The Next Step for School Choice: Get It Right

There is a common saying among writers inclined toward perfectionism: “Don’t get it right, just get it written.” A similar adage might work with certain public policy changes like school choice. If you aim at perfection, you may not accomplish anything. But at some point, you ought to go back and get it right. For many states that have embraced the idea of universal school choice over the past several years, that time is now.

While school choice has gained almost universal approval among conservatives and is widely popular with the public, implementation requires heavy policy considerations that the average voter—and maybe even the average state legislator—doesn’t think much about. Moreover, some important policy choices over the years have been made with an eye more toward placating critics of choice than getting the program right. As choice programs become less controversial in many states, their parameters and regulations should be reconsidered from a less defensive posture to reap the full potential of a choice-based education system.

My state of Indiana is a case in point. It was an early mover on universal school choice when, under the leadership of Mitch Daniels, it became the first state to establish a state-wide voucher program in 2011. As expected, the initial program had many limits, including a low-income cap, a cap on the number of participating students, and a requirement that a student complete a semester of public school before applying for the voucher. Over the years, legislators have rightly chipped away at many of these limits, but there is still work to be done.

Newly elected Governor Mike Braun promised to eliminate the income cap; some might see that as the culmination of the reform process. It’s easy to see why politicians would focus on eligibility requirements, but onerous regulations and conditions on vouchers—not just an income cap—keep the program from being truly universal.

Those regulations may be sticking around partly because sympathetic politicians do not quite recognize the full potential of school choice. Commenting on the proposal, Braun recently made a common argument for vouchers: “I come from a great public school district. ... Not all places have [that]. When you don't, you need options because you don't want parents to be in a dead end.” Whether the governor knew it or not, he was using language that was somewhat outdated in the current school choice movement—language that was not particularly suited to defend universal programs.

School choice initially gained momentum as a remedy for objectively bad schools. It was about school performance. We all know what a good education looks like, this line of reasoning goes, and it’s the same for everyone. The only problem is that some schools don’t deliver it well. Parents need an escape hatch, and bad schools need competition to incentivize improvement. This “failing schools” argument was and is an important part of the school choice puzzle, but on its own, it would point only to limited programs targeting lousy school districts.

Universal school choice has advanced nationwide for several years on a different rationale: Education pluralism. This is not about performance but about the educational approach. The model used by state public school systems may not be the universally correct way to educate children. Parents, therefore, should not simply be empowered to pull their kids out of failing schools but to spend their tax dollars on an educational approach that is best for their child—regardless of their local public school’s performance. That may include religious schools, STEM-focused schools, classical schools, Montessori schools, homeschooling, microschools, or other innovative approaches.

Indiana's current choice system, though generous in terms of dollars and eligibility, still leaves much to be desired regarding education pluralism. First, it relies primarily on vouchers rather than education savings accounts (ESAs). Vouchers favor established schools that have already met the criteria for participating in the state program, many of which can be restricting or take time to attain. For instance, the state requires that participating schools be accredited through the Department of Education or through one of only nine approved accrediting bodies. This means start-up schools or schools not accredited through one of the approved organizations have to swim upstream while boxed out of the government subsidy. Vouchers also leave out non-traditional educational options, like homeschooling collectives and microschools.

Moreover, Indiana places burdensome requirements and regulations on schools that take vouchers. They must process the voucher applications themselves, fulfill specific data-reporting requirements, grant “full access” to their premises for state inspections, adopt the state’s teacher evaluation model, and comply with vaguely worded curriculum requirements about “civic and character education” (the details of which could, of course, shift with the political winds). Most of these are manageable for large schools, flush with money and administrative capacity. But for newer and smaller schools they require time, attention, and staff that aren’t available.

Most onerous of all, though, Indiana is one of only a handful of states that requires all schools receiving vouchers to administer the state’s standardized test—with continued participation in the program dependent on results. Standardized tests reflect the old sense that we know exactly what every child should be learning and exactly when they should learn it. But many parents choose a private school precisely because it offers something different. Schools that offer an innovative (or more traditional) curriculum that differs from that of the public schools may, therefore, find themselves having to “teach to the test” and ultimately have to choose between their mission and participation in the program. Testing is also taken purely online, meaning schools with limited access to technology (or, like my children’s school, consciously keep technology out) must find a way to put all their pupils in front of a screen.

 Unsurprisingly, surveys indicate that required state testing is one of the most significant factors that encourage schools not to participate in a choice program. This should be a red flag for those interested in promoting pluralism: a choice program should welcome a variety of approaches, not discourage schools that value their independence.

Testing requirements, of course, are meant as an accountability measure. But a one-size-fits-all test is a poor way to measure student success, as even the most vocal advocates of public schools often recognize. The overall performance of America's public school system over the past several decades would indicate that testing regimes and school “report cards” do not provide any foolproof assurance of student learning.

The school choice model offers a different approach to accountability: ensure schools are accountable to parents. As Notre Dame law professor Nicole Stelle Garnett has shown, many policy options are short of a one-size-fits-all test that could provide meaningful metrics on student performance. As they are in Florida, schools could be required to administer a test of their choosing—one that matches the school’s curriculum approach. Policies could also require transparency in curriculum and student outcomes, such as college acceptance rates or SAT scores. Parents could then make informed choices based on various factors, providing a more nuanced and active form of accountability than bureaucratic box-checking.

These regulations do not pay for themselves, from processing the voucher applications to administering tests and collecting data. Such compliance costs can lead to increased tuition, meaning that a portion of the state money is simply funding administrative bloat at participating schools and that parents will still pay a significant part of the tuition out-of-pocket.

Most conditions on school choice funding—especially testing and accreditation requirements—are implemented to try to placate the program's opponents. Defenders of a government monopoly on education continue to operate under the indefensible assumption that only state approval can signal quality. When choice programs were first approved, such concessions were likely necessary to get the legislation done. However, the result is that even trailblazing programs like Indiana's continue to impede the true aim of universal choice—education pluralism. Instead, they offer incentives to make private schools look and act more like public ones. As universal choice becomes more popular, however, its advocates should no longer feel shackled to the naysayers who continue to cling to a failing model.

Eliminating income limits and other eligibility requirements is an important step, but legislators should also boldly champion the full potential of universal choice by adopting more flexible ESAs, eliminating conditions on participating schools, and embracing parent-centered accountability. 

John G. Grove is the editor of Law & Liberty. Opinions expressed are his own.