Given the history in Belgium, etc., you cite, this would be the better alternative, even if there were bad judgement by some. Given Belgium, etc., this might have a better chance of enactment.

Marsha Familaro Enright
Reply to  indipete

Thanks for your comment. I would be happy if such a clause would hold up; that’s where I’m doubtful because of what I see go on all the time, for example, here in Chicago. We have charter schools and the cronyism is rampant, then come the lawsuits and more regulation. Also, accreditation is a sure way to control the methodology and content of the schools. It happens right now and it’s one of the reasons colleges have gotten so in-line with political correctness. Did you know that college accreditation was only instituted after the GI bill was introduced? Why? Because there was corruption and pop-up schools were formed just to get the GI loan money. Before that, it was “buyer beware” as in the rest of the free market.

trackback

[…] I Run a Private School – and I'm Against Vouchers […]

Arny.Plumb
Arny.Plumb
9 years ago

Two words “Common Core”, the leftist held belief that one size fits all. History has shown time and time again that the outliers, not the mainstream, are the creative thinkers and innovative doers that actually advance society. Edison found a way to pool many of these individuals and found thousands of ways to fail, with many eureka products and solutions along the way. I myself have heard great thinkers say “fail fast and learn, so you can succeed next time”, as well as “I am not smart enough to know I cannot do it this way”. The same goes for centralized planning and government run schools or worse curriculum. By failing to support out of the box thinking, they fail to foster the seeds of innovation. Sure math is math, or is it? I was taught 2+2=4, and that holds true, but there is more than one way to solve that equation. Einstien and Hawkings didn’s stop at 2+2=4, they dedicated their lives to understanding why 2+2 appears to equal 4 within the current context of reality.

As a society do we really want to force schools inside a diminishing box that only encompasses the least common denominator? Or do we want to allow for creative thinking, out of the box learning experiences, and innovative methods to provoke the imagination, and desire to learn, think and create? Take the simple lever and fulcrum. We take it for granted that it has been aruond since time began, but sometime ago someone saw it as a means to accomplish more than what shear strength could allow, after which it became a tool.

LIBIntOrg
LIBIntOrg
8 years ago

OP–Thanks for the article. We’ve linked it to pro- #Libertarian activists in every country via the Libertarian Social Sciences share Facebook.

For more on world Libertarianism see http://www.libertarian-international.org

test