The Friedman Foundation, which has been porting vouchers and the dissolution of traditional public schools for many years, here disagrees with Peter Greene’s critique of school choice. The foundation’s namesake, Milton Friedman, began advocating for vouchers in 1955. The idea didn’t gain any traction until 1990, when Milwaukee adopted a voucher program. Today, Milwaukee is one of the nation’s lowest performing districts on NAEP, only a tad above Detroit. If anyone wants evidence of the in effectiveness of vouchers, check out Milwaukee. As we near a quarter-century of the voucher experiment, it may be time to say “we tried vouchers.” No miracle in sight.
By the way, voters have never approved vouchers. In every district or state where they exist, they were enacted by a legislative body, not by voters.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Friedman was a devotee of Ayn Rand. It stands to reason, therefore, that a foundation that bears his name would espouse a “Randian” view of society; a view in which greed and selfishness are extolled as virtues. Is that really the kind of thinking that should influence the decisions we make about something as inherently altruistic as educating our children?
Greenspan was actually in love with Ayn, and had an affair with her, though he was some years her junior. But then, he wasn’t the Nobelist that Friedman was. And she ended up living on Social Security.
Ah yes, living off the same social programs that she decried. What good is a messiah who doesn’t even adhere to his/her own teachings?
No, voters never agreed to this corporate takeover of our schools. Write to your representative today.
The “we tried that” is the only silver lining I can think of to all the reform and standardization and testing.
“No miracle in sight.” I guess you haven’t looked at successful voucher schools in Milwaukee, such as St. Marcus and St. Lucas. Children are turned away for lack of space, and those who attend do very well.
Studies of voucher schools in Milwaukee by voucher supporters find no difference in test scores between voucher schools and public schools, and a high attrition rate for voucher schools.
Milwaukee is the marquee example of the failure of choice. After 24 years if vouchers and charters, Milwaukee is one of the lowest performing districts in the nation on NAEP.
We know that parents don’t “choose” the private schools for their kids–it’s the schools that choose the kids.
So according to the Friedman Institute spokesperson for the value of privatized public education, choice is the solution equally for parents who object to the teaching of evolution in their rural district and parents who object to Howard Zinn’s teachings in Philadelphia. But isn’t creationism the teaching of religion which has no business being funded by tax dollars under the First Amendment, even if the funding is passed through a tax credit to hide the source? And I wonder how many of Howard Zinn’s books were actually made available to or read by Philadelphia’s students this past year since most of the school libraries are shuttered. Why are they shuttered? Certainly in part because of Pennsylvania’s tax credit scholarships which pull tax dollars away from public schools.
Public education actually does require public administration. Otherwise you get what the Friedman Institute apparently desires – corporate plutocracy and mass ignorance.
Weren’t Friedman-esque reforms heavily applied in Pinochet’s Chile? How did that work out?
It didn’t. The country is still trying to clean up Pinochet’s mess.
Massive student protests in Chile against the effects of choice: increased social segregation and inequity. A reform government was recently elected and is trying to figure out how to reverse at least some of the privatization of past decades.
These neoliberals/libertarians are cultists. Truth has nothing to do with it. There are a few of them who come here on this blog spouting the “message” that private is better and that we need to sell off public assets for private gain. People here make the mistake of engaging in any kind of “debate” with these people. You can’t debate them because they are cultists. It’s like to convert a Moonie.
They have to be ignored on this blog and they have be fought in the bigger arena of public policy before ALL public assets are gone forever.
As for “Uncle Miltie,” he came up with the voucher scheme as a way to get around Brown v. Board of Education.
Of course vouchers don’t work and are ineffective. That’s immaterial to a Friedman cultist. The goal is to liquidate ALL public assets because public is bad.
The biggest problem we face is that BOTH political parties are slaves to this neoliberal cult.
“It’s like trying to convert a Moonie.” corrected
Isn’t it, ultimately, about the money? I think so.
At the time of Friedman’s death vouchers still had not been tried in any meaningful way. When he first made the proposal it was a speculation based on his personal and economic philosophies, I would imagine. Economists make such statements all the time. They frequently have to back track if the the data does not support their hypothesis.
I would imagine that Friedman would have trashed vouchers by now. The foundation carrying on his idea is following Friedman’s ghost, not serious economic study and research.
I assume most who post here are fine with high school students being able to choose classes within a school at public expense, yet most would be against allowing high school students choose all their classes outside a school at public expense (though are fine with them choosing all their classes outside a school at private expense).
I think exploring where and why this consensuses about choice breaks down would be a fruitful and interesting discussion.
“Choice” in this context is a code word for segregation.
As far as education goes, children are sometimes allowed “choices” from a group of alternatives selected and permitted by adults, who are have the responsibility of nurturing and protecting them from harm to themselves and others.
I certainly don’t mean it as a codeword for segregation.
Lets take my middle son’s senior year in high school. Rather than taking the courses offered by his high school, he took five classes at the local university and one class online managed by K-12. The online class counted toward the 21 units needed to graduate from high school and were paid for by the school district, the five university classes did not count and were not paid for by the school district. Should my middle son have been allowed to make these choices from institutions outside of the local school district? Should these choices only be allowed for students whose families can afford these options? If the answer to that question is no, should he have been allowed to take all his classes from institutions outside the school district at the school district’s expense?
TE, in what school was your son enrolled when he took these classes?
Officially enrolled in a traditional zoned public high school. I am curious about why that is relevant about the desirability of allowing students to choose courses from other institutions, however.
Any thoughts about if these kind of choices should be allowed? Under what criteria? Should he have been allowed to take ALL of his courses from other institutions?
Harold,
Any thoughts about allowing students to take classes from non-public schools? I think a discussion of this would be very enlightening and go a long way to find common ground among those searching for a better education for all.
Peter Greene thinks that school choice is un-American? So it’s un-American for a 18-year-old college freshman to take a Pell Grant and a federally-guaranteed student loan (both being forms of vouchers) and attend a private university such as NYU, where Dr. Ravitch teaches.
Nice to know.
There is a difference between an 18-year old making a choice and a four-year-old making a choice.
Well, a four-year-old would be in preschool or childcare (the two blend together these days). And the federal government has multiple programs for low-income kids here, including the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) and the Child Care Entitlement to States (CCES) program.
Notably, these are vouchers — the federal government does not own and operate pre-K childcare programs, but instead gives money to states to distribute as vouchers to parents.
So what was your point again?
I suppose you could argue that vouchers are OK for 4-year-olds, but as soon as the kid turns 5, vouchers suddenly become evil. Similarly, vouchers are still evil for 17-year-olds, but as soon as they turn 18, vouchers become just fine again.
That’s what voucher opponents seem to believe, given that they oppose vouchers only from ages 5-17, but are not agitating against preschool or against Pell Grants.
Oddly enough, I’ve never come across a voucher opponent who was able to articulate why that position makes a shred of sense.
WT, destroying our nation’s public schools–which are open to all, no lottery, no exceptions–is evil.
Have public colleges been “destroyed” just because students are (horror!) allowed to use Pell grants at private colleges? If not, why would that be true for high schools?
Please spell out an actual reason.
WT, public education is a public service, not to be compared with college, which is voluntary.
Also, since you love the Milwaukee example (so much so that a regular reader would never know that voucher programs exist in 18 other states), can you point to any actual facts on how the public schools in Milwaukee have been “destroyed”?
One might be forgiven for thinking that Milwaukee public schools do still exist, after all, as do public schools in the 18 other states.
WT, Look at NAEP scores. After nearly 25 years of vouchers and charters, Milwaukee is one of the lowest performing urban districts in US, just above Detroit. No study has shown that voucher schools outperform public schools.
In my state at least, half of high school is also voluntary. I am not sure that it is relevant to the claim however. What are the principled reasons that lessons about educating 18 year olds are not in any way applicable to educating 17 year olds?
I didn’t ask about NAEP scores. I asked for evidence that public schools in Milwaukee or 18 states have been “destroyed” by vouchers.
Does anyone else have any relevant evidence on that claim?
Also, there are plenty of voucher studies showing some improvement over public schools. Given how often you try to refute such studies, it is odd to deny that they exist.
WT, do you think that public schools are strengthened by diverting public funds to church schools and entrepreneurs? I don’t.
False dichotomy there. Since you keep avoiding the question, I take it you concede there is no evidence to support the inflammatory claim that public schools in Milwaukee or 18 states have been “destroyed.”