Neerav Kingsland has thoughts here. For example,
Enrollment targets would be required to be uniform across grades; i.e., you couldn’t offer hundred kindergarten slots but only fifty fourth grades slots. This would prevent schools from using selective attrition to weed out tough to serve kids. Moreover, it would force each school to equally share the burden of midyear enrollees.
I thought about some of these issues fifteen years ago. For example,
Determining the size of supplements for learning disabilities would be a challenge. As best as I can figure it, some government bureaucracy would have to identify the most desirable level of supplementary funding for a given disability. For example, the government might decide that a certain disability requires 40 hours a year of tutoring, at $25 an hour, or $1000 in additional spending. Then parents of children with that disability would receive an additional $1000 in voucher money.
In general, I think that it is better to use pricing mechanisms rather than rules to address fairness issues.
It’s a great read.
Kingsland suggests state-level funding, which is one of the big questions. If it’s at too small of a level, then there is not a large enough market for multiple schools to compete.
I am surprised that schools are limited to charging the amount of the voucher. Better schools must be allowed to charge more, or some non-price mechanism will have to be used to decide who gets to go tothem.
I think Kingsland is too optimistic about the removal of all goverment oversight. The government must still describe what counts as a “school” and thus an acceptible voucher target. Ideally this would be pretty broad, but it is likely to attract one wrinkle another. Consider what has happened with tax deductions, or with the specification of an Obamacare-approved health care plan.
Maybe the good schools should have to accept teachers from the bad schools 😉