Critically evalue the aims of Vouchers Systems for Education in General
Critically evalue the aims of Vouchers Systems for Education in General
From the beginning of the 1980's, Conservative party policy was highly influenced by the virtues of
the free market as advocated by a number of right-wing theorists and think-tanks. Like the rest of
the public sector, education was not to escape the wrath of New Right ideological reforms that were
to ensue. The principal aims of educational policy were to make the system more responsive to
industry and more susceptible to market forces; the desired means of achieving the latter being
increased parental choice through the introduction of a scheme of educational vouchers.
Educational vouchers emerged from the USA in the 1960's and have been described by Arthur
Seldon of the Institute of Economic Affairs as "a highly flexible instrument, with many variations, that
would replace the financing of schools through taxes under political control and bureaucratic
supervision by payments direct from parents thus equipped with a new ability ( for the 95% with
middle or lower incomes) to compare schools and move between them" (Seldon, 1981:1). The
subject of vouchers has been much debated in recent months and has, to an extent, been
implemented in the nursery and pre-school sector with expansion envisaged across the whole
education arena. The basic scheme involves vouchers being given to parents who have children of
school age. The vouchers, which have a monetary value of one years education, are passed on to
the educational institution chosen by parents or consumers (students). Institutions return the voucher
to the government and receive a monetary allocation covering the costs of education for that year.
This would entitle consumers to a standard place at the institution of their choice, but those who
could afford to do so would be able to supplement the voucher and shop around for a more
expensive place, perhaps in the private sector. This implies the creation of a 'two-tier' system with
those having the ability to pay, obtaining a 'better' or more exclusive education. The scheme would
remain under state control and encourages both state and private schools to participate. Advocates
of the scheme believe that it would result in increased choice for consumers, greater competition,
more accountability, responsiveness and diversity. In contrast critics argue that the scheme is
inequitable, expensive and bureaucratic.
The idea of introducing vouchers into education has attracted a variety of support from free market
economists such as the Adam Smith Institute as well as public choice economists including Milton
Friedman, to liberal educationalists including Chris Jencks. In his book "Capitalism and
Freedom", Friedman argues that education should be provided by private schools paid for with
vouchers. This would introduce the virtues of market allocation to the distribution of educational
opportunity. He suggests that the role of the state should be limited to ensuring minimum standards
required for a stable society. He argued that the use of vouchers would bring competition, thus
developing and improving all schools. This, in turn, would result in several advantages: "The injection
of competition would do much to promote a healthy variety of schools. It would do much, also, to
introduce flexibility into school systems. Not least of its benefits would be to make the salaries of
school teachers responsive to market forces" (Friedman, 1962:93).
Another free market economist, Adam Smith, argued that schools and colleges were protected
because of continual and permanent income from government which resulted in a lack of
effectiveness and responsiveness.
He believed this would be alleviated by introducing a market system, like that of vouchers, by
making teachers more innovative and creative. Smith also suggested that "the state should limit
...
This is a preview of the whole essay
introduce flexibility into school systems. Not least of its benefits would be to make the salaries of
school teachers responsive to market forces" (Friedman, 1962:93).
Another free market economist, Adam Smith, argued that schools and colleges were protected
because of continual and permanent income from government which resulted in a lack of
effectiveness and responsiveness.
He believed this would be alleviated by introducing a market system, like that of vouchers, by
making teachers more innovative and creative. Smith also suggested that "the state should limit
support to capital expenses leaving parents to pay the schoolmasters salary if they were satisfied with
his performance" (La Noue, 1972:71).
Vouchers have been promoted by right-wing conservatives as a means of empowering consumers
and breaking the monopoly of local education authorities. The introduction of vouchers would have
a significant impact on local authority funding because at present approximately half of local
government spending is absorbed by providing local education. Therefore, if vouchers were to be
introduced, local authorities would lose a major function and would experience a significant decline in
revenue. Local authorities would be by-passed with money paid to schools by parents rather than
the traditional method of LEA funding. In addition, democratic control would be eroded. Anderson,
in Brighouse, argues that "vouchers improperly take the governance of educational institutions out of
the scope of democratic deliberation and into a private sphere governed by market norms"
(Anderson,1994:216).
In December 1974, the Friends of the Education Voucher Experiment in Representative Regions
(FEVER) gave backing to a system of education vouchers. This was followed by an enthusiasm by
Dr. Rhodes Boyson (now Sir Rhodes Boyson) who was a former headteacher and now
Conservative MP, to introduce "the developing case for the voucher", which represented one of the
contributions to Black Paper1975:The Fight for Education. In this, Boyson suggested that "the
possibilities for parental choice of secondary (and primary) schools should be improved via the
introduction of the educational voucher or some other method. Schools that few wish to attend
should be closed and their staff dispersed" (Cox and Boyson, 1977:9). Boyson envisaged the
introduction of a "non-transferable voucher which could be issued for each pupil and the parents
would be able to pay it into the school of his choice, either state or private....Popular schools in the
areas would continue and expand, and unpopular schools would decline and close" (Boyson,
975:27). He believed the introduction of vouchers would have benefits for all concerned.
It has been claimed that vouchers will bring choice and competition. Voucher advocates believe that
they give parents the opportunity to make choices on educational rather than financial grounds. They
also believe the introduction of vouchers will achieve two objectives. Firstly, if parents are
encouraged to use their own money to purchase a school place then investment in education will
increase without an extra burden on public finances. Secondly, private finance will mean parents and
students will have greater freedom of choice with control over education transferring from the state to
purchasers. McLeod and Varley argue that in Higher Education "it is up to students to choose the
courses they want. Universities should be consumer-led. They should be competing for students by
offering choice, not dictating to them where to go" (McLeod and Varley, 1996:3). However,
Anderson notes that as market mechanisms, vouchers give parents choice only by enabling them to
'exit' the system and not through the power of voice about the way schools are run. She believes
that instead of relying on a free market, schools should be governed by democratic means.
By introducing competition into the education system it is argued that schools will become more
susceptible to consumer demands. Advocates of the vouchers agree that the current education
system lacks a direct link between consumers and providers; they argue vouchers would bring in
such a link. This development would make providers more responsive to both parents and students
preferences as well as increasing the diversity of courses of study on offer. Industry would also
benefit from institutions having to be more responsive as consumers will choose courses relevant for
future careers. This will provide industry with what it requires rather than what the government thinks
it ought to have. There would also be a greater deal of direct participation from consumers, parents
and industry in educational activity.
It is argued that vouchers will encourage institutions to make more effective use of their resources.
Institutions which wasted resources risk bankruptcy, therefore, they would need to ensure that
teaching methods and uses of equipment were efficient. Teachers would find that their traditional
'security of tenure' would be eroded as institutions would not be able to sustain inactive and
incompetent staff. Consumers would be able to vote with their feet and move to a more responsive
and efficient institution if the present one failed to meet expectations. In this sense, vouchers can be
identified with aspects of public choice theory in that only the leanest institutions would survive. In
addition, supporters of vouchers argue that they will lead to more cost-effective and accountable
institutions.
Vouchers, it is claimed, would also lead to improved educational achievement and would raise
standards as "the need to define objectives and measure educational effectiveness in order to provide
parents with information necessary for decision-making would improve or, at worst, stabilise the
level of achievement" (Maynard, 1975:47). La Noue suggests that vouchers may result in more
equality as children from families with low incomes would be given access to better opportunities and
that vouchers would enable children with special needs to be catered for more effectively.
Supporters also argue that vouchers will create new places as they may lead to an increase in the
resources allocated to education. In one example, a playgroup in Norfolk had taken on additional
staff and provided additional sessions because of the funds that vouchers had brought. However,
critics are sceptical. They argue that vouchers merely represent a shift in resources and that claims of
increased resources are exaggerated.
Critics also claim that vouchers are detrimental for a number of reasons. They believe it is difficult to
calculate the average cost of a years education with specific geographical areas having variances in
amounts. This has resulted in reports that vouchers do not cover the whole cost of education and
that the number of places available could fall as those institutions unable to compete could risk
closure. Popular institutions may find themselves over-subscribed and be forced to expand.
However, expansion may risk changing the character and ethos of the institution that made it popular
in the first place. Popular institutions may also decide to levy additional charges which would have
an effect on consumer choice.
Equity objections on the basis that pupils and students from richer families could get a better
education while the less wealthy are at a disadvantage also prevail.
Institutions may also preference along social class lines. Wealthier parents are likely to be better
educated themselves and therefore make more effective consumers. Problems may also arise with
special needs or disabled children who are more expensive to educate, therefore the voucher will
purchase fewer opportunities for them. Critics maintain that academic improvements will not be
achieved by introducing vouchers. In an American study, vouchers failed to achieve the purpose of
improving quality. One school lost 135 students costing $1 million and forcing the school to cut the
numbers of teachers and increase class sizes from 25 to 40.
A number of studies suggest that vouchers are an expensive way to run an education system, with
many people sharing the view that vouchers have more costs than benefits.
The overall cost to the tax-payer would increase and would contradict government policy of
reducing public expenditure. Voucher advocates believe that the scheme should operate in a
restricted market with consumers only being permitted to cash in their vouchers upto the limit of
available supply. Consumers would be given three choices and allocated spaces subject to
availability. Those failing to obtain their first choice would then fill vacant second and third places.
Critics argue that this is exactly the system which has operated for many years by the majority of
LEA's without the complication and extra administrative costs that vouchers present. Critics also
argue that demography can make the scheme inefficient in certain circumstances. For example, in
rural areas competition between schools would be wasteful.
The scheme is also disadvantageous because movements between schools would create more
paperwork, this situation would be exacerbated by offering increased choice to consumers. In
addition, critics suggest vouchers would significantly increase bureaucracy. In the late 1970's Kent
County Council undertook a feasibility study of vouchers, of which the findings revealed that
administrative costs were enormous. Similarly, this was the case in the Alum Rock experiment in the
USA where administration costs soared as a result of changing schools. The main conclusion from
the experiment was that vouchers were unsuitable in an educational environment. Pilot schemes in
the UK have also been fraught with problems. Conservative flagship authority, Westminster council,
described the scheme as a "bureaucratic nightmare" (Smithers, 1996:1). Critics also warn of 'pupil-
poaching' and concerns have been raised over possibilities of fraud which have been highlighted as a
serious issue as detailed in a recent Audit Commission report.
The case for introducing a scheme of education vouchers rests on the basis of a number of benefits
including choice, increased efficiency and accountability being achieved. Although critics point out
that further inequalities will prevail, it can be argued that measures to limit inequality can be pursued.
A number of egalitarians and left-wing voucher advocates including Julian Le Grand argue that the
inequalities inherant in the system can be overcome. Vouchers for the less well off could be worth
more than those for middle and upper income families, thus removing economic disadvantage while
simultaneously offering enhanced opportunities and increased choice. This type of system is already
prevalent under the guise of the Peacock-Wiseman voucher, which synthesises the advantages and
disadvantages of vouchers to give a modified scheme of provision.
To conclude, I would argue that within any voucher scheme there are a number of implicit right-wing
ethical values. The idea that individuals should stand on their own two feet and look after their self
interests is prevalent.
The idea of wider choice means that individuals can choose whether to stay with statutory state
provision or improve their life chances by 'opting-out' and seeking alternative provision with perhaps
a better provider. Although this may result in inequality, the right hold the view that the drive for
equality is done so at the expense of personal liberty; by trying to make everyone equal, the majority
will suffer. The right view equality as unnatural and can only be achieved by interference in peoples
lives. This would result in the more able being handicapped or slowed down with talent being
penalised. Individuals have differing aspirations and talents. The view of the right is that individuals
should seek to advance themselves to their highest ability. I believe that this is synonymous with the
idea of vouchers with the acceptance of such a scheme depending on an individuals moral and
ideological viewpoints
REFERENCES
Boyson, R (1975) Black Paper 1975:The Fight for Education, Dent, London
Anderson, E in Brighouse, H (1994) The Egalitarian Virtues of Educational Vouchers, Journal of
Philosophy of Education, No. 2, 1994
Cox, C and Boyson, R (1977) Black Paper 1977
Friedman, M (1962) Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago
La Noue, G (1972) Educational Vouchers:Concepts and Controversies, Teachers College Press
Maynard, A (1975) Experiment with Choice in Education, Institute of Economic Affairs
McLeod, D and Varley, N (1996) Voucher reports prompt 'come clean' call on Sixth Forms
The Guardian, 6/6/1996
Seldon, A (1986) The Riddle of the Voucher, Institute of Economic Affairs, London
Smithers, R (1996) Nursery Vouchers a Nightmare say Tory Councils, The Guardian 19/9/96
