School vouchers: choice and ‘empowerment’

A real question facing both major parties is (or should be) whether the distinction between public versus private schooling is the real divide in education?

Labor MP Craig Emerson has suggested the distinction between public and private schools funding should be abandoned and there should be an emphasis on competition and parental choice between all schools.

Emerson adds - to protect the most vulnerable students - those with high needs, such as learning difficulties, should attract more funding. He says: “Then government and private schools would find them attractive and would want more of them, rather than those kids being concentrated in poor government schools as at present.”

Emerson is describing what is known as a “voucher”. The voucher is a sum of money that can increase or decrease in size according to the socio-economic background of the parents or the child’s needs.

The World Bank has taken a broadly positive view of school vouchers, claiming in a report: “The typical voucher system, which is one in which governments subsidise the ‘schools of choice’ in strict proportion to enrolment, appears to be contributing to the growth in quantity and quality of schooling”. It concluded this was based on evidence from 20 countries representing many backgrounds.

There are four compelling principle objectives in a vouchers-based education system.

First, it empowers parents, as consumers of education, rather than the current system that empowers in the main the suppliers of education - the state and teachers unions.

Second, people want to shape their own destinies, choose the values they favour, and this promotes enthusiasm, participation and interest among parents in their children’s future.

Third, it promotes competition for resources, both between state and private, as well as between individual schools in a given educational zone.

Fourth, it provides the widest possible access to private schools, following recent, increasingly positive sentiment towards them among parents.

Former US Secretary of Education William Bennett says of vouchers: “Of all the problems of public schools, very few of them remain untouched by choice … With choice you would have accountability, because people would leave bad schools.”

In general in Western countries vouchers have been given to less well-off families but not used across the board.

Former ACCC chief, Professor Alan Fels, says: “You give the money to (less well-off) parents and they have to spend it on education and that puts more pressure on schools to meet their needs”.

Yet the purpose of creating a market for education - and to really break the divide between public and private supply - means that vouchers should be extended to all families with schoolchildren.

A differential voucher that gives more money to the lower socio-economic groups provides increased access choice to those who have had none on the quality of education.

The strongest argument against vouchers may be - that given choice - lower and middle-income children will leave the public system, creating a less well-off public system.

However it is this threat that can create the biggest reward from change. The public system will, in the face of competition, respond to this threat: competing to keep students and meeting their needs better in the process.

If public school prices were centrally controlled under regulation, and as is likely, cheaper than the private counterpart, then less well-off parents choosing public schools with a differential voucher would still have additional funds for books, computers, software, one-to-one tuition and other necessary or desirable elements in an education “toolkit”.

Choice for less well-off parents with this new resource would be complex for parents: whether the best value is public (with additional spending on educational “tools”) or private (and possible top-up fee in high fee schools).

In responding to competition public schools will need to compete hard as individual schools. Improving public schools will bring students from the private sector if they successfully compete and could expand school resources.

Quality public schools in an educational zone will also put pressure on the under-performing schools.

State school measures to improve competitive standing may involve parental boards having oversight of the quality of education at individual schools. Head teachers may need greater capacity to set school direction, and rewards for teachers who achieve excellence should also be implemented.

Building bonus schemes into teacher pay structure can encourage excellence as well as one-to-one and small group tuition. Teachers could also raise their incomes derived from vouchers by providing after-hours services directly to children.

With vouchers the consumer power instilled in them will drive teachers and the educational establishment to respond directly to the requirements of children. This consumer pressure will be felt most in deprived areas where the differential voucher is higher in value. Teachers will more likely (than is currently the case) want to teach in deprived areas where more resources are invested in each voucher.

The great advantage of differential vouchers is good services would flow to the areas where parents having larger sum vouchers - the lower socio-economic suburbs - whereas now they flow only to parents who can afford them.

Turning to the politics of vouchers: the weight of education unions make this reform difficult for Labor. For the Liberal Party it is different story. Education Minister Julie Bishop has indicated a fondness for vouchers. She says, “I am quite supportive of the notion of vouchers across the board. Vouchers that give parents control and choice appeals to me.”

And yet the public should have scepticism of a conservative Coalition voucher program. It is unlikely that a Coalition approach to vouchers would support differential payments to the extent of empowering the less well-off children to have significant choice and options in their education. A move to a voucher-based system must be matched up to additional resources from the Federal Government.

Further resources will promote the best access opportunities for more people and will not create losers. If resources are allocated more directly to those with greatest need as well, it is a system with real improvement. The public will more heavily support a system that provides the best access for the greatest number - especially one based on competition and choice for more parents.

Differential vouchers can solve an age-old dilemma: that only wealthy people have real choice and less wealthy people do not. Differential vouchers are the solution.