Magic bullets--bang, bang, you're dead

USA Today's DeWayne Wickham recently wrote: "The GOP has to accept that vouchers are not a panacea for failing schools."

I've previously challenged voucher opponents to identify those people who allegedly call vouchers a "panacea." I now offer the challenge to Wickham.

* * *

One argument that I constantly ran into when I was a researcher at the Cato Institute and Fight For Children is one that I was always ready to concede: school choice isn't a panacea. There were other versions of the argument. School choice isn't a "cure-all." Others said that it wasn't a "magic bullet."

This would be a far different and better world if humans actually had the ability to come up with perfect policies. Researchers would be working behind cash registers instead of computers if someone could actually create policies that were panaceas and magic bullets--and they might have a chance to then see what real bullets looked like when they got held up. Arguments and discussions would be much shorter. That's because so many are based on finding what's wrong with a particular policy, and that is truly the easiest thing in the world to do.

Seriously, what is an example of a public policy or program that could stand up to strict scrutiny? The public schools? Headstart? Welfare? Social Security? A reporter could spend a few weeks examining those policies and find flaws with them, money missing, consumers unaware about many aspects of the program. When's the last time a magic bullet has been created--and designed in such a fool-proof way as to withstand the wear-and-tear done on the part of humans just trying to do enough to collect a paycheck? Are there any organizations that would really like to have a hack reporter sit in all of their meetings, examine all of their internal and external communications since the organization or company was founded, evaluate all of their policy decisions, and give a cash reward to employees willing to blow the whistle?

* * *

During the last few years I've heard the point time and again about school choice allegedly being a magic bullet. I did address the point when I spoke at a Manhattan Institution conference back in late 2003. I noted, that in ideological and political wars, it is all too typical for advocates to extol their suggested policies and that opponents will note that the same policies will bring us hell on earth. Why? Because when you're making a suggestion, it isn't enough to say, "this is better than the crap we have now." No, there must be glowing press releases and fact sheets extolling how much better things will be after Congress passes a law reflecting their view. Otherwise, why bother people with something that might just improve things a little? You might not be able to get a single Washington Post reporter to report on your "better than the crap we have now" policy suggestion. And the result is that opponents will squeal--they're saying their policy will be a magic bullet!

The advocates can't mention some of the trade-offs that will come about because the opponents will then write up their own press releases highlighting that even the supporters acknowledge that the policy will lead to some new problems. Those opponents will release their own press releases and fact sheets talking about how much worse things will be if your suggested law becomes practice. They'll be sure to talk about how the policy isn't a panacea, magic bullet, or cure-all, even if no one has said such a thing.

* * *

In one of the many discussions that I was in during the fight over vouchers for D.C. kids, a voucher opponent thought that she had scored a major debating point by saying that vouchers weren't a panacea. I recall yawning loudly as she spoke. I answered her, but probably with more sarcasm than enthusiasm. I recall also showing the outline of my notes, and making it clear that there was nothing about panacea, magic bullet, or cure-all.

* * *

A while ago I tried to find the school choice supporter or supporters who had declared that school choice was a panacea. After all, with numerous people declaring that school choice was not a panacea, a magic bullet, or a cure-all, there must have been some people declaring that school choice was at least one of those things. Unfortunately, the people discussing school choice as a panacea are almost always saying--it isn't! Even the school choice supporters who put "school choice" and "panacea" in the same sentence will be saying, "it isn't one." Without making it a one-upsmanship challenge, I invite others, including De Wayne Wickham, to help me locate the person or persons who have proclaimed that school choice is a panacea, magic bullet, or cure-all.

So far, I've only been able to find supporters who have talked about the benefits that school choice would bring. The closest that I've been able to find to a statement declaring that school choice is a panacea is a sentence by John Chubb and Terry Moe back in 1990. It is cited from time to time by choice opponents. For example, this essay from Peter Schrag. His essay is wrong on many levels.

I noticed that Schrag quoted Chubb and Moe as:

Choice, write Chubb and Moe, "is a panacea."

Here is what Chubb and Moe actually wrote in 1990: "It is fashionable these days to say that 'choice is not a panacea.' We think reformers would do well to entertain the notion that choice is a panacea. Choice should not be placed in the same grab bag as other piecemeal reforms. It has the capacity all by itself to bring about the kind of transformation reformers seek. The other reforms, including school-based management, cannot be implemented without the cooperation of a bureaucracy. They perpetuate the very structure that is suffocating American education. Choice transforms that structure."

Saying that school choice could cut through a lot of bureaucratic red tape is seen as the same as saying that school choice will create a panacea. From the context of the book, and essay that I linked above, Chubb and Moe make the point that choice will bring about a lot of benefits. But what is bothersome with people trying to use Chubb and Moe's quote is that they support putting many restrictions on school choice programs. In fact, take a look at their blueprint--it is an argument for charters, not for school choice in the Friedman model. The Chubb and Moe argument is more similar to Kenneth Clark's 1968 argument for alternative public schools.

* * *

I occasionally get e-mails from readers wanting to challenge me about essays I wrote back when I was at the Cato Institute. I used to answer some of them. A few months ago I got one from a reader questioning why I believed vouchers were a panacea.

Dear reader, you may now understand why I haven't bothered to answer you.

* * *

In mid-2002 I got into some trouble with some of my school choice allies. I had read some school choice articles and studies from attacking liberal opponents of vouchers as being paternalistic. Fair enough, could be true. But then some of those choice supporters were giving evidence--liberal opponents say that poor parents make bad decisions. For me, it didn't really matter if parents made bad decisions. People who support women having the right to choose to have an abortion don't discuss whether or not those women tend to make bad choices, such as, apparently the choice about the man who knocked them up. So I wrote an essay saying that it is true that many parents make bad decisions.



The title of the essay--"In Parents We Trust?" The point was that the level of educational freedom parents have should not be a pragmatic analysis. I got knocked on the head by a few friends who said that I was giving ammo to voucher opponents. As it turned out, only the Washington Times and a few black papers ran the article, and apparently those enemies didn't read it.



But my point was clear--even if parents make bad decisions, they should still be the ones to make those decisions. As I wrote then: "Not everyone is a good chooser. But that misses the point: Is it better to have people making decisions for themselves or to have those decisions dictated to them by A third-party? After all, if parents don't make the choice, who should? Ted Kennedy or Trent Lott? To paraphrase Winston Churchill, parents making decisions about how their children are educated may be the worst system in the world -- except for all of the alternatives."

Some may somehow conclude that I'm saying that vouchers are a panacea. And if you do, I'm going to load some magic bullets in my gun and shoot you...

CJL

Typical Obama

USA Today's DeWayne Wickham recently defended Obama's splitting the difference by allowing DC children to continue receiving school vouchers while also cutting off the program in the future. Robert Enlow of the Friedman Foundation responded today.

The move was typical Obama--politically smart, split the difference to make sure everyone gets something, be the moderate between the alleged two extremes. That way, nobody is completely unhappy, no one is completely happy.

The smartest part of the move: It has taken the steam out of the movement because the current recipients--those most likely to show up at a rally, as many did a few weeks ago--have nothing to fear, for the moment.

But it was terrible public policy because it puts a halt to a government program that put more power in the hands of citizens rather than government officials. That, too, will probably prove to be typical Obama.

CJL

I'm back!

After a long hiatus I am going to start blogging and writing again. Not sure what my main interests will be this time around but I'll restart with one of my favorites: education choice.

More black lawmakers open to school vouchers

I'm not as optimistic as others in this article are about black lawmakers being more open to school vouchers.

1) Too much union opposition.

2) Too much education establishment opposition

3) Too little money from voucher advocates to make up for union support.

4) Too many blacks are public educators--and supportive of public education in general. Remember, even before Brown, there were black educators worried they would lose jobs if black students were allowed to attend majority white schools. Turns out they didn't have to worry about that.

CJL





May 12

More black lawmakers open to school vouchers
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Back when he was on the city council for the District of Columbia, attorney Kevin Chavous would occasionally run into fellow Democrats concerned about the state of the USA's urban schools.
They were open to a lot of ideas, but most Democrats have historically rejected taxpayer-supported private-school vouchers, saying they drain precious cash from needy public schools. Chavous, who served from 1992 to 2005, openly supported vouchers. He would ask others why they didn't.
"Several of them would whisper to me, 'I'm with you, but I can't come out in front,' " Chavous says.
That was then.
While vouchers will likely never be the clarion call of Democrats, they're beginning to make inroads among a group of young black lawmakers, mayors and school officials who have split with party and teachers union orthodoxy on school reform. The group includes Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, Newark Mayor Cory Booker and former Washington, D.C., mayor Anthony Williams.
"You can no longer dismiss this as Catholic or right-wing," says Jeanne Allen of the Center on Education Reform, a Washington think tank.
Allen has pushed for vouchers and charter schools for decades. She originally thought the shift was generational. "But I actually think it has more to do with more-principled people who understand and have seen how badly the existing system has hurt minority kids."
While Chavous and others say vouchers are far from the perfect solution, they're worth offering to students in the nation's bleakest public schools. Urban Democrats, he says, "see that what's happening to our kids in these schools just is unacceptable — we need to look at all options."
The party split will be on display Wednesday when former Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman, now an independent, chairs a hearing on Washington, D.C.'s federally funded Opportunity Scholarship Program. It's perhaps the most high-profile voucher hearing of the past five years, coming a few days after two prominent Democrats, Dianne Feinstein and Robert Byrd, joined a handful of Republicans to criticize President Obama for letting funding for D.C.'s program lapse.
Lieberman's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is scheduled to hear testimony from families whose children attend private schools through the program. He'll also hear from Williams and Bruce Stewart, head of Sidwell Friends School, where Obama's two daughters are enrolled.
Obama last week said he'd fund the D.C. program until its current students graduate, but he maintains that vouchers are not a long-term education reform. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama suggested that he'd weigh the evidence on vouchers but did not keep them in his first budget last week. Instead, he and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan agreed to fund D.C.'s program until the 1,716 students now enrolled graduate.
Lieberman last week called it "a start," but said the scholarship "is a valuable program that should be available to new students as well."
Obama and Duncan are unlikely to budge anytime soon — Duncan recently acknowledged D.C.'s woes, calling its public schools "a national disgrace." But he added: "We have to be much more ambitious for ourselves and have higher expectations — we have to help every child in D.C. The answer is not vouchers for a few. It's massive change, massive reform for all, absolutely as quickly as possible."
First proposed in 1955 by University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman, private-school vouchers have had a decidedly rocky history and have never fully taken root in U.S. public schools. While the federal government routinely underwrites college students' tuition and fees to attend private colleges and universities, K-12 vouchers are limited to a few scattered programs in cities such as Cleveland, Milwaukee and, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans. Special-education students in Florida also attend private schools on the public dime, but voters in about a dozen states have rejected voucher proposals over the past few decades.
Fifty-four years after Friedman first proposed vouchers, only 61,000 of the nation's 50 million students attend school with a voucher — just over one-tenth of 1%. Another 100,000 in six states benefit from tax credits for private-school tuition.
D.C.'s program — formally known as The District of Columbia School Choice Incentive Act — has served as a lightning rod since Congress approved it in January 2004 as the first federally funded private-school voucher.
A federal evaluation, released April 3 by the U.S. Education Department, found that after three years, there was a "statistically significant positive impact" on students' reading test scores, but not on their math scores. Overall, voucher students performed about three months ahead of their peers in public schools in reading, but no better in math.
Mary Lord, a member of the D.C. State Board of Education, says the statistics may be misleading because many of the voucher kids attend the city's worst schools. She says the voucher, which provides up to $7,500 a year, gives "enormous bang for the buck," considering that the city's per-pupil budget for year is, by one estimate, nearly $17,000 per student.
"It's a no-brainer to me," she says.

Does a flower turn to the sun?

I tend not to address points raised by people commenting on posts. In the back-and-forth of such discussions, people sometimes say things they don't mean or take extreme positions. In other cases they are just trying to be provocative, especially when they can remain anonymous.

But a discussion on Greg Mankiw's blog caught my attention. That's because a couple of the folks suggested that parents don't really have the knowledge to make decisions about the quality of schools.

Between 2002-2004 I was actively involved in the fight to get school vouchers for families in DC. I often heard the argument that parents don't know how to choose between good and bad schools and that, anyway, parents had enough choices with the school system's "out-of-boundary" options and charters (that had also been opposed).

Without getting too deep into the out-of-boundary program, I'll point out that Woodrow Wilson HS, considered one of the best schools in the city, received 520 applications from parents out of the school's zone. That is even though it had ZERO available spaces for students to transfer to the school and parents KNEW there would be few spaces available. Deal Junior High, a feeder school for Wilson, had 532 applications, but only ten openings.

At the same time, D.C. parents shunned the low achieving schools. Anacostia Senior High School had 80 spaces available, but only seven applicants. Ballou SHS had 220 available spaces, but only three applicants. In 2002, fewer than 800 of the 7,000 children who applied for out-of-boundary spots were granted permission, mainly because many of the available slots are in low-performing schools (the same problem hindering NCLB). From my on-the-ground conversations with parents, visits to schools, going door-to-door in neighborhoods, based on community meetings I attended and speeches I gave, parents were quite aware of the level of violence and the level of achievement in the schools.

The main point is, based on what I wrote above: intellectuals, experts, and politicians greatly underestimate the knowledge and information that parents have about schools.


Families at a Washington Scholarship Fund orientation meeting, April 2004

Families at a Washington Scholarship Fund school fair, June 2004

CJL
See also Jeffrey Alan Miron, Edspresso,

Quotes of the Day

D.C. city officials should stop "driving those with options out of public schools and driving those without options out of school entirely."
--Aimmee Pollard, a freshman at Archbishop Carroll High School who transferred out of D.C. public schools.


"Give the kids their money back -- nearly $25,000 per student that the D.C. government claims it spends to educate them each year. They'd do better hiring a private tutor or enrolling in some boarding school far from here."
--Courtland Milloy, Washington Post columnist

Nearly $25,000 per student? That's the highest number I've ever heard quoted about per-pupil spending.

Check my commentary here.

CJL

State of the Black Union

The Washington Post has an article today about the 8th annual State of the Black Union organized by Tavis Smiley. Whatever you may say about it, getting 8,000 people to an event that doesn't involve sports is an achievement. Getting them to actually do something other than meet would be absolutely incredible.

Sounds like there was the usual griping and demands that things get fixed within the current structure. As one audience participant said at a Black Alliance for Educational Options gathering a few years ago: "Everybody wants change, but nobody wants it different."

There was one quote about education:

"So many of our black boys have been expelled" from schools, [Renita] Seabrook of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore] said. "We've got to get a handle on the reason."

Not that Seabrook will believe me, but black people would be better off (1) if black children had education options to find which schools work best for them and (2) if more black educators who don't believe that public schools are serving black children very well could start their own charter schools or private schools serving kids with vouchers.

CJL

Comments Enabled

I had been getting too much spam.

The ultimate form of parental involvement

Colbert King of the Washington Post calls for more parental involvement is needed in public schools. In fact, I bet everyone involved in the fight for control of governance of DC's schools would say there needs to be more parental involvement.

But I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw in Reason magazine years ago. In part 1 of the cartoon, a school administrator is complaining about the lack of parental involvement. In part 2 of the cartoon, when the parent leaves the school with a voucher in hand, the school administrators complains, "not THAT kind of parental involvement."

The DC Mayor, City Council, School Board, activists, parents, columnists, etc., are all weighing in on how the schools should be run. Either (1) the mayor will get control over the schools and many people will be unhappy (2) the mayor won't get control over the schools and many people will be unhappy (3) there will be a compromise and many people will be unhappy.

My solution: While administrators work on "Plan A," give parents a "Plan B"--a voucher good for the next 12 years. I'm sure the tone and substance of the arguments would change with everyone knowing that parents could leave at any moment. But then, I guess that's not the kind of parental involvement people want...

CJL

Update #1: King also calls for a racially inclusive "emergency session" of black organizations.

DC school battle--for the kids?

The DC School Battle of 2007 has begun! If guns were legal in DC then it might be a shootout!

The school board voted last night to oppose the DC mayor's proposal to take over the schools. Members of the board have previously announced they will step down if their authority is taken away. The mayor is also trying to put charter schools under his authority, just as the superintendent proposed last year. The superintendent gave a speech recently basically arguing that the mayor shouldn't take away his job.

E-yup, it is all about the children!

* * *

As you watch the battle over the next year, drop me an e-mail if you notice parents getting more power to decide how their children should be educated. All of the elected officials jockeying for power may have good plans, but ultimately, the plans all end up with them making decsions.

CJL

"We know what works"--more power for us

I heard the head of the National Education Association union, Reg Weaver, on the radio a few days ago, repeating his mantra: "We know what works." Of course, the stuff he listed is the type of stuff that leads to more power for the union and its members.

But I have a different ox to gore today...that is on the issue of people knowing in advance what works, and trying to prevent others from trying.

Weaver "knows" that vouchers don't work. As a coincidence, they would also give students the ability to escape lousy schools and teachers.

Weaver knows that smaller classes work. Another coincidence, I suppose, that smaller classes would result in more teachers and more union-dues paying members.

I wonder: Do smaller class sizes work when you've got a union dummy at the head of the class?

It has been humorous to me over the years to see free market supporters attacked as know-it-alls for saying that most human activity should be left to voluntary exchange because no one can plan for society, while someone like Weaver is seen as enlightened despite saying "we know what works"... and don't want you to have a Plan B in case our Plan A doesn't work out.

In today's Washington Post there is a nice feature on the 100th anniversay of the Montessori education method. Back in 1907, very few people "knew" that Montessori worked or expected the method to be around this long...as I recall reading elsewhere, it was opposed by professional educators/experts and seen as somewhat nutty.

According to the same article: "Once considered a maverick experiment that appealed only to middle-class white families in the States, Montessori schools have become popular with some black professionals and are getting results in low-income public schools with the kind of children on which Montessori first tested her ideas."

Does anyone believe that Maria Montessori, described in the Post article as a "stubborn Italian physician," thought that low-income black people would be using her method 100 years later? That's like segregationists of the 1960s who turned to vouchers--did they ever think that low-income black families would be using them a few decades later?

But I suppose someone "know," just as Reg Weaver allegedly does. As long as we are going to have public schools, they should be offering as many options as possible, just in case Reg Weaver is wrong.

CJL