Why School Vouchers.

Per Jim Manzi’s Article “A return to Reganism Won’t Be Enough” on Slate.com. Italics are mine

Most conservatives who propose a return to "Reagan conservatism" don't understand either the motivations or structure of the Reagan economic revolution. The 1970s were a period of economic crisis for America as it emerged from global supremacy to a new world of real economic competition. The Reagan economic strategy for meeting this challenge was sound money plus deregulation, broadly defined. It succeeded, but it exacerbated a number of pre-existing trends that began or accelerated in the '70s that tended to increase inequality.

Seen in this light, the challenge in front of conservatives is clear: How do we continue to increase the market orientation of the American economy while helping more Americans to participate in it more equally? …

…First, improve K-12 schools. U.S. public schools are in desperate need of improvement and have been for decades. We do not prepare the average American child to succeed versus international competition. Schools can do only so much to fix this—in a nation where 37 percent of births are out-of-wedlock, many children will be left behind—but it would be a great start if the average school didn't go out of its way to make kids lazy and stupid.

No amount of money or number of "programs" will create anything more than marginal improvements, because public schools are organized to serve teachers and administrators rather than students and families. We need, at least initially, competition for students among public schools in which funding moves with students and in which schools are far freer to change how they operate. As we have seen in the private economy, only markets will force the unpleasant restructuring necessary to unleash potential. Conservatives have long had this goal but are unprepared to win the fight. Achieving it would be at least a decade-long project.

It’s an interesting passage, and I hope it reflects the direction many conservatives are moving. In pointing out that the Regan years are almost 30 years in the past, and that while Regan’s economic policies more or less succeeded, the success came at a heavy social price that “Regan Conservatism” was unable to answer, Manzi holds himself to a level of intellectual honesty rarely seen in political discourse.

These observations lead Manzi to formulate a mission statement for the Conservative movement, “How do we continue to increase the market orientation of American economy while helping more Americans to participate in it more equally”. Again, the italics are mine. It’s a perplexing question for the Conservatives, how do they act to increase individual agency (market orientation) and develop and execute a social agenda that will require people to set aside their individual goals in the short run, for the long term health of the whole, making sure enough people can participate? The term “participate in it more equally” begins to suggest an intellectual basis for an agenda. The phrase does not suggest an equality of results, but an equality of opportunity; an equality of input as opposed to an equality of output. An agenda based on this position would still be against such programs as well-fare and affirmative action.

Including an agenda of “equality of opportunity” in a political platform carries with it an implied understanding that a person’s ability to achieve their goals is limited by the circumstances they are born into and that there is a social responsibility to minimize the negative effects of those circumstances, but still leaves the achievement of those goals to the individual. It would not be society’s responsibility to insure that you have things, only that you have a fair chance to earn those things through the execution of your own agency. Under such an agenda, it would be society’s responsibility to insure that you have the ability and opportunity to execute your agency, that’s all.

Manzi goes on to describe one way “equality of opportunity” may be achieved, through improving the public school system. “First, improve K-12 schools. U.S. public schools are in desperate need of improvement and have been for decades. We do not prepare the average American child to succeed…” A noble goal, but the details of Manzi’s theoretical plan fall back on old ideas. Manzi suggests that a voucher system would improve the quality of education across the board in America. This is not a new idea. The theory behind vouchers is that it will force schools to compete, and competition will drive up quality. A secondary benefit is that it’s fairer, because it allows parents more control of their children’s education. The problem with the voucher plan is that we have a system in place that already achieves both those goals.

The current US education system is in fact, not a national system. Education is funded and organized at a local level by cities or counties. This creates a huge disparity in the quality of education students receive in “the public schools”. Because of this disparity parents who have the economic and intellectual ability to seek out good school systems do so. It is not uncommon to see school districts listed in real-estate advertisements. Homes in good school districts cost more than comparable homes in bad school districts, so schools are competing for students, and because the schools are supported by local taxes, the money does flow to the better schools. Even the benefit of the voucher providing more buying power to the parent is offset by the fact that public schools are supported by local sales or property taxes and federal financing, so no parent who has a child in a public school is actually paying the full amount of what it takes to educate that child.

The problem with the current model and a voucher program isn’t that competition doesn’t drive up quality, but that it does so unevenly. Within any industry there are different markets. The two markets within an industry are often differentiated from each other by the customers buying power. Some markets are purely quality based. Companies seek to provide the best product regardless of price knowing that price is no object to the customers in their market. On the other end of the spectrum are markets based on access. Quality doesn’t matter because the customers in this market cannot afford to pay for quality. All that matters is that the customer’s can afford the product no matter how poor the product is. So, while competition does drive up quality, it does not do so universally. Companies compete on multiple fronts, and quality is just one factor, so a market solution will not necessarily “prepare the average American child to succeed.” When dealing with Adult’s who have agency over there own situation this condition is morally defensible. Each reaps what he or she sows, but when dealing with children whose education rests not on their own ability, but on the ability of others, this situation in fundamentally wrong. The children in poor school systems have done nothing to put themselves there.

Relying on simplified market theories, such as competition drives up quality, as in the voucher argument; to “(help) more Americans to participate … more equally” represents a short coming of conservative ideology that stops conservatives from creating an intelligible social agenda. Manzi has the right idea but he needs to carry it out to its full conclusion. Sometimes for the benefit of individuals, we must act collectively. This would require Mazi and others to not only re-examine “Regan conservatism” but conservative attitudes towards public institutions and others’ situations. In order to believe that public schools are “organized to serve teachers and administrators rather than students and families” not only requires one to demonize other people to a degree that is ludicrous, it ignores the fact that schools do compete for parents and students under the current system, and the statement that “in a nation where 37 percent of births are out-of-wedlock, many children will be left behind” exposes a self-serving miserliness that too often serves as the conservative social agenda.