Yup, I Like Vouchers

Summary:
Guess what? I now support vouchers. Two studies are showing that some voucher programs are demonstrating early positive results. And I can no longer find reasons to defend why low income students should be kept out of private schools when their public schools are failing.

The New York Sun published an article about new research that shows vouchers improved public schools in Milwaukee. The research was done by Federal Reserve Economist Rajashri Chakrabarti, and is available here. Further, RAND Corporation released a study that also investigates effects of school vouchers. Their conclusion is that it is too early to judge for sure whether these programs have or have not worked, but some programs have shown promising results, and program design is very important to the success of the school choice program.

I have two comments about these studies. One is that when more research like this comes out, liberals need to trust its findings and change their opinions just like they expect conservatives to do when studies show evidence that contradicts their beliefs. I don't actually expect either side to do this, but I feel the need to say this anyway. The fact is, liberals (including myself) yell and scream when conservatives say that people on welfare are just lazy, despite overwhelming evidence that most want to work but face significant obstacles (need for childcare, no jobs nearby, no easy way to get to jobs that are far away, etc). So if our goal is to improve education opportunities (as opposed to just trying to preserve funding for public schools regardless of results), and if it seems some voucher programs do improve achievement, than we need to adjust our thinking and support them.

My second point though is on the philosophy of school choice. I am finding it harder and harder to defend the opinion that we need to force people who can't afford private schools to remain in traditional public schools. The current argument seems to be that public schools are sacred institutions and we need to preserve them at all costs. It is hard to see public schools this way when so many schools are failing so many people.

There is often debate about whether education is valued in some of the communities where performance is worse. It doesn't seem hard to understand though why people would stop believing in education if they were in a place where the public schools were terrible and there were no other options available. Many of the studies I have seen show high parental satisfaction rates with charter schools and voucher programs - even when performance isn't improving. So obviously parents want options.

So after reading the results of these two studies, I am ready to support vouchers (I already support charter schools) in low income areas with low performing schools. The program should be specifically targeted to those in the failing schools, and should be direct subsidies instead of income credits. Anyway, I suggest everyone reads at least the press release of the two studies - or if you have to choose one, read the RAND press release.

It's About Time

So who else is excited that the NY Times finally ended TimesSelect? See, now when you read my posts, you can actually read the Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman columns that I link to. You're excited aren't you?

I would link to a column now to celebrate, except Kristof in on book leave, and Friedman's recent columns haven't been great.

I'm with Bremer

Summary: I don't think Bremer's decision to disband the Iraqi army was necessarily a bad one. And the problem in Iraq isn't this issue, the problem is that we didn't go in with enough troops and didn't plan for the occupation.

I have so much I want to write about, I don't quite know where to start. I guess I will begin with something quick. Recently, L. Paul Bremer 3 has been defending his decision to disband the Iraqi army and move forward with de-Baathification. In hindsight, both decisions seem to have been very poor choices. But I don't know if this was obvious as they were being carried out. Before I get into it though, I want to be clear that I think these failed strategies point to the bigger problem that the Bush administration clearly didn't plan for what to do with Iraq after they ousted Saddam.

I have to say, I think it would have been hard to keep the Iraqi army together after our initial run to Baghdad. The army was a symbol of Saddam's brutal oppression, especially to Shiites. And the group whose support we needed from the beginning was the Shiites. They are the majority in the country, and they have reason not to trust us. After the first Gulf War, we encouraged them to rise up, and then refused to intervene when Saddam crushed them. Leaving the army in place would have sent a very bad sign, and might have caused an even stronger Shiite resistance than we see now.

In the end, the reason this failed isn't so much a few policies that didn't work. It failed because we went in without enough troops and without much thought planning about how to handle the country once Saddam was gone. We need to focus on that, and not get lost arguing about some of these smaller issues - especially one like this where neither option is a very good option.