by R. Morris Coats

A few weeks ago the legislature in Florida passed an education voucher bill that Governor Jeb Bush has promised to sign. Florida's voucher plan begins with a school accountability plan that grades schools. Any child assigned to a school that has been given failing marks is to receive a voucher of $4000 per year that can be used at any private or parochial school or at any public school of the parents' choice. Our own legislature in Louisiana has been cautious in adopting school choice, but at least we can keep an eye on how school vouchers work in Florida.

Most people in this country do not challenge the legitimacy of publicly provided education. Though, as with most "widely accepted" ideas, the legitimacy of publicly provided education should probably be questioned from time to time. The most potent argument for using tax dollars to pay for all children's education rests on the notion of providing a more even "playing field" in our economic lives. A publicly paid for education makes it possible that the daughter of a maid or farm worker can become a doctor, lawyer or engineer if she has the ability and the determination.

What is missing from the argument for public spending for education is any reason why an arm of the government must be involved in producing education. Governmentally produced services generally exceed the cost of privately produced services by a factor of two or more. That is particularly troubling when quality of governmentally produced services often suffer by comparison. To be fair to our public schools, we should recognize that just as with the production of health, much of producing quality education comes from factors other than the education providers. Parents and peers and the children themselves are probably more important than school quality in producing a good education for children.

Florida's voucher program will surely be challenged in the courts because the program allows parents to choose religious education for their children. The cry of separation of church and state will become a shriek in the courts. Of course, public funds were spent at religious institutions of higher education under the GI Bill and in our own state, public funds are now spent at religious colleges with the TOPS scholarship program. It seems unlikely that the challenge will succeed.

If Florida's grading system for schools is sensible, it is conceivable that no voucher funds will be dispersed. Sensible standards for schools in Florida would entail expectations to meet fixed quality standards instead of some comparison with other schools; every school should be able to pass if they aren't graded on a curve. However, the discipline that vouchers provide to schools through the threat of lost funds, the dissolution of schools, and the loss of jobs can provide the incentive to bring many low-performing schools up to par. In other words, under the Florida plan, vouchers can work to improve school quality even if no vouchers are handed out. The mere threat of competition can improve schools.

In Louisiana, we are taking a different path. Our plan grades schools and may give failing schools more money. Under the Louisiana plan, schools that continue to fail risk being taken over by the state and teachers may lose their tenure and their jobs. This threat of takeover and loss of jobs should also work to improve schools. What the Louisiana system does not do is give parents and their school-age children a means to escape poorly performing schools.

The accountability system that does better at improving the education children receive will be discovered with the passage of time. We need to watch both our own schools and those in Florida. Safe money is on Florida.