New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | December 12, 2005

Half a century ago, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman had a radical idea: Fund private education with vouchers, injecting market competition into a government quasi-monopoly. Nick Gillespie talks with Friedman about the progress of that idea, from harebrained scheme to the driving force behind a major poltical movement.

Comments

Rich Ard|12.12.05 @ 1:37PM|#

"The victims of our defective educational system are not the well-educated but the poorly educated."

Aside from this sentence, I thought this was a great piece - kudos, Nick; and I hope he's right.

|12.12.05 @ 1:41PM|#

My love affair with libertarianism began when I read Free to Choose when I was in junior high. I'm still a Friedman fan, but I think there's one main major stumbling block getting in the way of reform, and he speaks to it in this interview:

"I remain optimistic for several reasons. One, there is increasing dissatisfaction with the schools on the part of parents."

I've seen little evidence of this. It seems to me that the affluent are quite happy with their local, well funded and highly regarded public school. Indeed, they seem wary of vouchers; I suspect they see vouchers as a threat to funding for their local school.

Furthermore, a blase' attitude toward education in general--among both students and parents--is part of the problem in underperforming schools. Give the parents a ceremony, some after school activities for their kids, teach the kids to read and write and many of 'em--both students and parents--will be happy with just that.

I'd like to believe that people are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their public schools, but I'm afraid that's not the case. So, unlike Friedman, I'm not very optimistic. ...but I'm persuadable; can anybody link to some data?

|12.12.05 @ 1:44PM|#

The ACLU's position on using tax money to fund private choices:

Q. What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to [private schools]?



A. Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on [private school] funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded [education]. Providing funding for [private schools] does not encourage or compel women to have [send their kids to private schools], but denying funding compels many women to [send their kids to public schools]. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a [child's education] back where it belongs -- in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision.

(Text in brackets modified).

nofrontin|12.12.05 @ 1:45PM|#

Vouchers seem like a way to bring the hand of the government into private schooling. I would think more libertarians would be against it.

|12.12.05 @ 2:00PM|#

I'm with nofrontin here -- I think too many libertarians imagine an ideal no-strings-attached vouchers system, and then think that the strings-attached system that we would actually get is second-best. But it's not second-best. Vouchers are a way to increase the market power of schools the government controls or approves of at the expense of those it doesn't -- a way for the government to rewrite the market for private education to extend its control.

If no-strings-attached vouchers were realistically possible, I would be in favor. But the vouchers we will actually get will simply be a way for the state to extend its power into and eventually to strangle a thriving private market.

|12.12.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Vouchers seem like a way to bring the hand of the government into private schooling.

That is the fear, that vouchers will make private schools dependent on tax dollars and therefore kowtow to government regulations that may impair the educational quality. Of course, current government regulations drive up the cost of private schools, thus depriving many children of a better quality education.

I'm in favor of trying a voucher system even though I'm wary of government interference in private schools. Short of eliminating taxation, the next best thing is to be able to choose where to spend those confiscated dollars.

Jesse Walker|12.12.05 @ 2:32PM|#

Doesn't the level of government matter? A federal voucher program would be a disaster. A local school district's voucher program probably wouldn't -- or, if it did turn awful, the repercussions wouldn't stretch very far.

|12.12.05 @ 2:38PM|#

Vouchers seem like a way to bring the hand of the government into private schooling. I would think more libertarians would be against it.

Private schools so concerned could refuse to admit voucher students.

...and Walker's right about the level of government.

|12.12.05 @ 2:54PM|#

Private schools so concerned could refuse to admit voucher students.

What makes you think they'll be allowed to?

|12.12.05 @ 4:02PM|#

If you are a landlord, you can refuse to accept government housing vouchers (at least in Georgia). At the drug store, you see signs saying "we accept medicare." If all stores accepted medicare, there would be no need for signs. And I dare you to pull out food stamps at one of those fancy grocery stores.

You can always refuse a handout. You just can't refuse to pay into the system.

|12.12.05 @ 4:27PM|#

I don't know the case law here.

I just remember that when I went to a religious, private school, the school would restrict admissions and kick people out for all sorts of reasons. I also remember when they had to start letting women into VMI. As I recall that had something to do with the fact that they accepted government money; as I recall, the court ruled that they could keep women out so long as they didn't accept government money.

The suggestion that vouchers would lead, unavoidably, to unwanted government interference in private schools reeks of slippery slope to me. I haven't seen anything to suggest that private school participation in voucner programs would be mandatory.

Wintermute|12.12.05 @ 4:52PM|#

Gov't schools, vouchers, they're both tyranny of the majority-spawned cross-subsidies from the childless to child breeders.

After reading DeTocqueville, I concluded America was more literate when there were no public schools.

Oh, I recently saved this link:
Democracy In America

|12.12.05 @ 5:00PM|#

This whole voucher idea sounds like a plan to reduce poverty by giving everyone a million dollars.

The difference between the housing stamps or food stamps programs is that they are only given to a limited number of people in the housing or food markets. The education stamps as being discussed would be given to everyone in the K-12 schooling market.

|12.12.05 @ 5:46PM|#

The education stamps as being discussed would be given to everyone in the K-12 schooling market.

True, but those "education stamps" are already being given out, the only difference is that parents can't choose where to use them.

Since we're not going to get rid of government schools anytime soon, taking a different tack on publicly funded education is probably a good idea, even if it doesn't work out in the end. Of course, whenever government tries out a new idea it's best to keep it localized until the ramifications can be measured. Didn't we used to have a system like that?

|12.12.05 @ 6:59PM|#

It bothers me when libertarians pull the purist card to argue against programs like vouchers( since the government is involved). In comparrison to our current system I would take a state-run voucher system over an idealistic anarchical system with no government intervention and no chance of being actually implemented.

|12.12.05 @ 10:58PM|#

I agree with Drew.

The fact that the school system is funded with taxpayer money is just part of the problem. ...If we can fix the rest of the problem, why wouldn't we?

|12.12.05 @ 11:25PM|#

"I also remember when they had to start letting women into VMI. As I recall that had something to do with the fact that they accepted government money; as I recall, the court ruled that they could keep women out so long as they didn't accept government money."
Actually, VMI is a state/public school, not a private school that accepts government funding.

|12.12.05 @ 11:34PM|#

Thanks for the update jeffy. Didn't they look at goin' private? ...Didn't they decide they couldn't swing it?