An editorial in The Oklahoman lauding Nevada's new law that authorizes education savings accounts or vouchers for all school children fails to address a serious argument against such a policy.
This is the anti-voucher argument the editorial ignores: There is no definitive proof that privatizing education works to improve learning outcomes.
The pro-voucher crowd simply assumes through wishful thinking that competition through the private sector always produces a better product. But students are not products or consumers. They're students, and government public schools are better positioned to meet their needs in a participatory democratic society and have a long, successful historical record of doing so.
Conservatives will always point to high-stakes testing scores as the barometer of success, but the measurement of what a person learns or how much she has achieved in her ability to learn is complicated and difficult to quantify. The movement to give students and their parents taxpayer-funded vouchers to use in private schools will not solve anything because much of what needs to be solved in our society-poverty, income inequality, poor medical care, hunger-is far more important to school success than unproven conservative dogma.
Public schools are on the frontline of local engagement in our culture and often receive extremely close scrutiny. Conservatives in places like Nevada and Oklahoma have successfully shifted the debate from societal problems faced by public school students and inadequate school funding on a local level to obsessive free-market discussions and inane philosophical predictions.
Nevada, as the editorial points out, will soon begin offering universal vouchers to all parents of school children. These vouchers, or what are getting called education savings accounts, will contain some money the state allocates for individual students. The parents can use that money for private schools and other educational programs, such as those for special needs students.
The new law is conservative radicalism at its most extreme so it's no wonder The Oklahoman hopes "Oklahoma legislators pay attention to Nevada, where Republican lawmakers are proving far less timid and far more conservative." In other words, we should model Nevada.
The editorial makes one lone attempt to acknowledge the opposition to the new Nevada system. It quotes a Nevada lawmaker, who apparently said, "We might as well open the door and throw the money out the window." I actually agree with this overall assessment, but it's a reductionist presentation of the arguments against vouchers.
Here's an argument the editorial doesn't address: There have been no definitive studies that show vouchers work to improve learning outcomes on a larger basis. Take a look at charter schools, for example. The performance difference between charter schools and regular public schools, according to one education expert, is difficult to determine, often dependent on how studies are framed or even interpreted. What's clear to me, however, after going through a cursory look at reported findings of such studies is that there's no clear argument that charter schools are doing any better than regular schools in terms of learning outcomes.
The amount of state money allocated to parents for their student's education here or elsewhere, of course, would never be enough to pay for high-range, expensive private schools in which the vast majority of students are privileged and come from wealthy families.
Not all liberal parents are against charter schools and many welcome the idea of school choice within their districts so the editorial's lament that Nevada lawmakers are "far more conservative" than their Oklahoma counterparts is both irrelevant to the main argument and shows the voucher-movement or the education savings account movement, as I've argued, is simply based on unproven conservative dogma about the free market and capitalism.
The voucher movement is about shifting taxpayer dollars to the private sector and damaging public schools and teacher unions. It's certainly not about improving learning outcomes. First, make sure a student isn't hungry. Second, make sure a student isn't hungry. Where does that show up on the assessment form for a school and how much is it weighted?
As education activist Diane Ravitch writes about the new Nevada law, "To destroy public education in pursuit of competition is just plain ignorant or mean-spirited. There is no evidence to support this policy. It won't improve education. It won't increase equity. It won't inspire excellence. It will lead to greater inequality and greater segregation. It is bad for our democracy."
Oklahoma cut funding to public education by 23.6 percent from 2008 to 2014, the most in the nation. The state's abysmally low salaries for teachers have led to a teacher shortage here. This is the last place in the world to "throw the money out the window." But don't think it couldn't happen here.