I appreciate well conceived arguments that call school choice proposals into question.  A thoughtful challenge presents an invitation to reconsider one's position in light of new information, or to apply a different way of thinking to one's current beliefs.  An example of such a challenge was provided by University of Colorado Professor Kevin G. Welner, in a 2008 Education Week article titled, "Under the Voucher Radar."  I commend the article to those who, like me, favor responsible experimentation with education tax credit arrangements.  The questions framed by Professor Welner will induce readers to think anew about some of the assumptions that inform their opinions.  In this writer's view, that makes for a good article - one to which the E-Mailer responded at the time of its publication.

Regrettably, Professor Welner's constructive article is more the exception than the rule.  A more typical, and less edifying response to a school choice initiative - in this instance, one currently before the Pennsylvania legislature - was provided last week by the Philadelphia Inquirer, and can be found, here.  

The article opens with the following: "It's hard to argue against the troubling fact that thousands of students are trapped in poorly performing public schools. But a proposed voucher bill in Harrisburg has serious flaws and raises concerns."  Its last sentence is: "A better course is to invest public dollars in public education, while holding teachers and districts accountable, and even closing the worst schools."

How, one might properly wonder, can the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer know that doing more of the same will provide"a better course" if it is unwilling to experiment with alternative arrangements?  Perhaps the current piece of legislation to which it objects does contain serious flaws.  The question is: if those flaws were addressed, would the paper change its position?  Must a school choice arrangement be perfect in order to contribute to something better than the status quo?  And why aren't Philadelphia's public school teachers and districts already held to account?

The Inquirer editorial pays lip service to the proposal:  "No doubt, the voucher proposal is well-intentioned. It is designed to help mainly poor students who are stuck in lousy schools. The measure would give state-funded vouchers to low-income students in Pennsylvania's 144 lowest-performing schools. The scholarship would equal the amount the state pays a district to educate a child."  The next paragraph identifies the dealbreaker: "Most of the eligible schools are in Philadelphia. The district could lose up to $40 million in the first year if a small fraction of the 55,000 eligible students leave."  Obviously, the putative damage to the district trumps the damage suffered by the kids.

Next, the editorial tell us: "By the third year, the bill would allow any student in a private or parochial school who meets the income requirements to get a voucher."  It then asks: "How does that help students escape bad public schools?"  That's not only a fair question, but one that can be put to an empirical test.  Presumably, the new arrangement would accomplish via market forces exactly what the Inquirer's editorial writers are suggesting: attach real consequences to accountability, "even closing the worst schools." 

What sticks in my craw is not so much the paper's opposition to a school choice bill containing possible flaws, as its refusal to countenance anything other than more of the same, its lack of willingness to subject its assumptions to empirical tests through limited experimentation accompanied by rigorous evaluation, and its apparent validation of the observation that the best is the enemy of the better.  Fiscal and academic accountability are important issues to be addressed in any responsible piece of legislation.  But how can such exhortations be taken seriously when they come from those who can offer no course of action other than pouring more money into the same failing schools?

Ron Reynolds