Progressive vouchers are the best way to maximize the public education funds available to any child
Mark Loewe, Ph. D. Physics, B. S. Physics, B. S. Chemistry, Dallas, Texas, 29 October 2003
Progressive vouchers are structured so that all children benefit from a percentage, for example, 25 percent, of whatever private funds voucher schools are able to attract into our education system. Within each school district, the percentage may be adjusted to (nearly) maximize the public education funds available to any child. All children are equally eligible for the vouchers, except that higher voucher amounts are allowed for children who have handicaps.
Progressive vouchers start by providing less public education funds per child to voucher schools than to government schools because government schools operate under stricter regulations than voucher schools and every child (with few exceptions) must be allowed to attend at least one government school. Voucher schools may, for example, receive 1/4-th less public education funds per child than government schools or, equivalently, government schools may receive 1/3-rd more per child than voucher schools. For each child who attends a voucher school instead of a government school, the public education funds that are saved result in a slight increase in the public education funds that are available to all other children who attend government schools or voucher schools.
For handicapped children, government schools currently receive more public education funds per child according to funding weights that depend on the handicaps and instructional arrangements. As an incentive for voucher schools to specialize in serving blind or other special needs children (who may be poorly served by government schools or institutions), progressive vouchers are simply multiplied by the same funding weights. For each handicapped child who attends a voucher school instead of a government school, the savings and benefits to all other children are, therefore, also multiplied by the same funding weights.
Voucher schools are allowed to charge tuition in excess of the vouchers because (as explained in the 25 December 2000 article below) prohibiting such tuition would greatly reduce the ability of voucher schools to attract private funds into our education system.
Now, for the progressive provision.
So that all children benefit from a percentage of whatever private funds are attracted by a voucher school, progressive vouchers simply reduce the public education funds that the voucher school receives by 25 percent of whatever private funds the voucher school receives. This saves 25 dollars of public education funds for every 100 dollars of private funds attracted by the voucher school. These savings result in an increase in the public education funds that are available to all children who attend government schools or other voucher schools. Government schools recieve more public education funds per child and voucher schools that are not fortunate enough to attract private funds receive larger vouchers.
This progressive provision is not a tax, because it does not require any voucher school (or any private school that is ineligible to receive vouchers) to send money to the government. It is simply a benefits reduction for those voucher schools that are fortunate enough to attract private funds. It is also much simpler to implement than a progressive provision based on the wealths of individual children or their families.
Vouchers are not large entitlements for schools and are not directed to schools by the government. Vouchers are small entitlements for individual children and, within each school district, thousands of parents make thousands of decisions about which voucher schools, if any, receive the vouchers.
Provisions for legislative implementation of progressive school choice
Mark Loewe, Ph. D. Physics, B. S. Physics, B. S. Chemistry, Dallas, Texas, 4 January 2003
These provisions are based in part on a progressive voucher bill drafted several years ago by the Texas Legislative Council. The funding percentages are unchanged from those that I recommended to Texas legislators in 1991. The formulas are simple to apply. Refinements have been omitted for brevity. Many variants and refinements are worth considering. [The variant proposed by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich (Wall Street Journal, 9 September 2000) suffers from the need to define the wealths of individual children or their families, from large changes in voucher amounts at boundaries between wealth quintiles, and from large and involuntary reductions in public education funds for two of the five quintiles.]
Weighted children. "Weighted children" means a weighted sum of children in which each child is weighted by his or her funding weight; the funding weight of a child who is not eligible for a special education program (as defined elsewhere in the state's education code) is 1.0 and the funding weight of a child who is eligible for a special education program is given according to instructional arrangement (as defined elsewhere in the state's education code).
Voucher schools. (a) A voucher school's primary purpose shall be to provide an appropriate education to each enrolled child.
(b) A voucher school shall not discriminate against a child based on religion, race, or sex.
(c) A voucher school shall participate in the administration of district wide (or statewide) academic assessment instruments; the voucher school shall promptly provide each child's responses to the child's district (or the state) and parents; the district (or the state) shall promptly provide correct responses and statistical results to the public.
(d) A voucher school shall maintain an enrollment of no less than 10 weighted children during it's first year of operation and no less than 20 weighted children during each subsequent year of operation.
Adoption of voucher status by a school district. A school district may hold elections (as governed by state law) on whether or not to adopt voucher status. Voucher status is adopted if approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting at an election held for that purpose.
[Choice of districts for a pilot voucher program. On a specified date, a vote on support of a pilot voucher program shall occur in each school district throughout the state. The pilot program shall be implemented in those districts with the highest percentages of voter support until the population of children in the participating districts reaches 10 percent of the population of children in the state.]
State funding for a voucher district. State funding for a voucher district shall be computed as if children who reside in the district and are enrolled in voucher schools on the initiatives of their parents were enrolled in government schools or other instructional arrangements on the initiative of the district, except that children who are enrolled in voucher schools on the initiatives of their parents shall not be used to compute, and shall not benefit from, state funds designated to aid a district with a sparse enrollment in government schools.
Pre-voucher fund. A voucher district's "pre-voucher fund" consists of all funds received by the district except federal funds designated for a specific purpose and state funds designated to aid a district with a sparse enrollment in government schools.
Post-voucher fund. A voucher district's "post-voucher fund" refers to district funds that may be used for all purposes authorized under the state education code except for the benefit of children enrolled in voucher schools on the initiatives of their parents.
Monthly allotments for weighted children. On the first day of each month, September through May, a voucher district shall compute
G = (0.15 x T)/(Ng + (0.75 x Nv)),
the allotment for weighted children who are enrolled in government schools or other instructional arrangements on the initiative of the district, and shall compute
V = 0.75 x G,
the maximum allotment for weighted children who are enrolled in voucher schools on the initiatives of their parents, where:
"T" is the current balance of the district's pre-voucher fund,
"Ng" is the number of weighted children who reside in the district and are enrolled in government schools or other instructional arrangements on the initiative of the district, and
"Nv" is the number of weighted children who reside in the district and are enrolled in voucher schools on the initiatives of their parents.
Transfer from pre-voucher fund to post-voucher fund. On the first day of each month, September through May, a voucher district shall transfer from the pre-voucher fund to the post-voucher fund an amount equal to the product of "G" multiplied by "Ng".
Disbursement from pre-voucher fund to voucher school. On the first day of each month, September through May, a voucher district shall disburse from the pre-voucher fund to a voucher school an amount equal to the product of "V" multiplied by the number of weighted children who reside in the district and are enrolled in the voucher school on the initiatives of their parents, less an amount as required by the next section.
Private funding reduces a voucher school's public funding. (a) Not later than the 15th day of each month, a voucher school shall sum all revenue received from non-government sources during the previous calender month, divide the sum by the total number of weighted children enrolled, multiply the quotient by the number of a voucher district's weighted children enrolled on the initiatives of their parents, and report the product to the district. Revenue received includes the fair market value of real and personal property donated to the voucher school.
(b) A voucher district shall multiply the amount reported by a voucher school under Subsection (a) by 0.25; future disbursements from the district's pre-voucher fund to the voucher school shall be reduced by the product in a manner designed to recover the amount of the reduction in the shortest possible period of time.
Progressive school choice (Progressive vouchers)
Mark Loewe, Ph. D. Physics, Austin, Texas, 25 December 2000
Children and teachers are harmed by the limitation that only tuition-free government schools are allowed to receive public education funds. This unnecessary limitation stifles free-market innovation and accountability, imposes a heavy and regressive deterrent against private funding of schools that charge tuition,[1][2] results in the loss of tens-of-billions of private dollars per year from our K-12 education system, and wastes tens-of-billions of public dollars per year. Progressive school choice can resolve these problems with maximum benefits for poor children.
Progressive school choice would provide voucher schools with public funds equal to, say, 75 percent of the public funds that government schools receive per weighted child.[3] It would also allow a voucher school to charge tuition as long as the voucher school's public funds are further reduced by, say, 25 percent of any private funds the voucher school receives.[4] For example, if government schools receive 6,000 public dollars (per weighted child per year), then voucher schools that receive no private dollars would receive 4,500 public dollars, voucher schools that receive 400 private dollars would receive 4,400 public dollars, ..., voucher schools that receive 10,000 private dollars would receive 2,000 public dollars, and so on. The government would save $1,500, $1,600, ..., $4,000, respectively.
Private Public Combined District
dollars dollars dollars savings
Government schools 6,000 0
Voucher schools 0 + 4,500 = 4,500 1,500
" 400 + 4,400 = 4,800 1,600
" 800 + 4,300 = 5,100 1,700
" 1,200 + 4,200 = 5,400 1,800
" 1,600 + 4,100 = 5,700 1,900
" 2,000 + 4,000 = 6,000 2,000
" ... ... ... ...
" 4,000 + 3,500 = 7,500 2,500
" 6,000 + 3,000 = 9,000 3,000
" 10,000 + 2,000 = 12,000 4,000
Voucher schools 18,000 + 0 = 18,000 6,000
Compared to this example of progressive school choice, a monopoly of tuition-free government schools takes 2,000 public dollars away from voucher schools that receive 10,000 private dollars and takes more than 4,400 public dollars away from voucher schools that receive less than 400 private dollars. By depriving voucher schools of public funds, such a monopoly reduces the quality of education available in voucher schools, heavily deters enrollment in and private contributions to voucher schools,[1][2] and deprives children in government schools of substantial savings. Such a monopoly harms the choices of education available to rich children and devastates the choices of education available to poor children!
Progressive school choice would reduce the private funds needed for tuition by thousands of dollars per child, with the greatest reductions at the lowest tuitions. Rich parents, poor parents, businesses, other private sources, and voucher schools (through partial tuition waivers) would be better able to afford the remaining tuition, if any.[5] This would empower parents, especially poor parents and parents of children with special needs,[3] to choose and spend money on safer schools that better serve the individual needs, abilities, and interests of their children. Increased competition would empower businesses to choose and donate to schools with innovative programs that successfully respond to workforce needs. It is conceivable that our education system would benefit from 60 billion additional private dollars per year, an average of $1,000 per child over our roughly 60 million school children.
The government would save 25 percent on each child who transfers from a government school to a voucher school and save 25 percent on private funds attracted by voucher schools. Reduced enrollments in government schools would reduce pressures to expand or build new government schools. If facilities become underused, then older facilities could be sold or leased to voucher schools in order to generate revenue. The net savings would amount to tens-of-billions of dollars per year even after accounting for public funds spent to benefit children who transfer to voucher schools from private schools that are ineligible to receive public funds.[6] These savings could be used to increase funds for children who attend government schools, to increase funds for children who attend voucher schools, and to stem tax increases on businesses and the general public.
Classroom teachers would enjoy higher salaries and better working conditions. Salaries would rise due to the tens-of-billions of dollars of additional private funding and due to shifts in spending away from top-heavy administration and wasteful programs. Working conditions would improve because teachers could more easily choose to work at, or even start up, schools that more productively employ their talents, promote learning, and, when necessary, remediate disruptive behavior.
Progressive school choice does not raise or lower taxes; it is easy to implement together with whatever portfolio of federal, state, and local taxes is used to generate public education funds and together with whatever ways the tax revenues are split among states and school districts. Individual states and districts can adopt different voucher school funding percentages, learn from the market responses, and adjust their percentages to maximize educational opportunities.
Progressive school choice is easy to implement regardless of the roles parents, teachers, school boards, legislatures, Congress, and the courts play in determining curricula. It would also reduce costly lawsuits involving parents, teachers, and others who are unhappy with one-size-fits-all policies imposed on, and implemented by, government school monopolies.
Implementing progressive school choice is the best step we can take to improve our education system. Parents, teachers, school boards, business leaders, and legislators can all play important roles in supporting progressive school choice.
______________________________
[1] Tuition-free schools (government or not) that split the benefits of private donations among many children, perhaps hundreds of children, do miserable jobs of attracting donations from parents. Out of every dollar a parent donates to a tuition-free school the beneficial value for his or her child is usually less than ten cents and perhaps less than one cent. This deterrent, which is nearly total, does not occur at schools that charge tuition because such schools offer benefits to each child that are of comparable value to the tuition.
The deterrent against parental spending on schools that charge tuition is due to the limitation that, if parents choose not to enroll their children in tuition-free government schools, then their children lose all benefits from roughly 6,000 public dollars per child. Even a rich parent who can afford $10,000 for tuition may decide to save his or her money for other purposes rather than lose all of the public funds. A poor parent may not be able to afford even the least expensive tuition. (One "choice" may be to spend private dollars on private tutors; tutors, however, may have high hourly rates, difficulties getting schools to coordinate on curricula, and trouble proving their value by providing student achievement and placement statistics.) A loss of all of the $6,000 constitutes a large percentage loss from the combined private and public funding for a child:
Private Public Combined Percentage
dollars dollars dollars lost
0 + 6,000 = 6,000 100.0
200 + 6,000 = 6,200 96.8
400 + 6,000 = 6,400 93.7 ( = 100 x 6000/6400)
800 + 6,000 = 6,800 88.2
1,200 + 6,000 = 7,200 83.3
2,000 + 6,000 = 8,000 75.0
4,000 + 6,000 = 10,000 60.0
6,000 + 6,000 = 12,000 50.0
10,000 + 6,000 = 16,000 37.5 ( = 100 x 6000/16000)
These loss percentages show that a monopoly of tuition-free government schools imposes a heavy deterrent against parental spending on schools that charge tuition. Moreover, this deterrent is very regressive: as private dollars approach zero, the loss percentage approaches 100 percent! The proposed version of progressive school choice reduces and equalizes the loss percentage down to only 25 percent!
[2] Extending school choice only to other tuition-free schools (government or not) would result in fewer children enrolled in private schools that charge tuition and, unfortunately, higher government costs and a loss of private funds from our education system.
[3] Voucher schools, like government schools, would receive more public funds to serve children who have higher funding weights. This is an incentive for voucher schools to specialize in serving blind and other special needs children who may be poorly served by government schools or institutions.
[4] This is the progressive provision. This provision has the great advantage of permitting the eligibility of all children without the great trouble of applying wealth tests to individual children or their families.
[5] At many private schools tuition is less than half what government schools receive per child.
[6] Private schools that discriminate based on a child's religion, race, or sex, or that do not administer annual academic achievement tests whose statistical results are made public, would be ineligible to receive public funds. When choosing among schools to receive public funds, a parent (or persons the parent trusts) must have the opportunity to consider (but may ignore) the results of at least one universal set of tests.
Mailing address
Inquiries about progressive vouchers or about Texas House Bill 689, which would allow children to permanently keep their math and science textbooks (see http://MarkLoewe.homestead.com/HouseBill689.html), may be mailed to me at
Mark Loewe
7220 McCallum Blvd., Apt. 2-1506
Dallas, Texas 75252