Powerful Evidence for School Choice

I expressed pessimism a few days ago about the possibility of replacing the corrupt internal revenue code with a flat tax. Either now or in the future.

But that’s an exception to my general feeling that we’re moving in the right direction on public policy. I’ve shared a list of reasons to be optimistic, even on issues such as  Obamacare and the Laffer Curve.

Education is another area where we should be hopeful. Simply stated, it’s increasingly difficult for defenders of the status quo to rationalize pouring more money into the failed government education monopoly. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never has so much been spent so recklessly with such meager results.

That’s true regardless of whether Democrats are throwing good money after bad or whether Republicans are throwing good money after bad.

Fortunately, a growing number of people are realizing that the answer is markets and competition. That’s one of the reasons why we’re seeing progress all over the country. Policy makers have implemented varying degrees of school choice in states such as Indiana, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and even California.

Is this having a positive impact on educational outcomes and other key variables? The answer, not surprisingly, is yes.

Here are some of the details from a new study published by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.

This report surveys the empirical research on school choice. …the empirical evidence consistently shows that choice improves academic outcomes for participants and public schools, saves taxpayer money, moves students into more integrated classrooms, and strengthens the shared civic values and practices essential to American democracy.

The data on academic outcomes surely is the most important bit of information, so let’s specifically review those findings.

Twelve empirical studies have examined academic outcomes for school choice participants using random assignment, the “gold standard” of social science. Of these, 11 find that choice improves student outcomes—six that all students benefit and five that some benefit and some are not affected. One study finds no visible impact. No empirical study has found a negative impact.

And since I want to reduce the burden of government spending, let’s see whether school choice is good news for taxpayers.

Six empirical studies have examined school choice’s fiscal impact on taxpayers. All six find that school choice saves money for taxpayers. No empirical study has found a negative fiscal impact.

Here’s the breakdown of the studies for all the variables.

As you can see, it’s a slam dunk, much as a survey of tax research found that nearly 90 percent of academic studies concluded that class-warfare tax policy is destructive.

Some of the tax research was inconclusive, but not a single study supported the notion that higher tax rates are good for growth, much as this new research from the Friedman Foundation didn’t uncover a single study that found negative results from school choice.

So with lots of positive research and no negative research, why would anybody oppose school choice? Unfortunately, politicians like Barack Obama and groups such as the NAACP side with teacher unions, putting political power ahead of progress and opportunity for kids.

P.S. Here’s a video explaining why school choice is better than a government-run monopoly.

P.P.S. There’s also strong evidence for school choice from nations such as Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands.

Read Full Post »

The Moocher Hall of Fame Welcomes its First Danish Member

Back in 2010, I posted a “Moocher Index” showing the states with the most dependency. But that was based on numbers and lacked any human-interest angle.

So let’s create a Moocher Hall of Fame for the individuals who best exemplify the culture of loafing, laziness, and dependency that is being subsidized by our vote-buying political class.

But you don’t receive this honor simply by accepting other people’s money. Membership in the Moocher Hall of Fame is reserved for deadbeats who demonstrate some special characteristic that warrants their induction.

* Let’s start with Olga, a Greek woman who earned membership in the Hall of Fame because she protested against the notion that she should be responsible for her own life since she might have to – gasp! – work more than one job and live at home.

* Another proud member of the Hall of Fame is Stanley, who was a shoo-in for the honor after it was learned that this 30-year old man has been scamming disability checks from the government so he can fulfill his fetish of wearing diapers and being an “adult baby.”

* Leroy entered the Hall of Fame after it was reported that he won $2 million from the lottery, but somehow is still collecting food stamps.

* A welfare mother with 11 kids in the United Kingdom was invited into the Hall of Fame after one of her sons was arrested for looting and she said “the riots are because the government does “f*** all” for children.”

* If the Hall of Fame had an award for going above and beyond the call of loafing, then Hans from Austria would be an obvious choice. He cut off his own foot to ensure continued handouts.

* We also have a husband-wife team in the Hall of Fame. Alicia and Matthew were unanimous inductees after it was revealed that they tried to impregnate a 12-year old girl to increase their welfare payments.

* Speaking of husband-wife duos, let’s not forget Danny and Gina, who bragged that it didn’t make sense for them to work when the government was providing them with enough loot to enjoy an apartment, a big flat-screen TV, and 40 daily cigarettes.

* Abdul from Australia is an esteemed member of the Hall of Fame’s terror wing, having received 19 years of welfare while plotting to kill the people who were paying for his life of leisure.

* Keeping with that theme, let’s also recognize Anjem, who got elected to the Hall of Fame for collecting about $40,000-per year in handouts while spewing hate and recruiting other “fanatics to copy him by going on benefits.”

* Last but not least, we have Natalijia, a Lithuanian woman who in now enjoying foreign holidays and designer clothes thanks to the generosity of British taxpayers, but nonetheless complained that she wasn’t getting a taxpayer-financed nanny.

Quite a collection of scroungers.

But I don’t think they’re very bright. They wanted to invite Julia to be the speaker at this year’s induction ceremony, apparently not realizing that she was a make-believe cartoon character created by the Obama campaign to celebrate dependency.

Perhaps they should ask Obama to speak. After all, more people have latched on to the disability system during his presidency than have gotten jobs. Quite an achievement…of sorts.

But I’m digressing. The purpose of this post is to announce the newest member of the Moocher Hall of Fame.

Our proud new bum comes from Denmark. Known as “Lazy Robert,” he’s been mooching off the taxpayers for 12 years and he’s very proud of his lifestyle. Here are some inspirational details from a New York Times report.

Robert Nielsen, 45, made headlines last September when he was interviewed on television, admitting that he had basically been on welfare since 2001. Mr. Nielsen said he was able-bodied but had no intention of taking a demeaning job, like working at a fast-food restaurant. He made do quite well on welfare, he said. He even owns his own co-op apartment. …Mr. Nielsen, called “Lazy Robert” by the news media, seems to be enjoying the attention. He says that he is greeted warmly on the street all the time. “Luckily, I am born and live in Denmark, where the government is willing to support my life,” he said.

The story also mentions another Danish moocher. Her story is worth sharing because it shows how the folks riding in the wagon enjoy higher living standards than many of those pulling the wagon.

Visit a single mother of two on welfare, a liberal member of Parliament goaded a skeptical political opponent, see for yourself how hard it is. It turned out, however, that life on welfare was not so hard. The 36-year-old single mother, given the pseudonym “Carina” in the news media, had more money to spend than many of the country’s full-time workers. All told, she was getting about $2,700 a month, and she had been on welfare since she was 16.

This probably doesn’t bode well for Denmark’s future. As illustrated by this famous set of cartoons, this kind of system creates very perverse incentives.

By the way, I decided that Carina didn’t deserve membership in the Hall of Fame because at least she has the decency to be ashamed. Or at least that’s one I’m assuming since the story says she “will no longer give interviews.”

But there are some people who genuinely deserve something, and those folks are the taxpayers of Denmark. They deserve our sympathy. They have one of the world’s most oppressive tax systems, thanks in part to a welfare system that provides a comfortable hammock for Robert and Carina.

Read Full Post »