We’ve emphasized that school choice isn’t a cure-all, in keeping with the wise words of Rick Hess. But it’s virtues are often misunderstood.

This morning, Matt Yglesias responded to anti-voucher rumblings from Kevin Drum as follows:

I once wrote a long and very anti-voucher article precisely about these findings out of Milwaukee. Since that time, I’ve really changed my mind about what this shows. More statistically sophisticated studies tend to show exactly what statistically sophisticated studies of charter lotteries show, namely that kids who get to take advantage of choice programs do exactly the same on average as demographically similar kids who don’t. And yet, the families who win are happier. So say at a minimum this is a strong argument in favor of choice. People should be free to have more choices and be happier unless we have a really compelling paternalistic argument that this has bad long-term results, which we don’t. Also note that in a competitive equilibrium the Milwaukee “choice” schools and “regular” Milwaukee schools should all be equally good since they’re all competing on a level playing field. [Emphasis added]

Two points in re: the above passage:

(1) As Stuart Buck reminded us last month, a 15-state Mathematica study of charter schools yielded a different conclusion:

We found that study charter schools serving more low income or low achieving students had statistically significant positive effects on math test scores, while charter schools serving more advantaged students—those with higher income and prior achievement—had significant negative effects on math test scores.

As Buck explains, the average masks the fact that charters proved to be a boon for low income and poor-scoring students while harming richer and higher-scoring students’ test scores. It could be that the parents of richer and higher-scoring students are interested in other dimensions of school quality, e.g., whether the school offers a congenial, supportive environment.

(2) I think Matt’s argument that more choice is a good thing as long as we’re pretty sure it’s not an affirmatively bad thing is a very good one, and should be emphasized more than it is by choice advocates.

I would, however, add that there is another important fact about the Milwaukee public schools (MPS) and choice schools (MPCP), cited in this press release from the pro-school choice American Federation for Children:

The MPCP is the longest-running school choice program in the United States. The program, which now boasts more than 20,000 participants, costs taxpayers $6,442 per student. By comparison, Milwaukee Public Schools spending is $15,034 per student, more than twice the cost of the MPCP.

So it seems worth mentioning that MPCP schools are performing about as well as MPS with demographically similar students at far lower cost to taxpayers. To be sure, this could be because MPCP schools are cross-subsidized, though I can’t imagine that accounts for all of the difference or even most of it. Moreover, subsidies in the form of private donations have long been a part of the American educational system, and can represent the depth of a community’s commitment to a school.

Much depends on the structure of a voucher program. Indiana’s new voucher legislation, for example, might cost the state government more than the status quo if a small fix isn’t made, if Cato’s Adam Schaeffer is on target.

I intend to write in greater detail about the new voucher proposals in Indiana and Tennessee. If you see any good, thorough analysis of either, drop me a line.