The ‘Catastrophic Failure’ of School Vouchers

Josh Cowen has written a book he wished he didn't have to write. A professor of education policy at Michigan State University and a former evaluator of state and local school voucher programs, Cowen would have preferred to write about how the overwhelming, research-based evidence against school privatization helped persuade lawmakers everywhere to reject the use of public funds to subsidize private school tuition. But school voucher programs have expanded, in the face of public opposition and mounting evidence that these programs drain budgets, lack academic accountability, and predominantly serve affluent families.

In "The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers," Cowen explores how school privatization advocates have been able to advance vouchers, beginning with white parents' resistance to integration in the 1950s all the way through the recent "culture wars." As Cowen recently told NEA Today, the goal has always been to destabilize the institution of public education, and vouchers serve that purpose.

The2022-23 state legislative session saw a litany of school voucher legislation, more than any previous year. Your book details how the privatization agenda slowly advanced over the years, but it seems almost like a dam broke a couple of years ago. What happened?

Josh Cowen: This is a first draft of history kind of book, in the sense that I was writing it while these bills were being rolled out. I honestly thought they would have receded by the time the book hit the market. In fact, we may just be getting started, unfortunately.

If you look over the past decade, on any standard of professional evidence that researchers have, you really couldn't find a more comprehensive failure than vouchers. Equally ambitious policy schemes have gone the way of the dinosaur for far less worse results. Teacher evaluations, for example, pushed teachers out who should have stayed, without moving the needle on student outcomes. But not moving the needle is a better result than the catastrophic failure we've seen with vouchers.

So why are these bills succeeding now? You can't look at the voucher question in isolation from the political climate we're currently in. Why are we also talking about book bans? Why was Ron DeSantis in Florida, who signed the largest voucher bill in the country, asking whether slavery had some economic benefits for enslaved people? Why are there new attacks on LGBTQ+ Americans? These are things you would have thought were beyond the pale three or four or five years ago. This is about destabilizing public education.

A point I make in the book is the Trump presidency saved the voucher movement at a very precarious time, because the results around vouchers were coming in and they were not good. The radicalization of the right, the religious fundamentalism-which I describe in the book as a form of domestic isolationism where children and families fend for themselves-and the culture wars have kept vouchers alive and are the driving energy behind them at this point.

A huge part of that is the use of phrases like "freedom" and especially "parents' rights," which advocates use as shields against the overwhelming evidence that vouchers are a failure.

JC: Right. 'As long as the parents are happy, it's fine.' This is a talking point that has actually been around forever. We need to acknowledge and affirm the importance of parents as partners in the education space, but "parents' rights" has deeply negative and nefarious historical connotations, dating all the way back to the post-Brown v. Board of Education world, where your 'rights' meant you get to segregate your child.

To say parents' rights is all that matters when evaluating a voucher scheme is absurd and wrong-especially when public schools have to be held accountable for all kinds of metrics.

For example, we can and should continue to have the conversation around test scores, but if the right wing is using test scores to criticize and condemn public school performance, I'm going to put it back on them and say, 'OK, how do those voucher schools do?' The answer is horribly.

Public opinion surveys usually show a fairly strong and consistent opposition to using public school funds for private school tuition. Has that changed at all?

JC: The public is generally opposed, but it's also the case that families of color express more interest in programs like vouchers and charter schools than many other families.

Public schools reflect society, which means there's going to be inequality, and there's going to be a need for more investment and equity in lots of spaces-based on race and income and geographic location, migrant status, etc.

So, it's not surprising that many of these families would be more amenable to vouchers on paper. But surveys also show that these folks are also more likely to change their minds when presented with the evidence on vouchers.

Vouchers are the education equivalent of predatory lending. The right wing markets vouchers specifically to families of color, to low-income families, as if there are a whole lot of high-quality private school providers that will take all of these children in mass amounts. We know that doesn't happen. We know the schools that do accept them tend to be barely hanging on, tend to be subprime as I call them, as the academic results show.

One of the more troubling aspects of this whole debate is it distracts from real conversations about the work that still needs to be done to make public education better for everybody. If you just sort of take the easy way out and just claim to give everyone a coupon that they'll be able to shop around, it avoids hard questions and hard conversations. And it also directly misleads people.

And voucher programs tend to benefit more affluent families whose kids are already enrolled in private schools. This has gotten a lot of attention recently, but is it a new development?

JC: No. That's been true since the early days of voucher schemes. The beneficiaries have always been primarily enrolled in private schools. 2007 was the first time researchers started to notice that around 70% of students were already enrolled in private schools-and it's the same number today. I have been making that point in papers, as have other people before me. But it's just now becoming a discussion point because we have so many voucher laws now.

To what extent has disguising and rebranding school vouchers as tuition tax credits or Education Savings Accounts (ESA) contributed to their success in state legislatures?

JC: It's had a big impact. Of course, it's all BS because they're really not much different. All ESAs are vouchers, but not all vouchers are ESAs. They're not all structured that way.

The ESA model came about because voucher advocates were trying to figure out legally permissible ways to subsidize private school tuition, but in a way that was politically more palatable. It didn't change the underlying fact that it was still a voucher. But the marketing of them as ESAs did add a lot to the momentum we've seen recently, no question.

Your book also makes the point that privatization advocates, in addition to being extremely well-funded, are single-minded and relentless.

JC: I speak to superintendents associations as much as I do to teacher groups. The one thing that I have found labor and management agree on every single time is vouchers. But running public school districts is a give and take. Advocating for public schools-there's a lot of different needs and priorities, right? [NEA President] Becky Pringle is out there doing lots of things. [AFT President] Randy Weingarten is out there doing lots of things

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.