IN CELEBRATING City Journal editor Sol Stern’s school-choice “apostasy” (“Schoolyard Brawl,” March 17), Daniel Casse dismisses as “doctrinaire” several pro-choice responses to Stern, suggesting that neither reason nor evidence informs them. It is in fact Stern and Casse, however, who are unwilling to let evidence get in their way.
They begin by massively understating school choice progress. Casse repeats Stern’s assertion that choice exists in only the “tiny voucher programs” of Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Washington, D.C. But there are actually 21 voucher or education tax-credit programs in 13 states, and more than 4,000 charter schools in 40 states and the District of Columbia. These programs are currently too small and heavily regulated to produce powerful market forces, but it is ridiculous to imply that no progress has been made.
The flip side of Casse’s argument is that effective reform will require some sort of “national or state curriculum.” But this would ratchet up just the sort of centralized, government control that has long driven standards down! Of course it has: Teacher unions, administrators, and bureaucrats spend oodles of time and money-resources parents can’t match-playing politics because their livelihoods come from the system, and lax standards make their jobs easier. That’s why Massachusetts is the only state Stern can point to as having effective standards, and now even those are under fire.
If anyone has ignored reality it is Stern and Casse. Unfortunately, they did so to smear the most proven reform of all: a system that takes power away from politicians and bureaucrats, lets consumers pursue high standards, and makes providers compete for their business.
NEAL P. MCCLUSKEY
Washington, D.C.
DANIEL CASSE leaves out almost all of the really important points made by Sol Stern’s critics, focusing instead on side issues. The serious flaws in Stern’s case deserve a hearing.
Stern’s article was riddled with factual errors, as Jay Greene’s City Journal online article documents. Once these errors are corrected, much of his case collapses. For example, contrary to Stern’s assertion, since the Supreme Court blessed school choice in 2002, numerous new programs have been enacted, taking us from 11 total school choice programs to 21. These programs now allow almost 190,000 students to attend private schools using public funds, up from about 70,000 at the time the court ruled-all because of the tremendous political success of school choice. The new programs are still coming; Georgia enacted one last year, and a second one is now moving through the Georgia legislature. School choice has been creating and expanding programs every year, whereas the “instructionist” reforms Stern supports are mostly either stalled or (as in Massachusetts) backsliding.
It is also not true, as Stern and Casse assert, that school choice has failed to improve public schools. In fact, a large body of high-quality scientific research has consistently shown that public schools exposed to school choice make significant-sometimes even dramatic-improvements. The key is to examine results at the schools that are actually exposed to school choice. Not all Milwaukee students are eligible for the Milwaukee voucher program; in the neighborhoods where many students are eligible, the public schools are making impressive gains.
This is only scratching the surface of the issue. Anyone who wants to hear what Stern’s critics actually said should start by reading Greene’s devastating point-by-point demolition of Stern’s case.
ROBERT C. ENLOW
Indianapolis, Ind.
DANIEL CASSE RESPONDS: I agree with Robert Enlow that people should read the entire exchange on the future of vouchers on City Journal‘s website. There they will find not only the arguments by Jay Greene that Enlow mentions, but also Sol Stern’s 2,000 word, point-by-point rebuttal. For example, Greene cites two studies of the Milwaukee school system that suggest that since the inception of the voucher program there has been a general improvement in all schools. The problem, as Stern points out, is that those studies are out of date. The two most recent studies show that, since the implementation of the voucher program, reading scores across all Milwaukee schools are falling.
Both Enlow and McCluskey want to persuade us that voucher programs are a growing, successful trend. Yes, there are more market alternatives (which I applaud) like charter schools and merit pay. But voucher systems have always been the spearhead of the school choice movement. If these programs are defeated in a Utah referendum, if Jeb Bush cannot persuade his own Republican legislators in Florida to support them, if the Michigan Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional, if there has yet to be a single, statewide voucher initiative . . . well, isn’t it time to face reality and admit there really is no successful national political plan to implement vouchers? While teacher union money may be stopping the voucher movement, that is an argument that only the losing side would make.
What made Sol Stern’s article so refreshing is that it dealt with the facts on the ground. As I wrote, I think he and his “instructionist” allies need a better political strategy. So do Enlow and McCluskey. Simply reciting the school choice catechism about bureaucrats and education consumers has so far been an electoral flop.
