I refer to Milton Friedman’s “What’s Wrong in Our Schools?”, pp. 167-8, in his book Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. Specifically, I wish to add to his arguments, which I quote below,
One feature of the voucher plan that has aroused particular concern is the possibility that parents could and would “add on” to the vouchers. If the voucher were for, say, $1,500, a parent could add another $500 to it and send his child to a school charging $2,000 tuition. Some fear that the result might be even wider differences in educational opportunities than now exist because low-income parents would not add to the amount of the voucher while middle-income and upper-income parents would supplement it extensively.
This fear has led several supporters of voucher plans to propose that “add-ons” be prohibited.
Coons and Sugarman write that the
freedom to add on private dollars makes the Friedman model unacceptable to many, including ourselves… Families unable to add extra dollars would patronize those schools that charged no tuition above the voucher, while the wealthier would be free to distribute themselves among the more expensive schools. What is today merely a personal choice of the wealthy, secured entirely with private funds, would become an invidious privilege assisted by government… This offends a fundamental value commitment – that any choice plan must secure equal family opportunity to attend any participating school.
Even under a choice plan which allowed tuition add-ons, poor families might be better off than they are today. Friedman has argued as much. Nevertheless, however much it improved their education, conscious government finance of economic segregation exceeds our tolerance. If the Friedman scheme were the only politically viable experiment with choice, we would not be enthusiastic.
This view seems to us an example of the kind of egalitarianism discussed in the preceding chapter: letting parents spend money on riotous living but trying to prevent them from spending money on improving the schooling of their children. It is particularly remarkable coming from Coons and Sugarman, who elsewhere say, “A commitment to equality at the deliberate expense of the development of individual children seems to us the final corruption of whatever is good in the egalitarian instinct” – a sentiment which we heartily agree. In our judgment the very poor would benefit the most from the voucher plan. How can one conceivably justify objecting to a plan, “however much it improved [the] education” of the poor, in order to avoid “government finance” of what the authors call “economic segregation,” even if it could be demonstrated to have that effect? And of course, it cannot be demonstrated to have that effect. On the contrary, we are persuaded on the basis of considerable study that it would have precisely the opposite effect – though we must accompany that statement with a qualification that “economic segregation” is so vague a term that it is by no means clear what it means.
The prohibition of add-ons hardly contribute to equality of opportunity. Affluent parents are not wrong if they wish to spend a greater amount of money in educating their children, whether the amount is absolute or relative. If the affluent parents are prohibited from spending more money in their children’s education merely because they are people who are unable to spend that much, how consistent is the argument that individual should not be stopped from doing things they like, and unleashing their potentials?
There are also numerous rent-seeking opportunities in prohibiting add-ons, in effect imposing a price ceiling. How should one view such spending as after-school tuition and educational supplements? What incentive there remains to deviate from the maximum price if there is a price ceiling? And how does one address such problems as changes in price level, both across the economy and within the educational sector?
I can personally testify for the accusation that poor parents can not spend more money in educating their children. By all measures, I come from a not-so-well-to-do family. Nevertheless, my parents have done all within their means in supporting my education – in purchasing numerous books (relevant to my study or otherwise), the various equipments, and even an overseas tertiary education. I believe parents from the advanced countries, even the less wealthy ones, can understand that education remains the best, though far from certain, passport of leaving poverty. Such accusations that poor parents can not spend more for their children’s education are outright insult, as in Friedman’s words.
As a final remark, intentions should be measured against outcome, as always. While the intention to enable everyone to receive as good an education as possible is noble, the way which the bureaucrats advocate is not the best way (if it is a way at all) of achieving it. It is surprising indeed that the problem is still around and being argued, though there has been progress. Political will is very important in overcoming the obstacle of reforming to a voucher-based education system; I guess veto and a lot of persuasion is needed in achieving this…
