You had to ask

Over at the Pittsburgh Comet, Bram asks what I think of school vouchers and charter schools as the cure for what ails the Duquesne School District. Here was what I said, in answer to his question and in response to someone else who posted a comment at his blog:

I'm not opposed to charter schools, and I'm not opposed to school vouchers that are targeted at low-income families, or families who live in distressed communities. But let's remind our libertarian friends that those are government solutions. Money for vouchers would come from public coffers, and charter schools are public schools--they just happen to be freed from some state regulations and can choose to specialize in certain areas.

In other words, even if government wouldn't be providing education to these students, it would be paying for it. And that's as it should be, because education is a public good. We rely not only on our own education, but on the education of others to allow society to function.

Now, plenty of people think that education is one of many things that the private sector could do better than the public sector. Never mind that privatization of a school in Wilkinsburg several years ago failed, nor that, to me knowledge, the nation's for-profit K-12 education firms have yet to actually make a profit. (I could be wrong on that.)

We can talk all we want about government bureaucracy, or union rules, but at the end of the day, one of the biggest determinants of education success is socio-economic status, and the big challenge is to help schools overcome the disadvantages that poverty brings.

Certainly, many public schools have found ways to do this, and some private schools as well. In Pittsburgh, we have the Extra Mile Education Foundation, which funds four K-8 Catholic schools that primarily serve low-income, African-American students. (And mostly non-Catholic, if I'm not mistaken.) These are great schools, and many of their students continue their success through high school and attend college.

But this brings us back to what Bram is talking about. I don't think the Extra Mile schools go out recruiting students. Perhaps they get referrals. I'm guessing that most children end up there because their parents found out about the schools, or were told about the schools, and made the decision to send their children there. They took all the necessary steps to enroll them. These kids may be poor, but they have parents who care about their education and are motivated to do something about it.

So the question is, how we can help those parents do even more for their children, and what can we do for the children who maybe aren't so blessed? Government can not do everything, you are correct, am in bp, but we have to acknowledge that if we just write off these children, than our most ugly predictions and fears about them will come to pass, and the problems the result will not confine themselves to Duquesne.

Here are some other thoughts I have on privatization of public services.

An inconvenient truth

The Trib addresses what Ross Perot might call Pennsylvania's crazy aunt in the basement: an inequitable system for funding public schools. This is the reason why cutting property taxes is so difficult. Without reforming the school funding system--which puts the onus for funding schools on local districts, and thus local property owners--not only will you be unable to offer significant local property tax cuts, but you will continue to have vast inequalities among school districts.

Some other states have reformed their school funding systems after state courts have ruled that they were so inequitable as to violate state consitutions. But a similar lawsuit in Pennsylvania failed a few years ago. (Though the Trib article hints that the current lawsuit over Allegheny County's base-year system could have a similar effect. If the system is declared unconstitutional, and properties statewide must be re-assessed, taxpayers may demand state-wide reform.)

The other hurdle to reform in Pennsylvania is the state's strong tradition of local control--and many of the communities that value local control the most are the most affluent and thus have the greatest political influence. Districts like Mt. Lebanon, Upper St. Clair and Quaker Valley can raise taxes as much as they want, because many--though not all--residents can afford to pay them, and they moved to those places in the first place because they were willing to pay a premium for public education. Taxpayers in those places will not be happy to pay taxes to support school districts in places like Wilkinsburg, Clairton and Duquesne.

But until and unless the state tackles school funding reform, we will never have property tax reform. Because unless you change the way schools are funded, any property tax cuts would have to be matched by an increase in some other tax. (And it may have to happen any way.) As any politician will tell you, there's no percentage in that.