Reed | Indiana Lures, Keeps Residents With School Choice

Monday, May 16, 2011

Jeff Reed

Ohio can learn a lot from Indiana. To spur innovation and growth, we Hoosiers empower individuals and the private sector. Thus, we've privatized our turnpike, reduced the number of state employees and lowered taxes. But we didn't stop there. Today, Indiana is revolutionizing public education by taking a novel approach to how we subsidize it: We're going to fund students and let parents choose their schools.

Gov. Mitch Daniels recently signed into law what will be the nation's largest school-voucher program, allowing the tax dollars available for children's public education to "follow" them to the private schools of their parents' choice. In three years, nearly 60 percent of Indiana students will be eligible to receive vouchers. We hope to reach 100 percent eventually.

This restructuring -- along with other key reforms to charter schools, teacher pay and collective bargaining -- will make public education another reason to stay in or come to Indiana.

For a majority of Hoosiers, schools soon will be chosen based on family needs and not determined by their home address or arbitrary government decisions. Having attended Ohio's "good" public schools in grades three through 12, I can attest to the pitfalls of being confined to just one school. Freedom of choice works in all aspects of life; it can in education as well.

To that point, a new national report by Greg Forster, senior fellow at the Foundation for Educational Choice, shows that students who use vouchers and those who remain in public schools affected by vouchers are learning at improved rates. Of the 10 "gold standard" studies conducted on voucher programs, nine concluded that some or all participants benefited academically. One found no difference. As for public schools, 18 of 19 empirical studies showed vouchers impacted them positively, with one reporting no effect. No empirical analysis has discovered negative effects from vouchers.

A broad school-voucher model also has the potential to curb flight out of cities, a particular need in Ohio. As voucher-supporter John Norquist, former Democratic mayor of Milwaukee, recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal:

"If a young couple moves to, say, St. Louis and chooses a home in one of the city's revitalizing neighborhoods . . . everything goes well until their first child approaches school age. They might decide to pay for private education at one of the few such schools in the city. Or they might take a chance on getting into one of the city's elite magnet schools. But what looks like the surest way to enroll their child in a good school is to move to a suburb. . . . So although the couple enjoys urban life in St. Louis, they leave for better school opportunities."

Universally available school vouchers are not a panacea for Ohio's dying cities, but if they can help encourage families to stay, why not give them a try?

Ohio has tested the voucher waters for 16 years. Currently, the state provides vouchers to "disadvantaged" children. But, in total, just 8 percent of Ohio students are eligible. Such a small number limits academic gains, as noted by Forster, and fails to discourage urban exodus, as suggested by Norquist. Ohio should follow Indiana's lead and dive in. Make vouchers broadly available, with the goal being universality.

Encouragingly, state Rep. Matt Huffman, a Republican from Lima, has a proposal to do just that. The Parental Choice and Taxpayer Savings Scholarships would make 85 percent of Ohio students eligible for vouchers. Not only would that proposal trump Indiana's, it would have the added benefit of permitting families to deposit unspent funds into education savings accounts, which can be used for college expenses. That incentive will encourage parents to shop economically for schools (to save for higher education) and potentially provide college aid to students without new public spending.

We Hoosiers understand that an individual, rather than government, making such decisions increases our well-being, including in education. That is probably a major reason why Indiana was the only rust belt state not to lose a congressional seat following the 2010 Census. Ohio lost the most with two.

Hoosiers are sticking around. Maybe that's because Indiana looks to them to solve its problems and provide opportunities. Had Ohio done the same, I -- and likely thousands of others -- never would have left.

Reed is a state programs director with the Indianapolis-based Foundation for Educational Choice. He is a former resident of Norwalk.