(Guest post by Greg Forster)
Adam Schaeffer is freaking out over the Indiana Triple Play. It’s the largest school choice program ever enacted, and thus the biggest threat to the government school monopoly ever to achieve fruition – but apparently Indiana also has a handful of silly regulations that private schools will have to follow if they want to participate.
For example, participating schools will have to own a copy of the “Chief Seattle letter” from a 1972 movie.
♪♫♪ Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww . . . FREAK OUT! ♪♫♪
And they’ll have to take the state test.
♪♫♪ Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww . . . FREAK OUT! ♪♫♪
And they’ll have to provide “good citizenship instruction.”
♪♫♪ Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww . . . FREAK OUT! ♪♫♪
All this may be a very effective way for Cato to frighten its hardcore libertarian base for purposes of product differentiation in the market of ideas, but it’s not sound analysis.
- Most private schools in Indiana already give the state test. This is partly because it’s required for accreditation, but even many non-accredited schools give it. (By the way, the percentage of private schools in Indiana that are accredited is 50% according to the Indiana Non-Public Education Association, not 40% as Adam claims.) Since not all schools will participate in the new program, and the schools that don’t give the state test are overwhelmingly going to be more likely to be the ones who don’t participate, the new law represents no important change from the status quo. Obviously it would be better if the state’s accreditation requirements were changed, but that’s just not the same issue.
- Schools don’t have to participate. If they don’t like these rules, they’re as free as they were before. Now they also have the option to participate if they want to.
- Where’s the beef? Adam describes the “good citizenship” curricular requirement as “extensive and detailed,” but doesn’t produce much to support that. From what I can make out in his post, it looks like a lot of not much.
- The state already has virtually unlimited authority to regulate private school curricula, especially in the name of “good citizenship.” The Supreme Court has given states more or less a blank check to control private school curricula, and the state has especially strong authority to require, and control the content of, “citizenship” education. The existence of a voucher program changes little in this regard.
Concerns that regulations on school choice programs not be allowed to become onerous are perfectly legitimate. But to call the enactment of a voucher program for 600,000 students a “defeat” is going way too far. This isn’t just making the perfect the enemy of the good, it’s making the perfect a nuclear bomb that destroys everything.
CATEAUX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I rescind zee ordeur!!!!
On point 4 I was going to make that point to Adam and Andrew but didn’t. It is very true. In Nevada private schools are heavily regulated, at least more so than I thought they would be, including requirements for class sizes, teacher certifications and the minimum square feet per student.
this is also the reason why private schools for the poor are in the black market in the developing world. Burdensome regulations drive them out of the legal market. The risks are too steep here so we just don’t get those private schools at all.
Great point, Patrick. Fact is, there is only one true protection against regulation: building a very large voting constituency, even a majority constituency at some point. With any issue, that requires generating or awakening self-interest in the middle class. I’ve had this discussion with Adam and he gets it, as I believe Andrew does. Of course, there’s also a reasonable argument for tax credits doing a better job of accomplishing this among such key “likely” voters — those who pay taxes — although barriers to most people wrapping their minds around tax credits tend to thwart that benefit.
My own opinion is that the true bottleneck impeding the awakening of middle class voters has not yet been addressed adequately by our movement — whether by vouchers, tax credits, or charters. Historically, we already know through economics how the middle class becomes stakeholders in ideas. A potent, simple and direct approach for strategically awakening their appetite must arise, and this can only occur credibly and irreversibly from the marketplace itself. Hence, facilitating THAT process will yield fruit unlike we’ve seen before in this movement, and that’s what some of us are presently investigating.
I can’t say more here, but your point is worth underscoring — that regulation can indeed be quite independent of funding mechanisms — which means that the only unassailable safety comes from keeping the threat in check by growing the constituency. After all, majority constituencies can even amend constitutions. Hence, the shortest path to a larger voting constituency for private school choice should be the top priority. I believe that Adam and Andrew are warning primarily of the long-term risks if that never happened or if it took too long. In such case I would possibly agree. Of course, my entire effort is to address the constituency size deficit so that a generation from now, the public’s majority demand for choice and fewer regulations on their own schools shapes the public debate. If that sounds overly optimistic, contact me privately.
Daniel-
I agree with you, but would note that you can become a pretty salty group in terms of defending your interests without majority status. The NRA are a good example of this, as are the teacher unions. In fact, the homeschool movement has done an outstanding job in organizing their families, and for the most part state legislators leave them alone.
I agree, Matt. Indeed, the constitution is designed with that in mind — the preservation of rights for minority factions. However, knowing the broader “progressive” aims of societal engineering that our opposition possesses in the education realm — and regulation being their preferred instrument — I do believe they will always treat this issue differently as their sacred cow. After all, we’re dealing with the determined Dewey mindset. This is a different game than most minority group issues, and I’m confident that homeschooling will eventually be reigned in as well if at least a constituency of parity is never achieved by those defending choice.
That said, you’re also absolutely right that there’s certainly a need for the vigilance of salty groups like IJ, Goldwater, AFC and the like. Otherwise, the Borg would assimilate the dissenting minority in the span of what historically would amount to a lunch break.
BTW, I just noticed my misappropriation of “reigned in” for “reined in.” Oddly enough, it seems fitting. After all, aren’t progressives really just unwittingly building a kingdom?