I was responding to a (positive) comment about my post "Why Vouchers are not the Answer" when I realized a potential argument against my opposition to vouchers. Though I think my argument is sensible, I could see some who support vouchers responding to my reasoning by pointing to the many pilot programs around the country, arguing that those programs have been successful, schools have not be overwhelmed by the bureaucracy nor have they lost autonomy. It would seem to be a fatal flaw in my argument, but, as my title suggests, the difference is one of scale.

First, and probably most importantly, almost all projects have been on a incredibly limited scale. A handful of parents have been granted vouchers, if that. As a result the administrations have felt no need to impose limits on who may receive them. In fact, as some administrators would like to see such pilot programs fail, they may even be happy to see outright fraud take place. But whether they have such motives or not, the fact is, with such a small pool of recipients there is little potential for the fraud I described, and so little need for controls.  But that would not be the case if vouchers were universally available on a state or national, maybe even just a county-wide basis.

Nor is that the only reason such programs do not match what would happen in a more widespread program.

In some states, the programs have been set up with rather onerous requirements for parents desiring vouchers. The intent is probably to keep students in public schools, but the end result has been to not only keep the pool of voucher recipients small, keeping fraud potential low, but also keeping vouchers in the hands of involved parents, who are far more likely to avoid fraud and other problems which would lead to more regulation. If the program were more widely available, creating the potential for large-scale fraud, even if the requirements were onerous, things would change, as even with onerous requirements, the potential income form abuse might make it worthwhile for even uninvolved parents to jump through some hoops to get a sizable kickback.

Which brings me to the second factor, public mindset. Right now a lot of these programs are relatively new, and most are the outcome of enraged parents and troubled school systems. Politicians have often allowed vouchers as a last resort when confronted by parents up in arms over troubled schools. Under those circumstances politicians have had little opportunity to use the program to exercise control over private schools. But that would not be the case with a long-standing, widespread program. In that case, it is unlikely enough parents would be either up in arms, or even actively upset with the schools, to stand n the way of what politicians could sell as "common sense restrictions".  No longer approving vouchers as a last ditch effort to save a failing system, but as a national program to improve schools, it could be relatively easy to use them to exercise some small amount of control over recipient schools.

And that is my final point. Vouchers, right now, are mostly "pilot programs", and, despite their intended purpose, pilot programs often are poor predictors of how projects would work on a larger scale. Pilot programs, be they magnet schools or vouchers, tend to draw involved parents, who do not match the general public in their involvement in their children's education. In addition, aware that all eyes are on them, bureaucrats administering pilot programs behave in ways they never would on a normal basis. And, finally, pilot programs tend to receive resources that could not be maintained on a daily basis for each school.

And that is the danger of pilot programs. While for a time, or even long term, a handful of schools can maintain active, involved parents, and bureaucrats acting as if all eyes are watching, once that program is the rule rather than the exception, it will be filled with apathetic as well as attentive parents, and bureaucrats will realize they are not being watched, and revert to form. And that will change radically the circumstance from those that prevailed in the pilot program.

In terms specific to our case, it will mean that more and more fund will be available, leaving open the possibility of fraud. In addition, with more and more parents receiving funds, the chance they will be receptive to potential fraud rises.  And, while for a small program, administrators may be happy to decide voucher eligibility on a case-by-case basis for schools, faced with a massive flood of vouchers, they will feel the need to certify on a school by school basis, instituting those controls I fear will cost schools their autonomy.

And so, though it might work as an exceptional, pilot program, on a relatively small scale, with a watchful public and involved parents, as a general rule, with everyone participating, and huge funds available, I think it will eventually lead to the breakdown of private schools I predicted.

POSTSCRIPT

Keep an eye on the blog. Later today I hope to apply the rules I developed above for pilot programs to the whole "magnet school" phenomenon and explain why we can't have every school run as a magnet school. In short, why our defective public schools are, sadly, probably the best we can expect from public education. (Well, not quite the best, but pretty close.)