OPINION:
As more states add and expand private school choice programs, the conversation about how those programs should be structured, especially regarding curriculum, accountability and the intersection of public and private funding, is becoming even more dynamic.
Some experts have argued that all schools receiving public funds should adopt common academic standards and materials, and they have shown skepticism toward flexible funding approaches. These are not new debates, but they are increasingly relevant as policymakers navigate how to design choice programs that are fair and effective.
At ExcelinEd, we believe all students deserve access to a high-quality education and that public dollars must be used responsibly. However, we take a different view on achieving those aims, one that respects the pluralism of our education landscape while ensuring accountability for outcomes.
The call for common standards and shared instructional materials in publicly funded private schools reflects a belief that quality is correlated with the consistency of inputs. That approach is often deployed in countries outside the United States that have embraced choice as an integral component of their overall schooling systems, in some cases since those systems were established.
However, we are not the Netherlands or England or even parts of Canada, where faith-based and other public schools have a long history of public financing.
The United States has historically had two education systems, public and private, and it’s important that both systems allow student access to high-quality education. Private school choice programs aren’t building a new system; they break down barriers so families who might otherwise be limited to the public system, often only to a geographically assigned school, can direct their public funds to access existing private schools that better meet their needs.
That act of choice is why our choice programs must be regulated along a spectrum of accountability. Public schools are the compulsory system for most families. In most cases, students are assigned by the local district, which means many families are not there by choice. We believe they should have more muscular oversight from the state so families can track student outcomes and success.
Conversely, every family in a private school setting has chosen to attend that school, opting into a learning environment because it meets their students’ needs. We approach this type of schooling with a lighter regulatory touch because we know these families can make different choices if they are not satisfied. Families assigned in the public system, which often operates as a monopoly, must rely on outside forces — a strong accountability system and consistent metrics — to ensure that students are flourishing.
A handful of private school choice programs have been around for decades, but many have taken shape or expanded exponentially in recent years, the result of pressure from parents clamoring for options and refusing to accept the historically unfair system of geographic assignment.
In most cases, private schools participating in these programs are much older than the programs themselves, and they bring to the landscape a diversity of long-standing educational philosophies, many of which are mission-driven or faith-based.
Imposing common instructional requirements on these schools would require them to go against their foundational principles and potentially disincentivize their participation in choice programs.
The experience of Louisiana’s early voucher program offers a cautionary tale. Heavy-handed regulations — including the admissions requirements and requirements to take the state-mandated test rather than a nationally norm-referenced test, which many private schools already administer — led many high-performing private schools to opt out. This left families with limited options that, in many cases, included lower-quality schools struggling to attract tuition-paying students.
Rather than focusing on inputs such as mandatory standards and materials, states should instead focus on outputs.
When asked for our input on state policy, we recommend requiring participating private schools to administer norm-referenced assessments and publicly report aggregate outcomes. This respects institutional autonomy while giving families and policymakers the information they need to evaluate effectiveness. This approach, based on decades of success in Florida, enables transparency without heavy-handed sameness.
In recent years, many states have moved beyond the traditional voucher approach to school choice to adopt more flexible education savings accounts that allow families to pay for more than private school tuition.
Students can also direct their state education funding toward tutoring, therapy for students with disabilities, instructional materials, online programs, contracted services with school districts, exam fees and savings for future education expenses.
Some critics believe this will water down program quality or increase the potential for misuse of funds. We disagree.
A well-designed education savings account gives parents a wide menu of state-approved options that include front- and back-end guardrails for quality. Education savings accounts can also incorporate the same outcome-based accountability principles as voucher programs: norm-referenced testing, providing outcomes data to parents and publishing aggregate academic outcomes.
As we balance flexibility and regulation, we must remember that education savings accounts expand access to the kinds of customized, flexible learning experiences that wealthier families have long enjoyed. They are especially transformative for students with unique learning needs who benefit from targeted services, therapies and materials that traditional schooling may not always provide.
Though the model is successfully operating in other countries, a pluralistic education system in the United States does not require uniformity of inputs. It requires a commitment to transparency, quality and trust in families. Public accountability can be achieved without undermining the diversity and independence that make private schools and flexible education models such as education savings accounts critical for families.
As the conversation around educational choice evolves, it’s essential that we continue refining program designs to meet the demands of public oversight and the needs of individual learners. That means holding all schools accountable for student outcomes, not prescribing how those outcomes are achieved.
• Cara Candal is vice president of policy at ExcelinEd.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.