Education Choice: The Ideological Architecture

by Wyoming Liberty Group Staff

As a political economist I am the first to admit that the final word on any policy reform goes to facts and impartial analysis. There are many times when I have recommended against reforms even though they were ideologically desirable, simply because the economic and fiscal aspects of the reform did not work out right. I have even lost allies among conservatives and libertarians by pointing to the weakness of some reform ideas that are popular in those circles.

At the same time, once the finances of a reform idea work out, it is desirable, even necessary, to have an ideological discussion about how to proceed with the reform. As I explained in my Weekly Economic Report on education savings accounts (ESAs), the finances of an Arizona-style ESA reform appear to be good enough to merit further discussion on the issue. The logical next step is to open an ideological conversation about how we want education choice to work in Wyoming.

Before we proceed, let me make one thing clear: an ideological conversation about education choice is not a conversation about "liberal vs. conservative". It is not a conversation within rigid party lines or political stereotypes. It is a conversation about a deeper dimension, where fundamental values and the long-term consequences of a reform come into play.

Inevitably, education choice boils down to the question of who has the final word on our children's education: government or the parents. Please note the term "final word" – the question is not entirely an either-or matter, but rather a matter of which way a reform will tilt the balance of influence. Government will play a role in K-12 education for the foreseeable future, but that does not mean it needs to have the final word on how our kids are educated. Likewise, even if parents have the final word it does not mean that government is taken out of the picture.

To see what this means in practice, let us compare two education-choice models: the Swedish and the Danish. Neither model is perfect for Wyoming, but the contrast between the two can inform our discussion on education choice.

Both countries have public schools with national curricula and centralized funding models, and both allow private schools under a back-pack funding model.

The Swedish system is designed to give government the last word on what choices parents can have. This preference is built into the system already at the stage of starting a private school. To do so, you have to file an application with a government agency called "Skolinspektionen", the national school oversight agency. The application has to be filed two years in advance. Once the application fee has been paid, the oversight agency sends the application to the school district where the school is to be located.

The school district writes a statement on the proposed private school where they assess how that new school would affect students and the school district's finances. Once the national oversight agency gets the report back they must follow the recommendations from the school district. If a district determines that the new private school would have "apparent negative consequences for the students" or for existing public schools, the application is automatically denied.

Education choice is permitted if government approves.

Even if the school district does not explicitly recommend against the private school, the national agency still has the authority to deny the application. In fact, it must do so if it determines that a new private school would add nothing of relevance to existing school opportunities. It. Is up to the agency to define "relevance".

Every private school has to strictly abide by the national curriculum. If the oversight agency, which conducts regular inspections of schools around the country, finds that a private school is not in curricular compliance, or has made unacceptable amendments to the curriculum, they can revoke the school's license to operate.

In other words, the Swedish system gives government the last word on what choices parents should have. The Danish model, by contrast, is designed around the parent. On the curricular side, Danish law requires private schools to meet minimum standards for "Folkeskolen", in other words the national curriculum for grades 1-9. However, unlike the Swedish system a Danish private school is allowed considerable freedom (my translation):

Government thus establishes a list of framework and content requirements. However, beyond those it is up to the private school itself to define how the education is to be conducted, if it shall be based on any particular pedagogical or ideological aspects, or if the purpose and operation of the school in any other way shall take any other ideas or beliefs into consideration.

The Danish approach is notably more hands off. So long as minimum standards are met, the individual school can decide how it wants to educate the kids. Parents can take their tax-paid vouchers to explicitly confessional schools, something that is close to impossible under the Swedish system.

Another difference lies in the funding model. While the Swedish model bans tuitions on top of the voucher and sends the exact same amount per student to a private school as it does to the public school, the Danish system allows the private schools to charge tuitions on top of the voucher. In fact, the system is designed so that tuitions are expected. While this is a debatable feature, it does allow the private schools considerable financial freedom; some highly successful Danish private schools can live entirely off tuitions and do not have to take public money.

By allowing, even expecting tuitions, the Danish system also involves parents and incentivizes them to be conscious about what schools they choose. Tuitions are not necessary to make this happen – it is simply one of the measures that an education-choice reform can include in order to help parents make informed choices on their children's education. Other measures can do a similar job, such as an ESA where parents can use the post K-12 balance toward college.

Overall, the Danish system is designed to give parents a large degree of freedom in determining their children's education. The Swedish system, by contrast, favors public-school status quo, confining private schools to playing an as-needed, supplementary role to public schools.

Neither the Danish nor the Swedish model is ideal for Wyoming. For one, both models are hostile toward homeschooling; a Wyoming reform will have to secure the liberty of parents to homeschool on their own terms. However, the Danish-Swedish comparison does highlight the role of the ideological architecture: it matters if an education-choice reform is designed around government or around the parents.