Does school choice "drain money" from traditional public schools?

As the debate over charter schools heats up in Kentucky, we find many prominent education leaders repeating the idea that school choice should be opposed because it "drains money" away from traditional public schools.  I've written about this argument previously, but it's worth revisiting again. A little bit of reflection reveals its logical flaw.  We can provide public services without dictating where those services are procured.  We do it all the time and respect the dignity of the public to make their own choices.

I have enormous respect for many friends and colleagues who work tirelessly in traditional public school environments.  My own career has been devoted primarily to serving public school institutions as a teacher and administrator.  My work as a university professor focuses on preparing the next generation of school leaders, the vast majority of whom will serve in traditional public schools.  We have many excellent public schools in Kentucky, and I commend the endless efforts of the teachers and administrators who do great work in service of their students, and by extension to the entire Commonwealth.

But my career has also taught me that no school, no matter how good, can meet the needs of every single child.  Families deserve a wide variety of options so they can find a learning environment where their children can thrive.  Affluent families already have many educational choices because they can buy houses in the school districts of their choice or pay tuition for non-public school options if those are deemed best for their children.  Low income families usually have no such options.

That's why, in addition to supporting high-quality traditional public schools, I support a wide range of school choice policies, including scholarship tax credits, charter schools, education savings accounts, and homeschooling for those families who find that to be their best fit.  Providing these kinds of choices does not undermine our collective commitment to education, but it does require us to rethink the way we've delivered (and financed) education services in the past.

We have an economic and moral obligation to generously fund education.  But it does not logically follow that the only way we can do this is by forcing low-incoming families to receive education from a government-run school.

Consider this: we don't tell families who receive food stamps which grocery store they must shop at to buy food.  We don't tell Medicaid patients which doctor they have to visit for health care.  And we don't tell college students which university they must attend to use their Pell grant (or GI Bill).  These are all ways that we provide a public good to the less fortunate and still respect their individual choices.  But when it comes to the most personal decision of all - who is going to educate your children - we deny poor families a choice.  This seems patently unfair to me, and inconsistent with the way we provide many other public goods.

 

In this way, the question of "draining money" from schools is a flawed way of looking at the issue.  We have two hospitals here in Bowling Green.  Does someone "drain money" from the Medical Center because they choose to take their Medicare insurance to Greenview Hospital instead?  We don't look at it that way because we don't care which hospital they go to.  If the patient is getting service, that's our goal.

 

Great public schools have nothing to fear from a vibrant school choice market, and professional educators don't either.  No one chooses to work in education because they are committed to working for a state-run monopoly.  No, we choose this business because we want to help kids.  And there are many different ways to help kids, with many different kinds of schools.  And, like a growing number of other Kentuckians, I support them all.

 

UPDATE: A reader asks if I also support giving consumers options from multiple police or fire departments (other forms of public goods).  Setting aside the point that there are, in fact, multiple structures for providing fire protection services (consider volunteer fire departments as an example), I would say that some public goods lend themselves toward natural monopolies while others do not.  See Sean Gill's discussion of this question at The 74.  The difference is how much personalization is needed to provide a high-quality public service.  When it comes to putting out fires, not much.  But when it comes to things like making health care decisions and educating children, then individual choices become much more important, and the structures of public policy should support a high degree of individual decision making in these areas.