Another School Choice Victory

The 2020s, at least so far, should be known as the school choice decade. Here are some examples of progress, starting in early 2021.

• West Virginia
• Arizona
• Iowa
• Utah
• Arkansas
• Florida
• Indiana
• Oklahoma
• North Carolina

But if this map from the Education Freedom Alliance is any indication. I’ll be addressing the issue many more times over the next two years.

By the way, this map changed very recently.

That’s because Alabama became the most recent state to adopt choice. Here are some details from a local news outlet.

HB129, called the CHOOSE Act, would create education savings accounts, or ESAs, for families of students to use toward eligible education expenses. The Senate Education Budget committee approved the House version in a hastily rescheduled meeting Tuesday afternoon. The final vote Wednesday was 23-9 and fell along party lines, with Republicans voting yes and Democrats voting no. …“It was an honor to work with Governor Ivey and her team to swiftly pass a school choice bill that she declared her number one priority this Session,” Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, said in a statement after the vote. …“Children are our future, and there is no greater responsibility for lawmakers than ensuring our kids have every resource needed for academic success regardless of their zip code,” Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Reed said. …The first ESAs will be available in the 2025-26 school year and will be limited to eligible students. All students will be eligible for ESAs at the start of the 2027-28 school year. …The parent of a student receiving an ESA must agree to pay the remaining amount of tuition or expenses beyond the $7,000 cap.

Congratulations to Alabama families.

I’ll close with the observation that the great school choice news in recent years has only been possible because the American system still has a decent amount of federalism.

Not as much as we used to have, unfortunately, but still enough that sensible states have the liberty to do good things (bad states, by contrast, will continue to neglect children and instead use their education systems as a way of transferring money to teacher unions).

P.S. One takeaway is that the Department of Education in Washington should be abolished.

Read Full Post »

The Most Important Result from Super Tuesday

Since there was not a Reagan-type candidate in the race, I did not pay any attention to the presidential primary contests yesterday.

Instead, I was focused on state legislative races in Texas. There was a concerted effort to replace 21 Republicans who sided with the education establishment during a battle over school choice last year.

The good news is that five of those Republicans didn’t run for reelection and at least four of them will be replaced with supporters of school choice. And it may be five based on the upcoming results of a run-off election.

The better news, though, is that many of the pro-establishment GOPers who ran for reelection were defeated yesterday. In some cases, decisively.

And in other cases, they will probably lose their run-off elections.

Here are some headline results, as shared by Corey DeAngelis of the American Federation for Children.

These results are very good for two reasons.

• First, it almost certainly means school choice will become law in Texas next year. Proponents thought they needed to win six races, and that’s already happened.
• Second, the Texas results send a big message to Republican lawmakers in other states where school choice is on the agenda. Simply stated, if you side with union money over student opportunity, you may lose your seat (same thing happened in Iowa in 2022, leading to school choice in 2023).

I’ll close by noting that Texas GOP voters also were asked their opinion on school choice yesterday. Here are the results.

No wonder school choice is going from fantasy to reality.

P.S. One of my hopes for 2024 already has partly materialized.

Read Full Post »

Tweet of the Year for 2024?

In the arena of public policy, who are the worst hypocrites?

1. Politicians who push for higher taxes while using clever tactics to protect their own money?
2. Preening celebrities who lecture us peasants about climate while they use private jets?
3. Politicians who send their own kids to private school while fighting against school choice?

I’m tempted to say the third group is the worst. And Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky deserve to be on the list because of what they recently wrote.

Here are some excerpts from their column in USA Today.

We’re proud public school graduates… That’s why we’re so alarmed that legislators want to loot our public schools to fund their private school voucher scheme. …In North Carolina, the Republican legislature passed a voucher program with no income limit, no accountability and no requirement that children can’t already go to a private school. This radical plan will cost the state $4 billion over the next 10 years, money that could be going to fully fund our public schools. In Kentucky, legislators are trying to amend our constitution to enshrine their efforts to take taxpayer money from public schools and use it for private schools. …The future of our nation goes to class in public schools, and all Americans must be on guard for lobbyists and extremist politicians bringing similar plans to their states. …We are going to keep standing up for our public school students to ensure that they have the funding they need, and that teachers are paid like the professionals they are. It’s what’s best for our children, our economy and our future.

There are many things to criticize about their editorial, such as the fact that they are kowtowing to teacher unions.

Or the fact that they ignore all the evidence about school choice producing better results for students.

They even imply that school choice is part of a segregationist agenda even though minority students would be the biggest beneficiaries.

So there are lots of reasons to condemn the editorial.

But the best critique is from Phil Kerpen. Here’s his response on Twitter (now X). Brief, but to the point.

It’s worse than disgusting.

P.S. In my list of hypocrites above, I should have included politicians in other countries who praise government-run healthcare but then run to the United States for their own treatment. And also bureaucrats at places like the IMF and OECD who get tax-free salaries yet promote higher taxes for everyone else.

P.P.S. Fortunately, Gov. Cooper’s awful views haven’t stopped progress in North Carolina.

Read Full Post »

Los Angeles Government Schools and the Case for School Choice

The case for school choice is very straightforward and very persuasive.

• Better educational outcomes.
• More educational freedom.
• Lower costs for taxpayers.
• Reining in teacher unions.
• Better government schools.

All of these factors help to explain why school choice is expanding all across the nation (at least in places where lawmakers are not controlled by teacher unions).

Today, though, let’s set aside the national arguments and focus on a local example from the reliably crazy state of California.

Heather McDonald has a sobering column about Los Angeles government schools in City Journal.

Much of her article focuses on ideological indoctrination of students, but here’s the passage that caught my attention.

Any school system that can afford climate advocates (as part of a black uplift plan, no less) is not hurting for taxpayer dollars. Any school system that runs a massive system of subcontracting for “psychiatric social workers” and “counselors” is not hurting for taxpayer dollars. Such a system has more money than it knows what to do with. Indeed, the LAUSD budget for the 2022–23 school year was $20 billion—more than that of some nations. Divide that pot among the district’s 397,623 K-12 students, and taxpayers are paying the equivalent of an Ivy League tuition—over $50,000—for every student, every year. Add “clients” in other functions that the LAUSD has embraced— early education centers, infant centers, and adult education—and the district spends a still-lavish $35,341 per student. The LAUSD is not underfunded. It is overfunded. The reasons for student failure lie elsewhere than in allegedly inadequate resources.

Wow.

I wrote about the failing Los Angeles government schools system back in 2010, but the focus then was about under-performing teachers.

Today, the issue is an over-funded system. The government schools are getting $35.000-$50,000 per student, yet doing a crummy job.

How crummy?

Howard Blume of the L.A. Times wrote about the bad news last October.

In math, …about 7 in 10 students do not meet standards. …for Black students…, only 19% met the learning standards in math. …Latinos make up about 3 in 4 students; about 24% met learning standards. …L.A. Unified math scores still were below levels from the 2017-18 school year, two years before the pandemic resulted in campus closures. The same is true for English scores, which were slightly down overall compared with last year, with 41.2% of students meeting standards. Among all district students, scores dropped by half a percentage point.

The only practical answer to this mess is school choice.

Instead of squandering $35,000-$50,000 per student of government schools that produce bad test scores, divvy up the money and give families some type of voucher or educational savings account that can be used to pay tuition at higher-performing private schools.

Families could opt to stay in government schools, of course, especially if they value indoctrination.

But it’s safe to assume most families will be more interested in better education.

Time to expand this map!

Read Full Post »

Historians Are Worse than Economists

I have a multi-part series on why people shouldn’t trust economists (see here, here, here, here, and here).

I even wrote a tongue-in-cheek column asking whether economists were “Useless, Despicable, and Loathsome People.”

That being said, economists apparently are much more balanced than historians according to surveys of academics (though this is a typical example in higher education of comparing left-leaning to hard-left).

Let’s see why that makes a difference. Two economists (Jeremy Horpedahl and Phillip Magness) and a historian (Marcus Witcher) examined how college textbooks analyze and explain the Great Depression.

In their article, published by the Journal of Economics and Finance Education, they found that significant differences between economics textbooks and history textbooks.

The Depression is usually covered in two college-level courses: introductory economics…and US history survey classes. But the Depression is treated very differently in these two courses. According to the most recently available data, both courses rank among the top ten college courses taken in the United States, with around 40 percent of undergraduate students taking them at some point. For many students, perception of the Great Depression’s causes inform their views on business cycle events in the present. If the Depression is understood to illustrate a failure of free-market capitalism, this belief may shape a student’s views about the proper role of government in general economic policy decisions in addition to business cycle events. The market-failure view is common in college-level history textbooks. If instead the Great Depression is understood as a failure of government institutions to properly address a normal business cycle, the policy implications are much different. The government-failure interpretation of the Depression is much more common among economic historians.

Regular readers know that I’m in the government-failure camp. And if you want a brief summary of that view, watch this video.

But let’s keep the focus on the article. The authors included this chart showing the causes of the Great Depression, as identified by historians and economists.

Here are a few of my observations.

• I would have used some sort of term like “Keynesian theory” for both “underconsumption” and “aggregate demand,” so I don’t think economics and history textbooks are significantly different in that regard.
• I am shocked that historians completely ignore the impact of Hoover’s horrible protectionist trade policy.
• I’m also surprised that historians are fixated on income inequality, which is probably the biggest sign of the profession’s ideological bias.
• But I’m not surprised they largely overlook the role of monetary policy and the federal Reserve.

P.S. A big takeaway from today’s column is that college history textbooks leave something to be desired, but I’m sure they can’t be nearly as awful as Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, a tedious left-wing tract that is commonly used to brainwash high school students.

Read Full Post »

A Great Moment from the Education Establishment

Of all the useless and counterproductive bureaucracies in Washington, the Department of Education may be at the top of the list.

It certainly hasn’t produced good results, at least if we care about student performance.

Though it does keep a bunch of bureaucrats on a gravy train, so there are some (undeserving) beneficiaries.

Speaking of which, the top bureaucrat at the DOE, Secretary Miguel Cardona, recently showed that he skipped some history lessons.

As shown in this amusing little video, he completely botched Reagan’s famous warning about getting “help” from government.

Fixed it. pic.twitter.com/6R6Zcr8uBE

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) November 27, 2023

To be fair, Reagan’s quote was about government and help, so even though he turned the quote upside down, he was referring to something real.

Moreover, I recall that President George W. Bush said something that libertarians didn’t like about it being government’s role to help when someone is hurting. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Secretary Cardona simply mixed up a good Republican president with a not-so-good Republican president.

Since I once made a $16 trillion mistake on a national TV program, I won’t be overly critical of his misstatement.

But I am glad that his goof has drawn attention to Reagan’s very apt warning.

Read Full Post »

School Choice in Denmark

In recent years, we’ve seen dramatic expansions of school choice in West Virginia, Arizona, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Oklahoma, and North Carolina.

Given the crummy performance of government schools, that’s is great news for families in those states (and also for taxpayers).

But let’s not forget the global evidence. I’ve already written about the very successful choice-based systems in Canada, Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands.

Today, let’s look at school choice in another nation.

The Fraser Institute just published The Free Enterprise Welfare State: A History of Denmark’s Unique Economic Model. Chapter 4, authored by Paige MacPherson, looks at the country’s education system.

Danish schools are characterized by diversity, autonomy, and a uniquely long-standing historical commitment to government-funded independent schools and parental choice in education… Primary and lower secondary independent schools—which account for about 45 percent of the schools in Denmark…—are supported financially by the government via a school choice system, at about 75 percent of the rate of fully funded government schools. …Danish parents can choose the school to which they send their child. Today, about 16 percent of students attend an independent school and that share is growing. …The expansion of school choice policies in Denmark in the 1990s and early 2000s coincided chronologically with a 45 percent increase in independent school enrolment and a corresponding decrease in government public school enrolment from 1998 to 2018. Over the same period, secondary graduation rates and student achievement in mathematics and reading improved, particularly in independent schools. …This improvement, following the expansion of the country’s school choice policies, was achieved without increasing education spending as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) or as a share of total government spending.

Here’s a chart looking at the performance of private schools compared to government schools.

This excerpt from the conclusion is also worth sharing.

The expansion of Denmark’s school choice policies in the 1990s and early 2000s coincided with a 45 percent increase in independent school enrolment between 1998 and 2018, decreasing enrolment in government public schools, increasing secondary graduation rates, and increasing student achievement in math and reading, particularly in independent schools, which have lifted student achievement since the country’s school choice policies were expanded.

The bottom line, as explained in this 2010 video, is that school choice is the right approach.

P.S. Getting rid of the Department of Education in Washington would be a good idea, but the battle for school choice is largely won and lost on the state and local level.

Read Full Post »

Ranking Education Freedom in American States

Given what’s recently happened in North Carolina, Oklahoma, Indiana, Florida, Arkansas, Utah, and Iowa,  I’ve been waiting with considerable anticipation for an update to the Heritage Foundation’s Education Freedom Report Card.

It will be interesting to see how the rankings change given all the new states that have adopted and/or expanded school choice.

In the meantime, the American Legislative Exchange Council has just released its Index of State Education Freedom, which now gives us another way of measuring the degree to which states are putting students first.

Here’s a map showing grades for all the states. The very best states – Florida, Arkansas, and Indiana – are dark blue.

The worst states are grey. No big surprises, other than North Dakota, Mississippi, and Nebraska.

Here’s a table showing the best to the worst.

Shame on Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York for being the worst of the worst.

The ALEC Index looks at five factors – school choice, charter schools, home schooling, virtual schooling, and open enrollment.

All the factors get equal weighting, but I think school choice is easily the most important one.

Here’s a map showing how states rank on that basis.

Kudos to Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, and Iowa for getting perfect scores in this all-important category (I assume the publication was finalized before North Carolina enacted its choice program, so the Tarheel State obviously no longer deserves an “F.”

And, with any luck, Texas will approve choice later this year and also get rid of its failing grade in this category.

P.S. For those who prefer an international perspective, there are very successful school choice systems in Canada, Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands.

Read Full Post »

The Economic Case for School Choice

Although it is only 2023, the 2020s already can be categorized as the decade of school choice thanks to legislation in West Virginia, Arizona, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Oklahoma, and North Carolina.

The main argument for choice is that government schools squander record amounts of money and deliver very poor results. Especially for disadvantaged students. But there are other arguments for choice.

• Saving money for taxpayers.
• Improving performance of government schools.
• Boosting civil rights.
• Increasing success in college.

Today we’re going to consider potential economic benefits of school choice.

Back in August, Lindsay Killen and Ella Bevis of the James Madison Institute wrote a column for Real Clear Policy to explain why school choice also is a pro-growth policy.

Here are some excerpts.

…the impact of education choice stretches across communities and economies, helping to unleash prosperity and growth that benefits everyone. …With school choice comes increased competition, encouraging businesses – especially small business entrepreneurs and real estate investors – to transform their development and growth strategies to cater to emerging markets, as families relocate to take advantage of expanded educational options. …Why does the economy benefit from school choice?  Dr. Bartley Danielson, associate professor of finance and real estate at N.C. State University, emphasizes that school choice fosters community-wide economic prosperity. This allows families to remain in their dwellings, rather than feeling led to switch neighborhoods based on school districts. In turn, real estate becomes equally coveted across regions where school choice is implemented.

The big takeaway is that the economy is less efficient when families feel they have to live in a certain neighborhood to get decent education for their kids.

That problem disappears with school choice.

Their article also includes this paragraph about taxpayers savings, which surely is an economic benefit as well.

Beyond benefiting states’ economic livelihood, taxpayers across the states are also seeing savings as a result of these expanding programs. Out of 52 analyses on the fiscal impact of private school choice programs, 47 were found to generate overall savings for taxpayers. An additional study in 2018 found that school choice programs generated $12.4 to $28.3 billion in tax savings.

Better student performance and lower costs. What’s not to like?

P.S. I cited some research back in 2009 about potential economic benefits of school choice.

P.S. For further information (especially for my left-leaning friends), there are very successful school choice systems in Canada, Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands.

Read Full Post »

A Victory for Students in North Carolina

Earlier this year, Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina declared a “state of emergency” as part of his fight against school choice.

What’s remarkable is that he engaged in that rhetorical excess even though he sent at least one of his kids to a private school.

But this column will not focus on his hypocrisy, even though his two-faced behavior is despicable (and common).

Instead, we are going to celebrate the fact that his state-of-emergency stunt was a total flop. The North Carolina legislature just approved universal school choice (details here) and Gov. Cooper meekly is allowing the law to go into effect.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized about this great development.

North Carolina on Friday became the tenth state to approve universal school choice. …North Carolina created the Opportunity Scholarship program in 2013, but this budget increases funding from $176.5 million to $520.5 million by the 2032-33 fiscal year. It also opens up eligibility to all North Carolinians, though the amount of the scholarship declines as income rises. …In May, when legislators signaled their intentions, Gov. Cooper released a video declaring a “state of emergency.” …he said, “that the Republican legislature is aiming to choke the life out of public education.” The emergency stunt did nothing but make the Governor look weak. It also highlighted his double standard. Mr. Cooper was happy to choose private school for one of his daughters. But when the legislators were ready to give North Carolinians the same choice, suddenly it was an attack on public schools. …Parents want better education choices for their children. …North Carolina’s vote is a big victory—for parents who want better schools for their children and the Republicans who fought to provide that choice.

Given the deterioration of government schools, this is great news.

And it’s part of a great trend. Since the beginning of 2021, a growing number of states have adopted universal or near-universal school choice programs.

• West Virginia
• Arizona
• Iowa
• Utah
• Arkansas
• Florida
• Indiana
• Oklahoma

P.S. North Carolina also deserves credit for making big progress on tax and spending issues in recent years.

Read Full Post »

School Choice Hypocrite

I’ve written about disgustingly hypocritical politicians who oppose school choice for poor families while sending their kids to private schools.

• President Obama
• President Obama’s Education Secretary
• Elizabeth Warren
• Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina
• Gov J.B. Pritzker of Illinois

Now there is another hypocrite.

The boss of the Chicago teachers union is a big opponents of choice and competition, but she sends her kid to a private school.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized about her hypocrisy.

Chicago Teachers Union President Stacy Davis Gates has called school choice racist and made it her mission to kill an Illinois scholarship program for low-income children. So how did Ms. Gates try to explain herself this week after press reports that she has enrolled her son in a private Catholic high school? …Ms. Gates’s desire to do what’s best for her child is laudable. What’s not is to do that while denying other families the same choice. The school where her son is enrolled reportedly costs her $16,000 a year. What about those who can’t afford such a school? Illinois’s Invest in Kids program funds about 9,000 scholarships, and last year it had 31,000 applications. But the program is scheduled to sunset, and that’s exactly what the teachers unions have demanded. …Ms. Gates’s son deserves a quality education, but so do his neighbors. With any luck this controversy will improve the odds of renewing the Invest in Kids program. But the real moral and political scandal remains the same: that thousands of Chicago’s children are locked into failing public schools as part of a political job-protection program for the teachers union.

Ms. Gates is a bad person.

She is doing what is best for her kid, but doesn’t want poor parents to have the same freedom to escape bad government schools.

Incidentally, you won’t be surprised to learn that other union officials are similarly hypocritical. And high-level education bureaucrats do the same thing.

Read Full Post »

Government Schools and Competition

The government school monopoly is an expensive failure. As I wrote last year.

If Winston Churchill was commenting on America’s government schools instead of the Royal Air Force, he would have said, “never have so many paid so much to achieve so little.”

The good news is that more and more people understand the system is failing, which is why we have seen great progress on school choice in so many states.

The bad news is that the government monopoly continues to resist. Check out this tweet from Corey DeAngelis.

For background purposes, charter schools are basically a halfway approach to school choice. They are government funded, but can operate with considerable autonomy and they produce significantly better results than regular government schools.

But teacher unions and other supporters of the status quo resist charters just like they resist private school choice. Protecting the monopoly is always the top goal.

What’s especially nauseating in this case, however, is that the government schools in Madison County do a very bad job, even when compared to other Tennessee government schools.

And I’ll close by pointing out that this should be a civil rights issue. Madison County has a large share of minority children in its government schools. These are the kids who would most benefit by being able to opt for charter schools.

Or, even better, private school choice.

Read Full Post »

More Money for Government Schools =/= Better Education

For those who care about empirical data, the evidence is overwhelming that you do not get better educational outcomes by dumping more taxpayer dollars into government schools.

All of which is captured in this iconic chart.

But plenty of politicians think throwing more money at a problem will yield positive results (or, they pretend to think that way because they figure spending more of other people’s money is a way of buying votes).

Today, let’s add to the evidence that the problems with government schools have nothing to do with money.

Here are some excerpts from a New York Times report by Sarah Mervosh.

Despite billions of federal dollars spent to help make up for pandemic-related learning loss, progress in reading and math stalled over the past school year for elementary and middle-school students… In fact, students in most grades showed slower than average growth in math and reading, when compared with students before the pandemic. That means learning gaps created during the pandemic are not closing — if anything, the gaps may be widening. …Older students, who generally learn at a slower rate and face more challenging material, are the furthest behind.

The story conveniently does not mention the pernicious role of teacher unions, which used the pandemic as an excuse to extort more money and keep schools closed.

Particularly in blue states.

But at least the report acknowledges the negative affect on poorer children.

Students who do not catch up may be less likely to go to college and, research has shown, could earn $70,000 less over their lifetimes. …Nationally, Black and Hispanic students were more likely to have attended schools that stayed remote for longer and often recorded greater losses compared with white and Asian students. They now have more ground to make up, and, like white and Asian students, their rate of learning has not accelerated.

I’m very tempted to contact the New York Times so I can suggest that they edit to subheadline to read “Because of billions of federal aid” rather than “Despite billions in federal aid.”

But I suggested an edit to a similar story in 2019 and it had no effect.

The bottom line is that America’s students need a better system based on choice, competition, and accountability.

Which is why the multi-state adoption of school choice in recent years is great news, especially to those of us who have spent our adult lives watching Democrats throw good money after bad and watching Republicans throw good money after bad.

P.P.S. Eliminating the Department of Education also would be a good idea.

Read Full Post »

School Choice and Civil Rights, Part II

In Part I of this series, I made the simple point that school choice should be a civil rights issue.

This is because government schools do a scandalously bad job of educating children from poor communities and choice would give families the ability to escape that failing system.

And the people I cited in that column also made very good points about better K-12 schooling being the right way of preparing more minority children to successfully advance to the next level, especially if they want to attend elite colleges.

Which is a good reason to now look at a series of essays in the New York Times on “How to Fix College Admissions Now.”

Professor Roland Fryer, an economics professor at Harvard, easily has the best piece. Here’s some of what he proposed.

…selective schools are planning to respond to its widely anticipated decision to end affirmative action…in part, by watering down their admissions standards, through policies like reducing or eliminating the role of standardized tests. …But this is precisely backward. Instead of making the admissions process shallow, elite colleges should deepen the applicant pool. The simplest, most direct way to do that is for these schools to found and fund schools that educate disadvantaged students. …They could fix the problem if they truly wanted to. Elite colleges could operate a network of, say, 100 feeder middle and high schools — academies that are open to promising students who otherwise lack access to a high-quality secondary education, in cities where such children are common because of high poverty rates and underperforming public schools. …he cost would be about $4 billion — about 2 percent of the League’s total endowments. This cost could be offset by fundraising specifically for the academies. One could even add three years of middle school without getting close to the $10 billion mark, if we believe intervention must start sooner.

Professor Fryer is correct on many levels.

• He’s right that better K-12 schooling is the smart way of getting more minority kids ready for college.
• He’s right that government schools obviously are incapable of doing the job.
• And he’s right that private schools are capable of producing much better results.

But what’s especially enjoyable about his column is that he’s asking elite colleges to put up or shut up. If they really care about better schooling and more diversity, they can take a small slice of their endowments to make it happen.

Given the rampant hypocrisy on the left, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

Read Full Post »

School Choice and Civil Rights, Part I

In 2009, I groused that modern Democrats were repeating George Wallace’s awful policy of blocking educational opportunities for minority children. Based on this video, the folks at Unleash Prosperity Now are even more upset.

That’s a hard-hitting video, but opponents of school choice deserve scorn. Especially the hypocrites who send their own kids to private school while fighting against that option for less-advantaged families.

Let’s take a closer look at how school choice is a civil rights issue.

I decided to write about this topic because of the video, but also after seeing this tweet from David Frum, in which he correctly observes that it makes little sense to advocate racial preferences for college admissions while ignoring the fact that minority kids have fallen way behind by the time they are thinking about college.

I’m sure David is right about the importance of a good home environment, but it’s also important to offer minority kids better K-12 schools.

Marc Thiessen shares this concern and, in his Washington Post column, specifically recommends school choice to help narrow the achievement gap.

But while racial preferences were the wrong solution, the underlying problem is real: We have horrific racial disparities in elementary and secondary education in this country that make it harder for poor Black and Hispanic students to gain admission to, and succeed in, college. And that is because millions are trapped in failing public schools that do not prepare them for college, much less for life — and because their parents do not have the same choices as affluent White parents do to send them to good schools. …Instead of trying to help kids at the end of the process by lowering admissions standards, we should be helping them at the start of the process by giving them access to better schools… Fortunately, conservatives have…been…taking affirmative action of their own to help these kids — passing school choice laws across the country that address the systematic discrimination in our public schools.

By the way, there is already plenty of academic evidence that school choice leads to better academic outcome…and more racial integration.

By contrast, there’s also plenty of evidence that government school do a terrible job with minority students.

Thiessen’s column has some of the grim data.

The state of education for poor minority students in the United States is a disgrace. An analysis of 2021-22 data by Fox News’s Project Baltimore found that 93 percent of students in Baltimore public schools could not do math at grade level, including 23 schools where not a single student could do so. In Illinois, data showed 53 schools — most of them in Chicago — where not a single student could do math at grade level, and 30 where not a single student can read at grade level. In Minnesota, there were 19 schools where not one student could do math at grade level — half of them in Minneapolis-St. Paul — while half of all students in the public school system could not read at grade level. There is simply no excuse for keeping kids trapped in schools like these. …Blame for this debacle lies in large part with teachers’ unions.

Yes, teacher unions deserve much of the blame. But let’s not overlook the role of politicians (including some Republicans) who have made horrible and immoral decisions to put the interests of teacher unions above the interests of poor children.

Read Full Post »

The Most Heartwarming Tweet of 2023

For 2023, we have the IMF and CNN in a contest for the year’s most economically illiterate tweet and we have a strange entry for the year’s most half-right tweet.

Today, let’s enjoy what will probably be the year’s most heartwarming tweet.

This is great news for the children of the Buckeye State.

Anna Staver of the Columbus Dispatch has a report on what happened.

Ohio lawmakers reached a deal on the state budget Friday… The deal included significant income tax cuts for people and businesses, universal vouchers for Ohio K-12 students… “I’m very happy about the way the school choice and universal voucher happened,” Senate President Matt Huffman, R-Lima, said. …All Ohio school children will be eligible for a school voucher, but how much those EdChoice scholarships are worth will depend on family income. Children whose families earn up 450% of federal poverty will be able to get a full EdChoice scholarship to help them cover the cost of attending private schools. Students whose families earn more will be able to get smaller scholarships.

The great news for children is also terrible news for the bosses of teacher unions. Which makes this a double victory for kids since teacher unions operate for the benefit of bureaucrats.

P.S. I’m a bit confused by Corey’s list of school choice states. I’ve written about what’s happened in West Virginia, Arizona, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Florida, and Oklahoma. But I wonder why he doesn’t include Indiana. Everything will become clear, I imagine, when this map is updated.

P.P.S. The Ohio budget also lowers tax rates, so I also look forward to an updated version of this map.

Read Full Post »

School Choice Is Great for Students, but It’s also Good for Taxpayers

School choice is a great idea because it will lead to dramatic improvements in education.

But there is also a secondary benefit. Because of inherent waste and inefficiency, government schools are more costly. So adoption of school choice also can produce savings for taxpayers.

Defenders of the status quo, such as teacher unions and their allies, are claiming otherwise. This has become a big talking point for the left in Arizona, which is hoping to undermine the the statewide school choice plan enacted in 2022.

So, in a column for the Wall Street Journal, Jason Bedrick and Corey DeAngelis debunk the silly claim that the state’s school choice system will increase the burden of government spending.

Is school choice bankrupting Arizona? …With an ESA, parents can use a portion of their child’s state education funds—typically about $8,000 a year—to pay for private-school tuition …the Arizona Department of Education’s latest projection that the program, which has about 58,000 participants, will serve 100,000 students by the end of fiscal 2024 at a cost of roughly $900 million. …Arizona public schools spend about $14,000 per pupil, or $1.4 billion for 100,000 students. If the department’s enrollment projection is reached, school choice would serve roughly 8% of Arizona’s students for 6% of the $15 billion that Arizona will spend on public schools.

Needless to say, you don’t need to be a math genius to recognize that taxpayers save money by spending $8,000 per pupil rather than $14,000 per pupil.

By the way, this issue is not limited to Arizona. Here’s a tweet exchange showing that reformers are having to debunk the same arguments in Georgia and Texas.

I’ll close by reiterating that school choice should be pursued to improve educational outcomes. That is – far and away – the most important reason to break up the government school monopoly.

The good news for taxpayers is just a fringe benefit.

P.S. The multi-state adoption of school choice in recent years is great news, especially to those of us who have spent our adult lives watching Democrats throw good money after bad and watching Republicans throw good money after bad.

Read Full Post »

Student Loans = Higher Tuition + More Debt

Over the past two years, most of the controversy over government-provided student loans has revolved around the moratorium on repayments (which started under Trump and has continued under Biden).

That is an important issue, especially for those of us who get upset about politicians redistributing money from the poor to the rich.

But the long-run problem with student loans is that colleges and universities have responded by increasing tuition and then using the extra loot to subsidize bureaucratic bloat.

The relationship between student loans and higher tuition is very apparent in this chart.

The above chart comes from a study just published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Authored by Sandra E. Black, Lesley J. Turner, and Jeffrey T. Denning, it found that student loans have lots of costs without compensating benefits.

Here’s some of the analysis about more loans resulting in higher tuition costs.

Universities, recognizing that students have more ability to pay when loan limits are increased, may try to capture some of the additional funding through higher prices. …In the years preceding Grad PLUS, program prices trended similarly for programs with low and high shares of students who were constrained by federal loan limits… After Grad PLUS, however, programs with a higher percentage of students who were constrained at baseline show significantly larger increases in average cost of attendance. …these estimates suggest that prices increased by $0.75 per $1 increase in average per-student Grad PLUS loans and more than dollar for dollar with increases in total federal student loans. …Estimates suggest that $1 increase in federal loans resulted in a significant $1.10 increase in a program’s list price and a $0.64 increase in net price. …Grad PLUS-driven increases in federal student loans did significantly increase prices, confirming the Bennett Hypothesis. …Our results suggest that Grad PLUS loans primarily benefited institutions and programs that were able to charge higher prices.

None of this should come as a surprise for those who watched Professor Lin’s video more than 10 years ago.

Now let’s switch back to discussing the moratorium.

NBER also published a study on that controversy, authored by Michael Dinerstein, Constantine Yannelis & Ching-Tse Chen. Emma Camp wrote a useful summary of the findings for Reason.

The over three-year-long moratorium on federal student-loan repayment has long been hailed as a godsend for student loan borrowers. …However, a new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that borrowers whose loans were frozen by the moratorium actually ended up in a worse position than they started in—and have even accrued more student loan debt. …According to the paper, those whose loans were frozen by the moratorium actually took on more debt—borrowing more on credit cards and mortgages and even accruing more student loan debt rather than working to pay off other debt they owe. …By the end of 2021, borrowers who saw their student loan payments paused increased their credit card, mortgage, and car-loan debt by $1,800 on average and even took on an additional $1,500 in student loan debt compared to those whose loan payments were not paused by the moratorium.

All things considered, another “success story” for big government.

P.S. Here’s some satire about the student loan moratorium.

P.P.S. And here’s an amusing video from Bill Maher about the higher-education racket.

Read Full Post »

Disgustingly Hypocritical Politicians in Illinois

There are two astoundingly hypocritical groups in the United States.

• Leftist politicians who clamor for higher taxes while aggressively protecting their own money from wasteful government.
• Leftist politicians who fight against school choice for poor families while sending their own children to private schools.

Since I’m a fiscal economist, I should be most upset about the first group, but I actually find the second group to be more nauseating.

I want to focus on that latter group because a small school choice plan recently was eliminated in Illinois and the Wall Street Journal opined on that reprehensible development.

Unions want to kill the program because its popularity showcases the failure of the public schools. Invest in Kids had more than 31,000 applications last year, roughly five students for every scholarship it could provide. Every family lined up for a place at a private school is an indictment of a union monopoly that continues to prioritize its power over student learning. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in districts with low-income families. Black and Hispanic families support the scholarship program in large numbers because they often have children assigned to Illinois schools where less than a third of students are proficient at reading or math… The measurable educational shortfalls continue from fourth to eighth grades, consigning young people to failure before they even reach high school. But don’t trouble the unions with this mass betrayal of minority children.

The elimination of this tiny school choice program is a tragedy.

The fact that it was killed by politicians who send their own kids to private school is disgusting.

And why did the top legislators in Illinois decide to deny educational opportunity to poor families?

The WSJ editorial hints at the answer.

Messrs. Harmon and Welch have each had their political careers funded by more than $1 million in contributions from the state’s teachers unions.

What awful people. I wonder how they can sleep at night.

P.S. While the news from Illinois is depressing, the good news is that school choice is spreading elsewhere, with West Virginia, Arizona, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, and Oklahoma all adopting universal or near-universal policies over the past three years.

Read Full Post »

School Choice Spreads to Another State

When CF&P released this video back in 2010, I never would have dreamed that a whole bunch of states (West Virginia, Arizona, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, Florida, and Indiana) would adopt school choice about a dozen years later.

So what triggered the sudden explosion of interest in better education?

Ironically, we can probably thank the teacher unions.

Union bosses used the pandemic as an excuse to extort money from taxpayers while also fighting to keep schools closed.

Moreover, because of remote education, parents got to see what their children were being taught (or were not taught) and often were not happy.

So rather than throw more money at a failing monopoly, they decided to opt for real reform. Fortunately, politicians in some states have decided to do the right thing (sometimes after a bit of electoral encouragement).

Now we can add another state to our list. Oklahoma’s governor has just signed into law a plan that provides tax credits of between $5,000-$7,500 that parents can use to select the best educational option for their kids. Here are some details from Fox News.

Oklahoma became the 7th state to enact universal school choice on Thursday. Gov. Kevin Stitt signed private and homeschool tax credits that would make school choice universally available to all families. “School choice shouldn’t be just for the rich or those who can afford it,” Stitt said. Now it’s available for every single family in the state of Oklahoma.” …Relations between teachers unions and parents have soured in recent years, particularly in response to academic slowdowns across the U.S. in the wake of COVID-19-related school closures.  Widespread calls for school choice and parental rights have emerged after states implemented lockdown measures during the coronavirus pandemic. School choice became a salient issue after the COVID-19-induced lockdowns sparked a conversation on the scope of the government’s authority and the type of content that should be taught to children from public school curricula.

This is great news for families. And taxpayers.

And not-so-great news for teacher unions.

P.S. I can’t wait to see the 2023 version of this report.

P.P.S. For my left-leaning friends, there are very successful school choice systems in Canada, Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands.

P.P.P.S. For my right-leaning friends, getting rid of the Department of Education would be a good idea, but the battle for school choice is largely won and lost on the state and local level.

Read Full Post »

The Most Reprehensible School Choice Hypocrite of 2023

The case for school choice is simple and straightforward. Government schools receive record amounts of taxpayer money and do a relatively poor job of educating children.

There are many reasons for the failure of government schools, including natural government inefficiency, but the main reason is probably that the system is controlled by teacher unions.

Indeed, it’s no exaggeration to assert that the system is run for the benefit of the unions rather than the students.

But there’s one group that I dislike more than union bosses.

The most reprehensible group of people in this field are the politicians who send their own kids to private schools while fighting to deny other families the same ability.

I have previously written about some of these hypocrites, including Barack Obama (and his Secretary of Education) as well as Elizabeth Warren. Now it is time to highlight North Carolina’s despicable governor.

Here are some excerpts from a column by Kyle Morris for Fox News.

Democrat North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper declared a “state of emergency” this week in an attempt to prevent a school choice bill from passing the state legislature, despite sending his own daughter to a private school in Raleigh. …Cooper, highlighting efforts from Republicans in the state as a “private school voucher scheme”… The comments from Cooper come after he sent at least one of his three daughters to Saint Mary’s School, an expensive private school in Raleigh… Jason Williams, executive director of the NC Faith and Freedom Coalition, was quick to call out Cooper’s remarks in a tweet. “Why doesn’t Roy Cooper want your child to have the same quality, private education his kid had?” Williams wrote. “If he believed so much in public education, why did he spend thousands for his own kid to avoid it?” …”What a hypocrite. Public schools aren’t good enough for his kids, but they are for yours,” Independent Women’s Forum senior policy analyst Kelsey Bolar blasted.

Cooper’s supposed “state of emergency” is particularly nauseating.

He was perfectly content with a system filled with schools that failed students. But the moment teacher unions felt threatened, he sprung into action with hyperbolic rhetoric.

By the way, there’s another story that reveals additional school choice hypocrites such as Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, and J.B. Pritzker.

To appease teacher unions, all of those people are willing to sacrifice other people’s kids. But not their own.

Utterly despicable.

P.S. The “Tweet of the Year” for 2021 involved school choice.

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

Read Full Post »

More Great News on School Choice

Is this the year of school choice or the decade of school choice? The answer is yes to both. Look at the statewide school choice plans that have been recently enacted.

• West Virginia in 2021
• Arizona in 2022
• Iowa in 2023
• Utah in 2023
• Arkansas in 2023
• Florida in 2023

Now we can add Indiana to the list.

The Wall Street Journal has a celebratory editorial about the big news from the Hoosier State.

…the latest good news comes from Indiana. Hoosier lawmakers passed the state budget last week, and it expands the school voucher program so nearly all students will be eligible. …The new law raises the income cap to 400% of the free- and reduced-price lunch income level, which is now about $220,000 for a family of four. The bill also removes the other criteria for eligibility so that any family under the income limit can apply. …“We would say it’s universal,” Betsy Wiley of the Institute for Quality Education told the Indiana Capital Chronicle. Early estimates suggest only 3.5% of families with school-age children in Indiana would not be eligible for the program under the new income limit… The principle at work here is that taxpayer education money for grades K-12 should follow the child, rather than school districts.

The new law doesn’t provide school choice to every family, but I’ll take a victory that provides choice to more than 96 percent of children.

This is great news for education.

What’s especially amusing is that this progress almost certainly would not have occurred if it was not for teacher unions. They got too arrogant and their leftist agenda has now backfired.

P.S. I can’t wait to see what this map looks like next year.

Read Full Post »

A Libertarian Quandary in Canada

There’s much to admire about public policy in Canada, including good policies today (private air traffic control and no department of education) and good policies in the past (rigorous spending restraint in the 1990s).

But there are also mistakes. Like the fiscal policies of the current Prime Minister.

Today, we’re going to look at a controversy in the province of Ontario. Here’s a tweet from David Frum about education policy in his homeland.

As the Toronto Star reports, the provincial government (akin to a state government) is imposing controls on local school boards.

The Ontario government — citing concerns in areas such as writing and math where student achievement is lagging — wants more power over school boards’ academic priorities and better training for senior leaders. …Legislation tabled Monday by Education Minister Stephen Lecce would…give the government the authority to set the direction for student achievement — given the varying results across the province — especially in the basics of reading, writing and math, and to ensure all 72 publicly funded boards provide information on that progress to parents in a transparent and timely manner… The new legislation, which will go out for consultation this spring, comes after the province had to step in to supervise and reform the Peel public school board amid allegations of systemic racism.  …The province’s focus on the basics may be in response to parent concerns that boards are fixating too much on non-academic issues. …EQAO test results in math have been an ongoing concern, as have those in literacy, where roughly two-thirds of students in Grade 3 aren’t meeting the writing standard, which is equivalent to a B grade.

This story raises a quandary for libertarians.

Is it better the let the local school boards have more authority, even when they make bad decisions? Or is it better to have more sensible governance choices by the provincial government, even if it diminishes local authority?

The right answer, of course, it to ignore those two questions and instead embrace school choice. Especially since five Canadian provinces already have that sensible approach.

That way, parents who want crummy government schools can keep their kids in the current system and and parents who want quality education could choose a private school.

But if school choice is not an option, we’re back to a difficult fork in the road. Is it worth accepting more centralization to limit trendy nonsense by local school boards?

Definitely worth adding to our collection of libertarian quandaries.

Read Full Post »

A Good Year for Milton Friedman = a Bad Year for Teacher Unions

Back in 2013, I shared some research showing how school choice produced good results. Not just in terms of student achievement, but also benefits for taxpayers as well.

Since then, I’ve shared additional research showing how school choice generates good outcomes.

It seems that some lawmakers have learned the right lessons from these studies. Over the past three years, statewide school choice has been enacted in West Virginia, Arizona, Iowa, Utah, Arkansas, and Florida.

In his Wall Street Journal column, Bill McGurn celebrates this wave of victories.

It’s been a good year for Milton Friedman. The Nobel Prize-winning economist has been dead for nearly two decades. But the moment has come for the idea that may prove his greatest legacy: Parents should decide where the public funds for educating their children go. Already this year, four states have adopted school choice for everyone—and it’s only April. …Florida is the most populous state to embrace full school choice. It follows Iowa, Utah and Arkansas, which passed their own legislation this year. These were preceded by West Virginia in 2021 and Arizona in 2022. More may be coming. Four other states—Oklahoma, Ohio, Wyoming and Texas—have legislation pending. …Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow with the American Federation for Children, says the mood has shifted. …“I wish Milton Friedman were alive today to see his ideas finally come to fruition,” Mr. DeAngelis says. “The dominos are falling and there’s nothing Randi Weingarten and the teachers unions can do about it.”

My fingers are crossed that Texas approves school choice in the few days, but rest assured I’ll celebrate if Oklahoma, Ohio, or Wyoming is the next domino.

P.S. I’m writing today about school choice in part because I’m in Europe as part of the Free Market Road Show and one of the other speakers is Admir Čavalić, who is both an academic and a member of parliament from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Along with two other scholars, Damir Bećirović, and Amela Bešlagić, he did research on support for school choice in the Balkans. Here are some of the responses from parents.

It’s very encouraging to find Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians agreeing on an issue. Maybe their governments eventually will adopt school choice, thus joining  Sweden, Chile, Canada, and the Netherlands.

Read Full Post »

A Major Victory for Students in Florida

I almost feel sorry for the union bosses at the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.

They were upset when West Virginia adopted statewide school choice in 2021 and they got even angrier when Arizona did the same thing in 2022.

So you can only imagine how bitter they are about what’s happened so far in 2023.

• Iowa has approved statewide school choice
• Utah has approved statewide school choice
• Arkansas has approved statewide school choice

But notice I started this column by stating that “I almost felt sorry” for union bosses.

In reality, I’m actually overjoyed that they are having a very bad year. Teacher unions are the leading political force in trying to keep kids trapped in bad schools, an approach that is especially harmful to minorities.

Their bad year just got much worse.

That’s because Florida just expanded its school choice program so that all children will be eligible.

Here’s some of the coverage from Tampa.

A massive expansion of Florida’s school-choice programs that would make all students eligible for taxpayer-backed vouchers is headed to Gov. Ron DeSantis… DeSantis already has pledged to sign the proposal, which includes removing income-eligibility requirements that are part of current voucher programs. …Under the bill, students would be eligible to receive vouchers if they are “a resident of this state” and “eligible to enroll in kindergarten through grade 12” in a public school.

And here’s a report from Orlando.

The Florida Senate gave final approval Thursday to a bill creating universal school vouchers… Republican state lawmakers, who hold a supermajority in the Legislature, want to open state voucher programs that currently provide scholarships to more than 252,000 children with disabilities or from low-income families to all of the 2.9 million school-age children in Florida… The bill would give any parent the choice to receive a voucher for their child to be used for private school tuition or homeschooling services and supplies — as long as that student was not enrolled in public school. DeSantis has been a supporter of the programs.

Let’s conclude with some excerpts from a Wall Street Journal editorial.

Florida has long been a leader on K-12 choice, vying with Arizona to offer the most expansive options in the nation. On Thursday Florida caught up with Arizona’s universal education savings account program by making its existing school choice offerings available to any student in the state. …The legislation…would remove income eligibility limits on the state’s current school voucher programs. It would also expand the eligible uses for the roughly $7,500 accounts to include tutoring, instructional materials and other education expenses, making these true ESAs rather than simply tuition vouchers. The bill prioritizes lower-income families and provides for home-schooled students to receive funds. Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has greatly advanced school choice in his state, is expected to sign.

By the way, the WSJ notes that Georgia may fall short in the battle to give families better educational options. As a rabid Georgia Bulldog who likes nothing better than stomping on the Florida Gators, it galls me that a handful of bad Republican legislators in the Peach State are standing in the proverbial schoolhouse door.

I’ll close by noting that there already are many reasons for Americans to migrate to Florida, such as no state income tax.

School choice means that there will be another big reason to move to the libertarian-friendly Sunshine State.

P.S. I can’t wait to see what this map looks like next year.

Read Full Post »

Another Victory for America’s Children

More than 10 years ago, I expressed great hope for school choice in Colorado and Pennsylvania, only to then be disappointed.

Today, there is no sadness.

States such as West Virginia, Arizona, Iowa, and Utah have recently reformed their education policies so that families now have the benefit of choice and competition.

This is very bad news for teacher unions, but it’s great news for children in those states.

And now we have another reason to celebrate. Arkansas has joined the school choice club.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has a report by Neal Earley.

Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed her education bill into law Wednesday afternoon, calling it “the largest overhaul of the state’s education system in Arkansas history.” …The law, also known as the LEARNS Act, has been the top priority for Sanders since taking office in January. …Since taking office in January, Sanders has said education will be her top priority as governor, saying she wanted to put an end to a system where students were trapped in failing schools because of their zip code. …The bill would tie education funding to students, giving them 90% of what schools get per student in state funding from the previous school year to attend a private or home school, which would currently amount to $6,672. …The Educational Freedom Account will be phased in over three years beginning with the 2023-2024 school year.

In a story for the Washington Examiner, Jeremiah Poff provides more coverage.

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) signed an education reform bill into law Wednesday that makes Arkansas the third state this year to enact a universal school choice program. …The bill phases in a universal school choice program and raises teacher pay… “Arkansas made history today, setting the education model for the nation,” Sanders tweeted after the bill was signed. “The failed status quo is dead, and hope is alive for every kid in our state!” …The new law makes Arkansas the third state this year to enact a universal school choice program after Iowa and Utah enacted similar bills earlier this year. The three states join Arizona and West Virginia as the only states to date that have enacted universal school choice.

By the way, it’s quite possible that more states will join them in the next couple of months. Fingers crossed.

The bottom line is that the arguments for choice are strong, and the teacher unions have no good responses.

It’s taken a long time for the breakthrough, but it’s happened. School choice is finally spreading around the nation!

That’s cause for celebration.

P.S. Wealthy leftists like private schools for their kids, but they have a nasty habit of wanting to deny the same opportunities for other children.

P.P.S. School choice is not just good for kids. It’s also good for taxpayers.

Read Full Post »

The School Choice Revolution

It’s time to celebrate another victory for school choice.

• In 2021, West Virginia adopted statewide school choice.
• In 2022, Arizona adopted statewide school choice.
• In 2023, Iowa adopted statewide school choice.

Now Utah has joined the club, with Governor Spencer Cox approving a new law that will give families greater freedom to choose the best educational options for their children.

Here are some details from Marjorie Cortez, reporting for the Deseret News.

The Utah Senate gave final passage to legislation that will provide $8,000 scholarships to qualifying families for private schools and other private education options… The bill passed by a two-thirds margin in each legislative house, which means it cannot be challenged by referendum. …The bill creates the Utah Fits All Scholarship, which can then be used for education expenses like curriculum, textbooks, education, software, tutoring services, micro-school teacher salaries and private school tuition.

As you might expect, teacher unions and their allies are very disappointed – which is a very positive sign.

…the Utah Education Association…opposed HB215… The bill was also opposed by the Utah State Board of Education, Utah PTA, school superintendents, business administrators and school boards. The Alliance for a Better Utah was pointed in its reaction… “Conservative lawmakers just robbed our neighborhood schools of $42 million. Private school vouchers have been and continue to be opposed by Utahns but these lawmakers are instead pursuing a national agenda to ‘destroy public education.’

The Wall Street Journal opined on this great development.

School choice is gaining momentum across the country, and this week Utah joined Iowa in advancing the education reform cause. …Utah’s bill, which the Senate passed Thursday, 20-8, makes ESAs of $8,000 available to every student. There’s no income cap on families who can apply, though lower-income families receive preference and the program is capped at $42 million. The funds can be used for private school tuition, home-schooling expenses, tutoring, and more.

But the best part of the editorial is the look at other states that may be poised to expand educational freedom.

About a dozen other state legislatures have introduced bills to create new ESA programs, and several want to expand the ones they have. In Florida a Republican proposal would extend the state’s already robust scholarship programs to any student in the state. The bill would remove income limits that are currently in place for families who want to apply, though lower-income applicants would receive priority. …South Carolina legislators are mulling a new ESA program for lower-income students. In Indiana, a Senate bill would make state ESAs available to more students. An Ohio bill would remove an income cap and other eligibility rules for the state’s school vouchers. Two Oklahoma Senate bills propose new ESA programs… ESA bills are in some stage of moving in Nebraska, New Hampshire, Texas and Virginia.

Let’s hope there is more progress.

School choice is a win-win for both students and taxpayers.

P.S. Here’s a must-see chart showing how more and more money for the government school monopoly has produced zero benefit.

P.P.S. There are very successful school choice systems in Canada, Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands.

P.P.P.S. Getting rid of the Department of Education would be a good idea, but the battle for school choice is largely going to be won and lost on the state and local level.

Read Full Post »

Major Victory for School Choice in Iowa

Since I’ve repeatedly written (and spoken) about the momentum for school choice, I’m naturally a big fan of this video from John Stossel.

It’s not just libertarian-oriented people who recognize that school choice is gaining ground across the country.

The union bosses at the National Education Association have bitterly complained that their under-performing monopoly is being threatened as parents get more options.

Given the malignant role of teacher unions (especially with regards to disadvantaged students), that definitely warms my heart.

Now we have more good news to share – assuming you are a good person who puts the interests of kids above those of union bosses (unlike someone who happens to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue).

After getting comprehensive statewide school choice in West Virginia in 2021 and Arizona in 2022, the Hawkeye State has now enacted its own version.

Here are some of the details of this remarkable development from Iowa, as reported by Jeremiah Poff for the Washington Examiner.

Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA) signed new legislation Tuesday…to establish a universal school choice program. Hours after the state legislature approved the Students First Act to establish a statewide education savings account program for all K-12 students , Reynolds, surrounded by children, triumphantly affixed her signature to the legislation… The new program will provide students with more than $7,000 in annual funds through an education savings account that can be used to cover all sorts of education-related expenses, including private school tuition and private tutoring. …Reynolds said in a statement after the legislature approved the bill. “Parents, not the government, can now choose the education setting best suited to their child regardless of their income or zip code. With this bill, Iowa has affirmed that educational freedom belongs to all, not just those who can afford it.”

This is good news. It means better results for students at lower cost for taxpayers.

By the way, here’s another excerpt that is worth sharing.

The Governor not only is a supporter of school choice, she took the very unusual step of going after Republican state legislators who were siding with union bosses rather than families.

Reynolds, a Republican, had sought to enact a school choice program in the state’s previous legislative session but encountered opposition from members of her own party that doomed the bill. She later took the unusual step of endorsing primary opponents for several of her party’s own incumbents who opposed school choice.

She didn’t just endorse primary opponents.

Many of those candidates actually defeated incumbent Republicans who opposed choice.

And that’s been happening in other states as well, which arguably can be considered the best political news of 2022.

I’ll close with an upbeat prediction that Iowa won’t be the only state to adopt comprehensive school choice this year. So I fully expect big, positive changes in next year’s version of this map.

And I’ll also predict the list of school choice hypocrites will expand.

P.S. Depending on how you rank the importance of different issues, what’s been happening with school choice may be only the second-most important development at the state level in recent years.

Read Full Post »

Students Benefit from Reform, Not More Spending

There are two important things to understand about K-12 education.

1. There is national evidence and international evidence that spending more money on government schools does not produce good results.
2. There is national evidence and international evidence that school choice produces better educational outcomes for families and society.

With today’s column, let’s add more evidence to the discussion.

Paul Gessing, the President of the Rio Grande Institute, wrote about New Mexico’s comparative educational performance in an article for National Review.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is known as “the Nation’s Report Card.” Sadly, the most recent “report card” represented failure for many states, not the least of which is my home state of New Mexico, which came in dead-last in all categories studied: fourth-grade and eighth-grade reading and math. Sadly, especially for New Mexico kids, the additional tax dollars being spent by the state’s education system have not moved the needle. If anything, the needle has moved in the wrong direction. Let’s compare New Mexico with lower-spending, reform-minded states, such as Arizona… Arizona neighbors New Mexico and has a similar demographic profile, including large Native American communities and a large Hispanic population. …We’ll use fourth-grade reading scores to make the comparison. …In 2005, New Mexico…was tied with Arizona, with a score of 207. By 2022, Arizona outperformed New Mexico 215 to 202.

Here are the numbers on comparative spending.

As you can see, Arizona is getting better results with frugality while New Mexico is getting worse results with profligacy.

…in FY 2022…Arizona spent $10,639…the…fifth-lowest-spending state…in the nation. …New Mexico, on the other hand, has increased education spending over the past 15 years or so. …Today, New Mexico ranks 19th among states at, considering its dismal educational record, an astonishing $15,338 per student.

But it’s not the frugality or profligacy that matters.

What seems to make the difference is whether the state has some form of school choice.

What happened? …Arizona has had a charter-school law since the mid 1990s and…is ranked as the second-best charter law in the nation… A system of tax credits to be used for private school choice has been in place and growing since 1997, and various specialty programs as well as narrowly targeted vouchers have also made Arizona a school-choice leader. That’s even before the program of universal education savings accounts approved in early 2022 fully takes effect.

Not only is Arizona out-performing New Mexico today, but the gap will probably grow.

Arizona is ranked #1 for school choice while New Mexico is buried in the middle of the pack at #26. And, as Paul noted, there’s a new statewide choice system that will give every family the ability to choose – and that means pressure on both private and government schools to produce better outcomes.

It will be interesting to see if Arizona (especially with its new choice law)…can keep or accelerate the momentum. Sadly, New Mexico is one poorly performing state that has not gotten serious… The children in my state have suffered despite a large increase in government education spending. Better results are possible without breaking the bank.

It’s unfortunate that New Mexico politicians are siding with teacher unions rather than families.

The evidence is very strong that school choice is a win-win for both taxpayers and students.

Read Full Post »

The Higher Education Racket, Part II

In Part I of this series, I shared a very amusing video from Bill Maher about how colleges and universities have become “luxury day-care centers.”

I then added some of my analysis to show that government subsidies – such as student loans – were the underlying problem.

Simply stated, colleges and universities increased tuition and fees so they could capture the value of the subsidies (as explained by Professor Daniel Lin back in 2012).

To make matters worse, they’ve been spending the money on more bureaucracy rather than anything that would improve educational outcomes for students (or generate spin-off benefits for the overall economy).

But “more bureaucracy” is an understatement. Here’s a sentence that I initially thought had to be satire.

But I’m not joking. This sentence comes from a jaw-dropping story about university bureaucrats trying to micro-manage student social life at Stanford University.

Here are the full details from the Wall Street Journal report, written by Douglas Belkin.

A recent headline in the Stanford Daily News student paper says: “Inside ‘Stanford’s War on Fun’: Tensions mount over University’s handling of social life.” Stanford has acknowledged the students’ complaints about their doldrums… Stanford has a long reputation as an offbeat party school for high achievers. …on campus, rules around parties dominate the conversation. Stanford began mandating students file an application two weeks ahead of a party including a list of attendees, along with sober monitors, students said. …The number of registered parties dwindled to 45 during the first four weeks of school this fall… Samuel Santos Jr., associate vice provost of inclusion, community and integrative learning within the Division of Student Affairs, says the school is working to address students’ concerns about Stanford’s social atmosphere. The party-planning process will be streamlined and more administrators will be hired to help facilitate student social life.

While this is an extreme example of bureaucracy run amok, it’s symptomatic of a broken system.

In an article for the Federalist, Rebecca Kathryn Jud and Chauncy Depree cite the spread of bureaucracy at a local university.

Over the past few decades, U.S. higher education has seen dramatic changes, few of which have been for the better. …We went to the website of a local public university and checked the office of the dean of the business college. The site identified the following vaguely titled and well-paid hangers-on: senior associate dean, associate dean for undergraduate programs, assistant dean for academic services, administrative specialist, technology and database specialist, marketing coordinator, assistant to the dean for finance and administration, senior major gift officer, and director of the Center for Economic and Entrepreneurship Education. This does not include the multitude of secretaries and assistants who support these dubiously necessary administrators. Nor does it include the deans for other colleges, the department heads, the office of the president, or any of the other administrative offices. Bear in mind, this expensive phenomenon is replicated across colleges and universities throughout the country.

And here are some excerpts from a 2020 column in Townhall by the late (and great) Walter Williams.

…college administrators assume that today’s students have needs that were unknown to their predecessors. Those needs include diversity and equity personnel, with massive budgets to accommodate. …Penn State University’s Office of Vice Provost for Educational Equity employs 66 staff members. The University of Michigan currently employs a diversity staff of 93 full-time diversity administrators, officers, directors, vice provosts, deans, consultants, specialists, investigators, managers, executive assistants, administrative assistants, analysts and coordinators. Amherst College, with a student body of 1,800 students employs 19 diversity people. Top college diversity bureaucrats earn salaries six figures, in some cases approaching $500,000 per year. …Diversity officials are a growing part of a college bureaucracy structure that outnumbers faculty by 2 to 2.5 depending on the college.

Fortunately, we have a way of solving all the above problems.

P.S. The mess in higher education is another example of what happens when politicians create a “third-party payer” problem.

P.P.S. Hillary Clinton was wrong on this issue and Joe Biden is wrong on this issue.

P.P.P.S. Given my libertarian sympathies, I also object to subsidizing folks who are hostile to economic liberty.

Read Full Post »