By
Nicole Stelle Garnett & Michael Q. McShane
Thursday,
August 10, 2023
Arizona,
West Virginia, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio. No, that is not a
list of states being targeted by 2024 presidential candidates. Those are the
states that have passed universal or near-universal school-choice programs in
the last two years. All but Arizona’s and West Virginia’s were passed in the
2023 legislative session, making this the most successful year in the history
of school-choice advocacy.
But more
important than where school choice has grown are the particular policies that
have been passed. Universal education savings accounts (ESAs) are a novel way
to fund children’s schooling. Arizona, West Virginia, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, and
Florida either instituted new or expanded existing ESA programs. Unlike the
previous generation of choice policies such as vouchers or tax-credit-funded
scholarships, ESAs place public funds for education in flexible-use spending
accounts controlled by parents. The funds can be subdivided among multiple
educational providers to cover the costs of private-school tuition, tutoring,
educational technology, curricula, books, and more. ESA programs, in other
words, are more than school-choice programs that empower
families to choose among schools; they are true educational-choice programs
that enable them to customize their kids’ education.
In
addition to these ESA programs, Oklahoma passed a refundable education tax
credit, allowing families to recoup up to $7,500 per child per year for
private-school tuition and $1,000 per child per year for homeschooling
expenses. All students in the state are eligible, with the amount of the tax
credit determined by parental income. Families earning less than the eligible
expenses still receive the full credit as a subsidy up to the amount needed to
cover private-school tuition.
Ohio
expanded an existing voucher program to universal eligibility in 2023. Indiana
expanded the eligibility for its voucher program to include about 98 percent of
Hoosier families. South Carolina also created an ESA program that will
eventually extend to families making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty
level.
It is
difficult to overstate what a sea change the last few years have been for
educational choice in America. At the outset of the pandemic, just over half a
million students participated in private-school-choice programs. By the end of
this year, potentially 10 million will be eligible. Even if only a small
fraction of the eligible students take advantage of the opportunities, we are
in the midst of an education-reform revolution.
Why now?
To start with the obvious: Educational choice may prove one of Covid’s few
silver linings. The pandemic frayed, and in some cases severed, the
relationship between families and public schools. Frustrated parents were
whipsawed by schools closing and opening according to policies that were often
poorly communicated and seemingly nonsensical. As classes shifted online,
parents had a window into exactly what their children were doing all day. Many
were not happy with what they saw, including low-quality instruction,
unambitious or objectionable curricula, low expectations, and general lack of
engagement and interest by both teachers and students. Teachers’ unions made a
naked power grab when they held schools ransom for nearly $200 billion in
federal Covid-relief dollars; their continued refusal to return students to
classrooms undermined their political power and credibility. Perhaps not
surprisingly, all of this coincided with the emergence of organized parent
opposition to curricular content that some considered unacceptably woke and
inappropriate for children. Public-school families also objected to the
watering down of academic rigor in the name of “equity.”
Recent
successes in education reform coincided with an acceptance by the school-choice
movement that pushing for universal programs is superior to pushing for
targeted ones. For decades, a rhetorical focus of choice advocacy has been on
rescuing disadvantaged kids from failing public schools, even when poll after
poll found universal programs to be more popular. Some aspects of this “rescue
mission” rhetoric — especially dispiriting evidence about the negative effects
on student learning of remote instruction during the pandemic — continue to
animate the fight for universal ESAs. However, the case for universal
educational choice is primarily not about improving narrow measures of academic
achievement but about empowering parents — all parents — to take control of
their children’s education.
Perhaps
the simplest explanation for why this growth is happening now is that it was
due. Max Weber said that “politics is the slow boring of hard boards.” The
school-choice movement has been boring into the educational establishment for
more than three decades, and the intellectual antecedents to the movement
emerged long before that. During this time, states created, refined, and grew
dozens of small programs and experimented with different funding arrangements.
All told, 33 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico now have at
least one private-school-choice program; and all but two of the states (Utah
and West Virginia) that recently passed a universal or near-universal program
already had at least one more-modest program on the books. By the time the
post-pandemic political conditions became ripe, advocates were prepared to
seize the opportunity.
***
In the
months and years to come, our educational system is poised to be dramatically
reshaped by choice, as more programs are passed and more kids become eligible.
But this is no time to declare victory. Those with even a passing knowledge of
education reform know that implementation is where promising programs go to
die. No Child Left Behind, test-based teacher evaluation, Common Core, small
schools, site-based management — the list could take up a page. Great
excitement when programs are created is regrettably not matched by enthusiasm
for the essential, if tedious, work of making sure that programs live up to
their promise.
This is
where the school-choice movement finds itself today. The success or failure of
educational choice now rests on the ability of many different actors —
advocates, regulators, schools, teachers, parents — to adapt to the changing
landscape and move from an evangelical posture to one of application. This is
particularly true with respect to ESA programs, which pose unique
implementation challenges because of their complexity.
In light
of these challenges, states must take five critical steps soon to ensure
success.
Parents
must be informed about their options. Polling from the nonprofit organization
EdChoice has repeatedly found that parents frequently do not even know that
their state has a choice program, let alone that they are eligible for it. And
the emergence of ESAs, which allow parents to customize their kids’ education,
will only compound the confusion.
In
states with existing ESA programs, nonprofits such as Love Your School and
Parents Empowered help parents navigate their options; expanding the reach and
replicating the success of these organizations is essential. But before parents
can make decisions, they need basic information: Early experience demonstrates
the need for program administrators to inform parents — for example, through
handbooks, webinars, and training sessions — about the choices open to them.
This is
particularly true of ESA programs, which can be difficult for parents to
understand and navigate. There is considerable worry within both the
educational establishment and parts of the school-choice movement — given the
range of educational expenses permitted in ESA programs — that parents will
make mistakes or, worse, commit outright fraud. The easiest way to minimize the
risk is to be crystal clear with parents about which expenses are permitted or
prohibited. Most parents don’t want to break the law, and it appears that cases
of misspending in existing ESA programs largely result from ignorance rather
than malice.
Schools
and other providers must prepare for, and respond effectively to, the
opportunities and challenges provided by educational-choice programs. Few stories in American
education have been sadder than the decline of Catholic schools, especially in
urban communities. In 1960, more than 5 million American children attended more
than 12,000 Catholic schools. In 2022, 1.6 million attended 5,900 schools.
Catholic-school closures have deprived millions of disadvantaged students of an
educational lifeline and have devastated urban neighborhoods — stripping them
of community hubs, eroding social cohesion, and fueling disorder and crime.
Educational choice can help reverse that trend.
But
Catholic and other private schools must be willing to embrace the opportunities
that these programs provide. Some religious schools fear that government money
will come with regulatory strings that threaten their religious liberty and
autonomy. While these concerns are worth taking seriously, most new ESA
programs have robust religious-liberty protections built into them. The law
authorizing Florida’s program, for example, explicitly states: “The inclusion
of eligible private schools within options available to Florida public school
students does not expand the regulatory authority of the state, its officers,
or any school district to impose any additional regulation of private schools
beyond those reasonably necessary to enforce requirements expressly set forth
in this section.” Other states included similar language in their laws.
Schools
should also resolve to use ESA funds to innovate. For example, some might hire
more reading and math specialists to address Covid-related learning losses or
expand services to kids with special needs. Others might offer part-time or à
la carte options, opening up individual classes for students to purchase with their
subdividable ESA dollars, or put course content online, allowing great teachers
to expand their reach to more students. Private schools and school systems
should consider taking advantage of ESAs to expand, start new schools, or seed
affiliated micro schools (purposely small schools, usually with fewer than 20
students, which may be a good fit for some smaller communities).
States
must thoughtfully and deliberately draft program regulations. To begin, who will administer the
new programs? The state board of education? A private contractor? Who will
answer parents’ and providers’ questions about program details? Will families
be able to appeal decisions that they disagree with? To whom? It gets
complicated, quickly.
We
suspect that ESAs will function primarily as voucher programs, at least in the
short run, because voucher programs are easier for parents to understand. When
they enroll their children in a private school, the school receives the money
allocated for the child as tuition. But what if parents want to take a
different route and spend ESA dollars on, for example, homeschooling? This is
permitted, provided that they apply the funds only to pre-approved educational
expenses, such as a curriculum. (They would not be allowed to use their ESA
dollars to buy food, household goods, cars, etc.)
But what
is a curriculum? Does it need to be formally spelled out by a textbook
publisher? Does it need to be used by established schools or recognized by
homeschool organizations? Can it be created independently by parents? Answers
to these questions (and many like them) will shape not only the education that
children will receive but also the extent of innovation enabled by ESAs.
Regulators
will also have to make decisions about which schools and other providers can
participate and under what circumstances. Unsurprisingly, the education
commentariat cannot seem to resist demanding robust and intricate systems of
accountability for educational outcomes. It is reasonable for a state to seek
some assurances that children are being educated, but an excessive focus on
accountability (for example, demands that parents or schools administer state
achievement tests) can backfire by discouraging participation. Where possible,
states should allow for a range of ways to achieve accountability goals.
Program
administrators must make sure that the gears are in good working order. Most states have chosen to enlist a
private online platform to deal with the day-to-day administration of ESA
accounts. And for good reason. These transactions are immensely complex. In an
ideal world, online platforms allow parents to see their balance and pay
providers for their services. Vendors, likewise, can log in to see who has paid
them for what and track their revenue from families participating in the
program. Some versions of these platforms have existed (with plenty of glitches
and frustrations) for early ESA programs, and others are entering the market
now. Getting them right is critical because parents do not have inexhaustible
patience. Platform providers need to work out the glitches, quickly, and have
at the ready a robust customer-service apparatus.
The
first task facing these platforms is to onboard parents and providers. In
states where eligibility is not universal, or lower-income families or students
with special needs receive more ESA dollars or get priority, that means
families might need to upload tax documents or individualized education plans.
This can be a challenging and time-consuming process and can deter
participation. Platforms must find ways to streamline applications and
determine eligibility quickly, and states must insist that they do so up front.
It
should be the first priority to ensure prompt payments for educational
resources and services. Although there is a risk of occasional error, states
need not review every payment request. The risk of misspending is present in
every government transfer program, from food stamps to Section 8 housing
vouchers, but none of them insists on reviewing all expenditures before payment;
that would paralyze the system. Periodic audits on the back end should suffice
to keep misspending to a minimum. While choice critics undoubtedly will revel
in highlighting occasional missteps by program participants, the political
embarrassment of these mistakes can be more than offset by thousands of
satisfied families. Obsessing over avoiding any errors would lead to
administrative hassles that could drive frustrated parents and providers away,
dooming programs from the start. It is worth noting that the most recent audit
of Arizona’s ESA program (the first to go universal) found an improper payment
rate of effectively zero, a success seldom matched by other government
programs.
States
and public-interest legal advocates must prepare for legal challenges. Almost every
private-school-choice program in America has been challenged in court. Most of
these challenges have failed, but aggressive and high-quality advocacy in
defense of such programs remains necessary. Even when states win, lawsuits can
tie up programs, delay implementation, and sow confusion and doubt in the
programs’ viability.
Thankfully,
recent legal developments make challenging these programs difficult. In Zelman
v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the Supreme Court held that the First
Amendment’s establishment clause does not preclude states from empowering
parents to use public funds to send their children to the school of their
choice, including religious schools. After Zelman, legal challenges
shifted to state courts, with opponents typically arguing that such
expenditures ran afoul of anti-establishment provisions in state constitutions.
These provisions, often referred to as Blaine amendments, preclude states from
funding “sectarian” education; they have a well-established anti-Catholic
pedigree. A series of recent decisions, culminating last year in Carson
v. Makin, render most Blaine amendments a dead letter by making clear that
the free-exercise clause prohibits the government from excluding religious
schools from private-school-choice programs.
These
developments will not stop opponents from challenging programs in court, but
they do leave those detractors with fewer, and weaker, legal arguments. For
example, a common argument against choice programs is that, because they drain
resources from public schools, they violate provisions of state constitutions
that guarantee access to a public education. This is not a winning argument.
State constitutions may require public schools, but they do not preclude states
from providing alternative educational options as well. Moreover, most choice
programs result in public schools’ having more money per pupil to educate their
remaining students. And many ESA programs enacted in recent months were paired
legislatively with other education-reform measures, such as salary increases
for teachers, that increase public-school funding. What’s more, the available
evidence strongly suggests that Milton Friedman was right: Subjecting public
schools to competition leads them to improve. All of these facts can be deployed
in defense of new programs when they are inevitably challenged in court.
***
Given the
scope, scale, and nature of the educational-choice programs enacted in recent
months, observers are rightly asking questions about what the future holds and
what success looks like. In the past, the “success” of educational-choice
programs has been measured primarily by test scores. Do participating students,
all other things being equal, outperform their public-school peers? Academic
studies suggest that, yes, they usually do, but not always by much (with a few
studies suggesting that participants appear to fall behind academically).
Longer-term noncognitive effects — on high-school-graduation rates, college
matriculation and graduation, employment, and even a reduced risk of later
arrest or incarceration — are overwhelmingly positive.
This
raises the question: How do we measure success? Are existing measures too
test-driven? Survey data show quite clearly that parents do not value test
scores as much as researchers do and that many parents do not choose schools so
as to maximize their children’s test scores. There is good reason to believe
that traditional public schools, for which standardized-test scores were part
of state-mandated accountability systems, tended to tailor their instruction to
what was going to be on the test. Differences in test-score performance might
have been due as much to curricular alignment as to school quality.
But even
without disputing the value of past research, determining how to evaluate this
new generation of programs is difficult. For students who receive education
from multiple providers, it will be hard to match a particular educator to a
particular effect. Standardized tests seem especially unsuited as a yardstick
for programs that, by design, are a rejection of the one-size-fits-all
definition of student success that such tests both represent and measure.
Perhaps
the answer is to listen to, and trust, parents. If, in five years’ time, choice
programs are growing, with more and more parents each year wanting to
participate and a robust educational ecosystem emerging to serve them, we will
know that choice is working. If the programs are stagnating or shrinking, we’ll
know that something is off. If there is a healthy churn of educational
providers, with lower-quality organizations withering and stronger ones
thriving, that will be a great sign.
The
future of the school-choice movement will be determined by the success of the
programs being adopted and expanded at this remarkable moment in the history of
American education. If families and educators embrace universal educational
choice, more and more states — including, experience suggests, blue states that
have been resistant to it — will follow the lead of the early adopters. But if
families and educators end up unhappy, the entire edifice of educational choice
may crumble. It won’t matter how elegant the arguments are in favor of
empowering parents; the proof will be in the pudding.
The
steps that must be taken, now, to ensure that educational-choice programs
achieve their transformational potential in the lives of real families are not
as exciting as the arguments and theories that led to their adoption. But
choice supporters disregard them at their peril.
No comments:
Post a Comment