(See related pages)
|
|
|
Vouchers to Pay Private School Tuition Two conditions that justify government intervention in a market are the presence of external benefits and equity concerns (discussed in Chapter 6). Both these issues are present in the case of primary and secondary education in the United States. We will consider these issues one at a time, but first, think about what education without government education would look like. In the absence of government intervention, all primary and secondary education in the US would be private. Public school districts would not exist. Parents would need to pay private firms (schools) to educate their children. External benefits If all education were private, it's likely that people would buy too little education, from society's point of view. External benefits are one reason. When a child is educated, she benefits—and we expect her parents to take those benefits into account when they purchase her education. But there are additional benefits to society which her parents may ignore. As people become more educated, they are less likely to be unemployed or be criminals and more likely to volunteer and vote. The presence of these external benefits argues for government getting involved. Equity Equity concerns may also argue for a government role. Many families in the United States have low incomes. Among all children in first through twelfth grades in 2001, 46% were from families with incomes below $40,000. Since the cost of private education would be an important share of these families' incomes, most Americans would be concerned about the fairness of relying on markets to decide how much education children receive. Current spending by these families on private education provides some support for this concern. Of all children in private school in 2001, only 25% were from families with incomes below $40,000. Providing vs. producing education Most economists think external benefits and equity concerns justify government intervention in education. But it is important to distinguish between government production of education and other forms of government intervention. At the level of elementary and secondary education—K-12 education—government intervention today mostly means production of education by local school districts. To benefit, children must attend public schools. But this is not the only form intervention could take. There are other markets where government intervention takes the form of subsidizing people's access to products—think of financial aid to college students, for example. Many people in the US think that government should move from producing education to subsidizing access. One form that subsidy could take is government providing vouchers to parents. Parents would use the voucher to, or help pay for, their child's education in a private school. After it receives the voucher, the school would turn it in and be paid by a local or state government. Today there is a lively debate between people who think K-12 education should be delivered publicly and people who think quality and efficiency would be higher if government provided vouchers and the education was delivered by private schools. Some of these quality and efficiency arguments are based on the mechanisms outlined in Chapter 6. Price competition between private schools will pressure each one to produce efficiently. Competition for students will lead private schools to offer programs of interest to parents and their children. Important Questions
Sources The Census Bureau has a web page devoted to data on school enrollment. Look for table titles including the phrase, "control of school," to see contrasts between students in public school and students in private school. Education Week is a magazine for educators and the public. It seeks to provide timely, objective information on important issues in education. This link is to a page that provides a brief introduction to the voucher debate, with links to other Education Week articles relevant to the subject. Reading these articles will require a free registration. The Friedman Foundation was founded by the Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman, and his wife, Rose Friedman. Milton Friedman came up with the idea of school vouchers in the 1950s. The foundation aims to promote vouchers and other strategies to give parents more choices about where to educate their children. The Public Broadcasting Service has a public affairs series called Frontline. They have done a number of TV shows on vouchers, or on the broader issue of school choice. These shows have included interviews with experts on both sides of the voucher debate Rethinking Schools is a magazine for educators interested in school reform and making American society fairer. It is critical of voucher programs. This link is to a page that provides links to other Rethinking Schools articles related to the voucher issue. |