Over the past 50 years, the expansion of educational choice has become a favorite rallying cry of politicians and other education advocates who view it as an avenue to greater opportunities for students. In 1962, Milton Friedman laid out a rationale for moving away from the current system to one where the government played a less authoritative role in designing and implementing education.
From these beginnings, ideas have emerged including education savings account, which would provide parents several thousands dollars annually to spend as they saw fit on the education of their children. In many ways, I agree with the goals of those who advocate for additional choice; however, I strongly believe Georgia will achieve better outcomes by pairing choice with accountability.
We have publicly funded education for a reason. As a society, we believe we are better off when children grow into constructive citizens and productive members of the economy. We choose to subsidize the educational cost of students with the expectation of achieving this goal.
Not all of society’s goals are easily measured; however, some are. For example, we know students who develop stronger math and literacy skills as a result of having better teachers or learning in smaller classes eventually earn more money as adults, signaling they have developed into more productive members of the economy.
While parental choice can sometimes lead to better outcomes, it may not always accomplish society’s goals. Taken to the extreme, what if some parents want their children to become karate experts, but are opposed to literacy and science? Or, what if some parents lack the skills to evaluate school quality and unintentionally send their child to a low-quality school that fails to develop the child’s potential?
In cases where parental choice doesn’t lead to the accomplishment of society’s goals, society should not be expected to fund a student’s education. Instead, society has a right to expect any institution receiving funding be held accountable for accomplishing the shared goals of public education. A mechanism for such oversight is absent in most voucher and education savings accounts programs across the country.
Through a tax credit program, Georgia already provides significant amounts of funding to independent schools. However, those schools are not evaluated for quality. Traditional public schools are expected to meet benchmarks that measure student learning. Why should publicly funded independent schools not be held to the same standard?
Georgia is not alone in its failure to develop strong accountability systems for independent schools funded with public money. Researchers struggle to evaluate the effectiveness of most voucher programs. However, we do have some evidence on parental choice from charter schools that are required to take annual state exams. That evidence shows parental choice alone is not enough.
As charter schools have expanded, we’ve seen the benefits of oversight. Massachusetts has a record of strong oversight, while Arizona, Michigan and Ohio are known for lax accountability. The quality of charter schools in those states is consistent with the track record they have established for accountability. Boston’s charters significantly outperformed others around the nation in an analysis published earlier this year.
In many ways, implementing an education savings account program without significant changes in the way Georgia holds schools accountable, is similar to the choice Arizona, Michigan and Ohio made to provide lax oversight of their charter schools. We should instead follow Massachusetts.
Parental choice is a component of education reform, but it should be paired with accountability mechanisms that ensure schools are achieving society’s goals. Without accountability, the public cannot be assured their investments in education are being implemented effectively.
