Students dance in front of the Texas Capitol during a school choice rally, Friday, Jan. 30, 2015, in Austin, Texas. And voucher legislation was still unsuccessful in 2017.

Students dance in front of the Texas Capitol during a school choice rally, Friday, Jan. 30, 2015, in Austin, Texas. And voucher legislation was still unsuccessful in 2017.

For the children, give parents freedom to choose schools

I was pleasantly surprised earlier this year when I learned that my oldest daughter would have a choice of magnet schools here in San Antonio: Health Careers, near the Medical Center; Business Careers at Holmes High School; John Jay Science and Engineering Academy; Communications Arts on the Taft campus; and Construction Careers Academy at Warren High School.

Also around this time, Betsy DeVos was girding for a contentious confirmation battle over her appointment as secretary of education. She faced hostile opposition both from Senate Democrats still sore about the presidential election, and from teachers unions and public schools advocates who oppose what DeVos has pushed for years more freedom of choice and parental control in K-12 education.

The Department of Education arguably shouldnt even exist in the first place. It is a prime example of those powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people as per the 10th Amendment.

If the only thing Secretary DeVos ever did was fold that department, she would be a success. Short of that, promoting more school choice is a close second.

From T-ball to cheerleading, music lessons to gymnastics, my girls have run the gamut of extracurricular activities. Theyve been as far away as the YMCA downtown, or as nearby as baseball fields in Westover Hills. Distance has never mattered as much as the organization with which weve signed up.

So why cant we have the same choice with their schools?

Because at least here in Texas, where you pay property tax for your primary residence determines the public schools for your children.

This issue didnt appear on my radar until I took John Merrifields urban and regional economics course at UTSA. He has spilled a lot of ink on this topic, including a few books, most notably perhaps 2001s The School Choice Wars. Having just become a father at the time only heightened my interest.

We do have some semblance of choice here. In addition to offering magnet schools, Northside Independent School District lets children be grandfathered into the district if their grandparents live there and provide significant after-school care. One of my daughters friends was able to go to the same elementary school because thats where her mother taught. Transfers are possible for a handful of other reasons but are generally denied due to lack of space.

If parents were allowed, however, to use a proportionate amount of public revenue earmarked for education, they could send their kids to any school they choose, assuming it meets a minimum level of state-approved criteria (mastering certain levels of basic subjects by a certain grades).

Beyond that, the schools would be free to specialize however they see fit: art schools for musicians, painters and actors; schools that cater to kids who like to build things; culinary schools when Easy-Bake Ovens will no longer do; technology schools for computer geeks. The possibilities are limitless.

These schools would be free to set their own tuition: more than, less than or equal to the amount allotted to each child by the state. But those prices would be unlikely to stay put. For example, if a particular metro area turned out to have a higher concentration of young would-be engineers than schools to serve them, the price of tuition would in all likelihood rise in the short term.

Parents might have to decide whether they value those schools enough to make up the difference. As Merrifield reiterated to me recently, thats one reason the current system is flawed it lacks such price signals.

One point I stress in my classes is that suppliers react differently to prices than demanders do. Were all demanders and thus familiar with that angle: Price goes up, we buy less. However, only a handful of us are suppliers (excluding the labor we supply when we go to work), and thus not wholly in tune with how they react.

Those higher prices would emit a signal of opportunity for enterprising entrepreneurs. To enter the market competitively, theyd have to charge lower tuition or offer more for the same price or some combination of both. To stay competitive, existing schools might expand. They also might extend financial assistance to those excelling students of lesser means. What could be better for a schools reputation than educating the best and brightest?

More choices, lower prices, better quality whats not for a consumer to like?

All this assumes, of course, a light and basic regulatory touch. Otherwise, innovation would be dulled, disincentives would arise, current market participants would become entrenched, etc. In other words, a wet blanket thrown on progress.

Alas, as it stands now the only price signal that exists in grammar school education is real estate.

You know, were all familiar with good and not-so-good sides of town. The latter tend to be rundown, more susceptible to crime, gangs, etc. Perhaps not surprisingly, that negatively impacts property values and, in turn, minimizes property tax collections.

According to the Texas Education Agency, about 50 percent of public school funding derives from property taxes (roughly 10 percent comes from Uncle Sam, while around 40 percent comes from the state). It hardly seems fair that a childs education, the ultimate example of equality of opportunity, should be restricted by a socioeconomic situation not of his/her making.

The Texas Legislature tried to remedy this a generation ago by passing what is commonly known as Robin Hood, whereby a school district that has wealth per student that exceeds a certain level subsequently has that excess recaptured and redirected to property-poor districts.

And a generation later, public school funding in Texas is still an issue.

Perhaps an alternative to property taxes could be a county or metro-area sales tax, a rate that would apply to all areas of town and the local economy uniformly. This would be a most efficient way to pull the funds. No more artificial inflation of property values. One less inefficiency in the rental market. A lesser tendency to build arguably exorbitant facilities tied as much to property wealth as student outcomes.

The Texas Constitution states that the Legislature shall make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools, so some traditional public schools would remain. Some parents may prefer the convenience of a nearby school. Some may simply not be able to get a bead on what it is their child has a particular knack for.

It also states that a general diffusion of knowledge is essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people. Education has spillover benefits. The knowledge and skills a student attains benefit the general public when employed on the push toward greater progress and prosperity.

The Texas Legislature failed to approve its latest iteration of school vouchers. Sad.

No one is more vested, or has a greater interest in this venture, than we the parents. My daughters are my best opportunity to make a positive impact on society. Their mother and I are as integral to their education as anyone or anything.

It should be an option for us to fund their education with some portion of the taxes we pay, at whichever school we see fit.

A market of millions of parents cant be wrong.

Christopher E. Baecker manages fixed assets for Pioneer Energy Services and is an adjunct lecturer at Northwest Vista College.

Here is the original post:

For the children, give parents freedom to choose schools - mySanAntonio.com