Jon Merrifield, Kerry King-Adzima, Todd Nesbit, and Hiran Gunaskara explicitly declare their views in their journal, “The Property Value Effects of Universal Tuition Vouchers”, supported with graphs and charts on this form of free tuition. They compile statistics from the Edgewood Independent School District who tried this shunned concept of universal free tuition.
In the first subtitle, they recognize a low-income San Antonio school district, the Edgewood Independent School District or EISD for short. EISD is one of San Antonio’s smaller districts with just under 12,000 students in the 2008-2009 school year. The district enacted the Edgewood Voucher Program or EVP in 1998 with just over 14,000 students in the entire district.
The sponsors of the EVP gave the district $52.4 million dollars to provide education vouchers which would entail equal up $4,700 per year per child. This money ensured that the “families could avoid or leave, their assigned EISD school for the public or private school of their choice” (226). The number of free tuition vouches didn’t equate to the number of low income families. This meant that only selected families would be eligible for this program.
Next, they touch on the effects of the program by explaining how the EVP directly affected several crucial conditions. For example, the journal writers include that the creation of this program also brought the increase of new residents in the district. It also brought “a significant effect on property value” (227). With the district’s population on the rise, they needed to amplify the number of vouchers. They include, “subsequent data demonstrated that there was no basis for budget cuts” (227). With this in mind, the EVP sponsors adjusted the money allotted to each student.
They later add that although this program was known to some, there were families in the Edgewood school district that had no idea. They state that they “mistakenly assumed from the official name of the program, Horizon Scholarship Program, that proof of superior academic ability had to exist to qualify for a voucher” (Smith et al. 226).
Another point they add is the controversial fact that the voucher was only usable for ten years. This meant that they families were in a ten-year commitment to the Edgewood school district. With no talk of voucher renewal, families were beginning to worry about funds running out before their ten-year commitment was up. They add, “sustaining voucher availability for the full ten years might require tightening of the eligibility rules, or other program participation” (227).
Towards the end of the article they began to include empirical models that showed a very intricate breakdown of the costs of the program. The charts display everything from voucher price to median household income sectioned by district region. This basically put everything they said in numerical form. They also incorporate the effects of the EVP on housing and property value in comparison with the years before the creation of EVP.
This article was very informative. It shows how the concept of universal free education was an idea long before politicians made it a talking point in their campaign. This article not only brought in examples but they supported it with simplified charts and statistics from an actual district that went through with the idea of free universal tuition. I agree, free tuition should be implemented, but there has to be rules and regulations for it be carried out successfully.
Essentially, if a school is offering universal free tuition they firstly must make sure that it stays universal. The sponsors gave the district a set amount for a set time. Although they might have had good intentions, no matter how big or small a district is there should be funds to supply each and every student if it is going to take on the name “universal”. If I were a parent in a low- income household school district during this time, it would only aggravate me to find out there were universal free tuition vouchers were being handed out and I wasn’t informed about it. Struggling to get by and there was a way to ease the burden, yet I was unaware.
In the breakdown of the chart at first it was confusing to me. I see a whole bunch of numbers with subtitles and different headings. When I began to look closer, I saw how the EVP directly affected housing prices in the entire district. It then compared the vouchers between the grades and the passing rate.
One positive effect of this program was the rise in population. This in turn led to the rise of families looking for homes which made the district’s property value increase. This steered more and more people to relocate to the Edgewood District. With the rise in property value, the district started to gain more attention. More attractions, housing, and support from the district leaders.
A downside to the rise in population was the inflated costs of education. The higher number of students equals to the lesser amount each voucher is worth. As an indigenous Edgewood district resident, I would feel like every new resident is my competitor. Although a “universal” voucher only certain low-income families were awarded with the voucher. The goal was to provide a better education for these low-income families. Keeping the money in the district but allowing the family to choose their path.
I agree with the concept of universal free tuition because of the simple fact that 1.2 trillion dollars was the average student debt across the United States in March of 2016. No one should have to go into debt just because they want to receive a substantial education. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to get an education of their choosing. Whether it is at a community college or an Ivy league private institution. I also believe that the sponsors of the EVP program knew what their goal was. They too wanted to provide a free education for families who otherwise couldn’t afford it. I agree with the concept, but I also know that colleges and universities are businesses.
Big corporations that provide, housing, classes, healthcare, and food. Our tuition along with sponsors and donors pay for everything from wages to the making of new buildings. In retrospect, I would have better prepared for the increase in residents. If a nearby school district was basically giving out tuition vouchers to public and private schools, I would jump at the notion.
I know that down the line someone has to pay for these expenses. Whether it is a small school district of 14,000 in low-income San Antonio or a University with over 20,000 students in Fort Myers, someone has to pay for the expenses. Education is expensive. The EVP sponsors did have good intentions, but $5,000 per student per school year does not sound like enough to ensure the security of that child’s success.
In this article, universal free tuition in some form is tested in a small school district with low-income families out of San Antonio, Texas. The sponsors of this program set a time cap of ten years at the creation of this program. It barely stood the full ten years. With positivity in the back pocket, I know this concept was hard to follow through after the implementation of the EVP and the rise in population. In years come I hope there is a better and more successful alternative to graduating college with a lifetime of debt.
