School choice: We can’t help the poor by helping only them
Opponents of school choice measures such as vouchers or tax-credit scholarships love to do a little two-step.
First, they insist choice measures be limited only to low-income families — for the sake of being “fair.” Then, they note the tuition charged by existing private schools and say these families couldn’t possibly make up the difference between those prices and the value of the voucher or scholarship, and thus we might as well scrap the choice measures.
With that, they sit back and fold their arms, confident they’ve done something other than prove the basic laws of economics apply to education.
Before we burst their bubble, let’s take a step back.
The goal of anyone interested in education should be to see that all children attend quality schools. Right?
In a triumph of hope over experience, choice opponents think this can be accomplished through existing public schools alone. If only we spend more and more (and more) money on them.
The rest of us understand the public schools need more competition. More competition would not only mean new, better options for families. It would compel public schools to improve themselves, too.
That is, after all, the way the world works. Consider an example: digital cameras.
Economist Mark J. Perry last year observed that, in 2000, Nikon’s popular CoolPix camera was a 3-megapixel camera that cost $1,337 (adjusted for inflation). By 2012, the CoolPix was a 16.1-megapixel gadget that retailed for $197.
So, in 12 years the camera became more than five times more powerful even though it sold at less than a sixth of the price.
What drove those changes? Technological innovation, of course, but also competition. In fact, competition spurred the innovation: Had Nikon enjoyed a government-enforced market share of more than 90 percent, we hardly could have expected its camera to undergo such substantial increases in quality or decreases in price, much less both.
We shouldn’t expect to see competition change education quite that dramatically, though there is great untapped potential for schools to use technology. But neither can we expect education to improve at more than a modest rate so long as public schools face little competition.
That brings us back to means-testing for school-choice measures, and those basic laws of economics.
In case it’s been a while since you took Econ 101: When demand rises, supply increases to meet it. All else being equal, this tends to drive prices down over time.
It is precisely because demand for educational alternatives is artificially depressed, by the existence of “free” public schools, that their supply remains so restricted and their prices so high.
If we continue to limit school choice measures via income thresholds, or most any other restriction, we will simply ensure demand remains low. That’s a sure-fire way to keep supply low, too, and prevent the robust competition needed to boost the quality of all schools.
And that, in turn, will keep tuition prices from falling to the point even those families that do qualify for a voucher or tax-credit scholarship can afford other options.
The end result will be failure for the choice measures, and more middling improvement in educational quality.
To be fair, choice opponents aren’t the only ones who favor means-testing. Some advocates would accept income limits if that meant choice measures moved forward sooner.
While I can’t fault them for their impatience, and while I certainly share their concern for lower-income families, they need to realize they risk crippling the entire effort before it has a chance to succeed. Worse, they risk preventing even those lower-income families from seeing the very changes they so desperately need.
That’s hardly “fair,” to those families or anyone else.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
278 comments Add your comment
JDW
February 21st, 2013
2:08 pm
@md…”And if you did any research you would know that the vote totals still don’t add up down there”
Yeah I am guessing that is why he conceded…he has a case.
Mr_B
February 21st, 2013
2:10 pm
The rest of us understand the public schools need more competition. More competition would not only mean new, better options for families. It would compel public schools to improve themselves, too.
Substitute “fire department” for “public schools” and see how much sense this statement makes.
Aquagirl
February 21st, 2013
2:11 pm
Y’all should be over at the Get Schooled blog, Maureen’s account of the Dekalb board roast is far more entertaining than mutterings about Allen West’s un-election.
Nothing against ya md, but Sarah Copelin-Wood has you totally whooped in the crazy department.
indigo
February 21st, 2013
2:12 pm
Aesop
I’ve given you many proofs of evolution.
Now, it’s time for YOU to give scientific evidence for creationism.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
February 21st, 2013
2:16 pm
“Gertrude Walker, the St. Lucie elections supervisor, has acknowledged errors in counting ballots, saying there was an initial error in feeding memory cards from voting machines through the vote-counting system. At a press conference last week, Walker said her office had acted in “haste” to make public results on Nov. 6 and that “mistakes were made.””
And as we all know the entire election turned on this.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
February 21st, 2013
2:20 pm
Now, it’s time for YOU to give scientific evidence for creationism.
That is a hot one. Let me get my popcorn.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
February 21st, 2013
2:22 pm
More competition would not only mean new, better options for families.
You have an option now. Send your kid to Private School.
Just pay for it yourself moocher.
Savannah Paul
February 21st, 2013
2:33 pm
Comparing schools with digital cameras is an apples to oranges exercise. In schools the commodity is children and some children are of considerably more interest to “buyers” than others so through bogus tax credit schemes and voucher plans those children get bought up. The less desirable children get left to the public school system. Less desirable cameras that dont get purchased end up on overstock.com or get disposed of. The public school system doesnt have the same option.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 21st, 2013
2:37 pm
cheeeeeeeeeeesy, dupree just gave you up -
Virginia $7,810,211,096
Maryland $4,246,163,841
Alabama $2,174,475,440
Georgia $2,400,446,142
Florida $2,190,390,094
North Carolina $1,429,023,635
Nobody gets the federal defense spending more than the deep southern red states.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 21st, 2013
2:39 pm
See, I disagree with Limbaugh again-
LIMBAUGH: FOR FIRST TIME I’M ASHAMED OF MY COUNTRY
I’ve been ashamed of my country for a little over 4 years now.
Matz
February 21st, 2013
2:42 pm
“Nobody gets the federal defense spending more than the deep southern red states.”
And yet, we’re not really safe and we’re not really free.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 21st, 2013
2:50 pm
I see the libs didn’t take my advice and cut back on the hyperbolic and bigoted comments.
As if there was ever a chance of THAT happening. In fact, they just ratcheted it up a notch or two.
Now, to the fire department nonsense that Aquagirl and Mr.B brought up.
First, there is no issue with paying for fire service, as it is an expressed role of public safety and covered in the Constitution. As to education, as I’ve stated before, I have no problem paying for it, either. My problem is paying for something that doesn’t work, and more importantly, has a successful alternative.
There is NO successful alternative to the fire department.
In addition, there is likely never going to be an alternative to the fire department as the training is very specific and costly and the equipment even more so.
So once again, when you cannot debate, create a nonsensical alternate reality.
Aquagirl
February 21st, 2013
3:00 pm
First, there is no issue with paying for fire service, as it is an expressed role of public safety and covered in the Constitution.
The Constitution covers fire service for public safety? What section is that?
Ben
February 21st, 2013
3:02 pm
Don’t you know the only solution that is left wing approved is to do absolutely nothing except blame Republicans and spend more money? That’s the solution to every problem.
I wish the left would acknowledge that they had pretty much complete control over public education from the 60’s to the early 2000’s, a period which say steadily declining outcomes in education. Our schools got worse and worse, and now their only solution is more of the same, Any suggestions for change or alternatives is called evil, and the ones who prefer the status quo stick their fingers in their ears, heads in the sand, and refuse to accept any possibility of anything different.
You can see this in one of the first responses to this column, where DeborahinAthens rails against conservatives, and gives only one suggestion… Spend more money!
DeborahinAthens, spending more money rather than actually looking for solutions is what got us in this mess where unless you are a white female living in the suburbs, you are unlikely to get a decent public school education.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 21st, 2013
3:02 pm
Public safety is a confirmed role of government, whether it is police, fire or national defense.
Grow up, Aquagirl.
Once again, when you lose the debate, the nonsense flows like crap through a goose.
Aquagirl
February 21st, 2013
3:08 pm
Public safety is a confirmed role of government, whether it is police, fire or national defense.
My goodness, my copy of the Constitution is obviously missing a whole section—really, could you just tell me where this is enumerated? Like “Article III 1/2?”
And can I order this special comprehensive edition from your online Constimatushun course? It’s really distressing I can find no complete copies anywhere.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 21st, 2013
3:13 pm
The idiocy never stops with Aquagirl.
If you wish to play that game, Aquagirl, EDUCATION isn’t a role of government found in the Constitution.
Nor is health care.
Nor is providing welfare.
Nor is food stamps.
Nor is Social Security.
Now, are you going to move on from your nonsense, or are you just going to keep digging your hole ever deeper?
Aquagirl
February 21st, 2013
3:31 pm
If you wish to play that game, Aquagirl, EDUCATION isn’t a role of government found in the Constitution.
So it’s not really anything in the Constitution, it’s your personal opinion that taxes for fire services should be treated differently than education. Oh thank goodness, it’s merely squirming, not my faulty copy of the Constitution.
Now, when exactly were you elected Head Poobah Emperor of Tax Policy? Because otherwise “’cause fire departments have, y’know, fire engines and all” doesn’t seem like a selling point for why your education taxes are optional.
Then again if you want to leave your point right there, you can stand there with your pants around your ankles. This will not affect your self-appointed authority in any way.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 21st, 2013
3:44 pm
Once again, Aquagirl, you keep creating fictional arguments and stances when you can’t defend the facts.
I have never said that education taxes are, or should be, optional. In fact, if you actually took the time to read what I wrote, instead of assuming without reading, you would have read that my issue isn’t with the taxes paid, but with the results and the direction those taxes take.
There is a successful product down the street that I wish to use my taxes for. It serves the same purpose as the taxes taken from me, but it actually has better results. Your solution is to continue to force me to pay for the inferior product, even if I don’t use it and send my kids to the same but superior product.
I don’t want your dollars, nor anyone else’s dollars. I just want the portion of MY dollars to help pay for the successful alternative.
You truly are a blithering idiot.
Matz
February 21st, 2013
4:00 pm
What an ugly way to express one’s basic selfishness. Yuck.
md
February 21st, 2013
4:11 pm
You guys look sillier and sillier in the West situation……you may want to go back to my very first post on the matter when I lead off with….”it may or may not amount to anything”
And folks say the education system is doing ok…….
barking frog
February 21st, 2013
4:18 pm
JDW 12:43
@Barking Frog…..”Free choice for the wealthy is not free choice.”
Interesting…why do you think that should apply to schools and not health care?
……………………………………………………………………
why do you think I think it does not appy to healthcare ?
md
February 21st, 2013
4:21 pm
“Yeah I am guessing that is why he conceded…he has a case. ”
Ummm JDW, there IS a difference between there having been a problem and him still losing the vote….do I need to explain that to you?
Aquagirl
February 21st, 2013
4:41 pm
I have never said that education taxes are, or should be, optional.
Yeah, saying “I should decide whether or not to pay taxes” isn’t saying they’re optional, because…Tiberius.
Once again, what legally or morally entitles you to decide educational services are opt-out, but not fire services? On what basis do you make this distinction besides WAHHHHH ME NO LIKEY? How about trash collection? Animal control? A road you never personally use? Are these also subject to your opt-out and buy your own policy?
And what makes you, Tiberius, entitled to overrule lawfully elected representatives with your personal opinion? Aside from a gigantic ego?
You have no logical reason why education specifically should be opt-out for your own service except you think so.
And as Republicans have learned you can run from the mockery this attitude so richly deserves, but you can’t hide.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 21st, 2013
5:19 pm
“Yeah, saying “I should decide whether or not to pay taxes” isn’t saying they’re optional”
Nor did I ever state that, Aquagirl.
I see you’ve just decided to surrender the argument and create your own.
Typical for you.
Numbers-R-US
February 21st, 2013
5:34 pm
You truly are a blithering idiot.
he proclaims while staring in the mirror.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 21st, 2013
5:37 pm
Numbers-R-Us, you are free to argue the point I made, but I suspect you’re just not up to it as well.
Mr. Snarky
February 21st, 2013
10:01 pm
Kyle,
Pretty lame argument.
Choice = good. Schools = digital cameras.
Couldn’t you come up with anything better than this?