The Commodification Contradiction: How School Vouchers Prioritise Corporate Interests Over Students' Needs
In a recent article, education blogger Peter Greene raises important concerns about the funding mechanisms behind school voucher programs. Greene argues that the claim that vouchers simply allow parents to direct their own tax dollars to their preferred school is misleading. In reality, he points out, the voucher amounts often exceed what an individual family pays in property taxes toward education. This means that vouchers require transferring tax dollars from other taxpayers, including those without children in school, to fund the vouchers. Greene sees this as problematic, especially if those taxpayers have no say in how the voucher-receiving private schools operate.
Moreover, Greene contends that the current public education funding model is based on the principle that everyone benefits from living in an educated society, so everyone contributes. Vouchers, he argues, undermine this by diverting public funds to private entities. Greene believes that vouchers primarily benefit affluent families in expensive homes, while resulting in underfunded, lower-quality schools for others. He advocates for a more equitable approach of pooling tax dollars to fund a system that serves all children.
Whilst Greene raises valid points about the potential inequities and unintended consequences of voucher programs, a deeper analysis reveals inherent contradictions in the voucher system that disproportionately impact students with Individualised Educational Plans (IEPs). The commodification of education through vouchers creates a fundamental tension between the use value and exchange value of education. This contradiction has particularly significant implications for autistic students, whose learning styles and needs often prioritise intrinsic motivation and deep exploration over market-driven outcomes. By examining the voucher debate through this lens, we can uncover the ways in which market-based education reforms may reinforce narrow definitions of success and value, leaving little room for neurodiversity and non-traditional learning paths. This analysis calls for a reevaluation of the purpose and values of education, and a move toward more inclusive and equitable learning environments that celebrate the unique strengths and curiosities of all students, including those ‘on the autism spectrum.’
Key Contradictions in School Voucher Programs
School voucher programs, which allocate public funds for students to attend private schools, have been a topic of heated debate in education policy circles. Proponents argue that vouchers promote educational equity and improve overall quality through market competition. However, a closer examination reveals several key contradictions inherent in the voucher system that call these claims into question.
One fundamental contradiction is the tension between education as a public good and education as a private commodity. Traditionally, education has been viewed as a public good that benefits society as a whole. Public schools serve as a unifying force, bringing together students from diverse backgrounds and preparing them for engaged citizenship. However, voucher programs reframe education as a private commodity that individuals purchase for their own benefit. This shift undermines the notion of education as a collective responsibility and shared investment in the future of our communities.
Moreover, while voucher proponents often claim that these programs promote educational equality by giving all families the ability to choose their schools, in practice, vouchers may exacerbate inequalities. Families with greater financial resources and social capital are better equipped to navigate the complex landscape of school choice, supplement voucher funds, and advocate for their children’s needs. Low-income families, on the other hand, may struggle to access information, transportation, and additional resources necessary to take full advantage of voucher programs. As a result, vouchers can lead to increased stratification and segregation based on socioeconomic status, with affluent families concentrating in high-performing private schools while less advantaged students remain in underfunded public schools.
Another contradiction emerges between the promise of educational quality and the pressure for profitability. Voucher advocates argue that market competition will drive schools to improve their offerings and outcomes in order to attract students and funding. However, the profit motive can also incentivise cost-cutting measures and a focus on marketable metrics rather than meaningful learning experiences. Private schools competing for voucher dollars may prioritise flashy amenities, test prep, and selective admissions over inclusive practices, diverse curricula, and support for struggling students. This emphasis on surface-level indicators of success can come at the expense of the deeper, more transformative benefits of education.
Furthermore, the drive for profitability can lead to a lack of accountability and transparency in voucher programs. Private schools receiving public funds through vouchers are often exempt from the same oversight, reporting requirements, and non-discrimination protections as public schools. This lack of regulation raises concerns about the quality and equity of education provided, as well as the potential for fraud, mismanagement, and discriminatory practices.
Ultimately, these contradictions highlight the limitations and risks of relying on market-based solutions to address educational inequities. Whilst school choice and competition may benefit some students and families, they can also reinforce existing disparities and undermine the public good of education. Rather than funneling public resources into private enterprises, we should focus on strengthening and equitably funding our public education system, which has the potential to serve as a great equalizer and a foundation for a thriving democracy. By investing in public schools that prioritize inclusivity, critical thinking, and social responsibility, we can work towards a more just and equitable future for all students.
The Contradiction of Use Value vs. Exchange Value
One of the most fundamental contradictions in the commodification of education through voucher programs is the tension between use value and exchange value. This concept, rooted in Marxist economic theory, distinguishes between the inherent usefulness or satisfaction derived from a good or service (use value) and its market worth or price (exchange value). In the context of education, this contradiction has far-reaching implications for how we understand the purpose and value of learning.
Education’s use value lies in its intrinsic benefits to the individual and society. At its core, education is about the joy of discovery, the satisfaction of mastering new skills and knowledge, and the personal growth that comes from challenging oneself and exploring new ideas. Learning is a deeply human endeavour that enriches our lives and expands our horizons. It allows us to pursue our passions, cultivate our unique talents, and develop a sense of purpose and meaning. Education’s use value also extends to its role in fostering critical thinking, creativity, empathy, and civic engagement – qualities that are essential for a thriving democracy and a fulfilling life.
However, in a market-driven education system, such as one based on vouchers, the emphasis shifts towards education’s exchange value. Suddenly, the worth of learning is reduced to measurable outcomes, marketable skills, and standardised achievements. Schools and students are judged by their test scores, college admissions rates, and job placement statistics. The pressure to demonstrate “return on investment” leads to a narrowing of curricula and a focus on short-term, quantifiable results. Subjects and skills that don’t directly translate into economic gain, such as the arts, humanities, and social-emotional learning, are devalued or marginalised.
This contradiction between use value and exchange value has significant consequences for students, particularly those who don’t fit neatly into the mold of the “ideal” market-oriented learner. Students with diverse learning styles, interests, and needs may find themselves at a disadvantage in a system that prioritises conformity and measurable achievement over individual growth and expression. The joy and curiosity that are essential to deep, meaningful learning can be stifled by the constant pressure to perform and compete.
Moreover, the commodification of education can exacerbate existing inequalities, as students from advantaged backgrounds are better positioned to maximise their education’s exchange value. They have access to resources, support, and opportunities that can help them navigate the market and achieve the standardised markers of success. Meanwhile, students from marginalised communities may struggle to keep up, further entrenching cycles of poverty and limiting their potential for social mobility.
Voucher programs, by their very nature, prioritise education’s exchange value over its use value. They treat education as a commodity to be bought and sold, with the assumption that market forces will inevitably lead to better outcomes. However, this narrow, transactional view of education fails to capture the full spectrum of benefits that learning can provide. It reduces the rich, transformative potential of education to a mere economic calculation.
To truly realise the promise of education as a force for personal and societal growth, we must resist the urge to reduce it to its exchange value alone. We need to create educational systems and policies that honour the intrinsic worth of learning, that celebrate the diverse ways in which students can thrive and contribute to their communities. This means investing in public schools that have the resources and flexibility to nurture each student’s unique potential, rather than funneling public funds into private enterprises that prioritise profit over purpose. By valuing education’s use value – its ability to enrich lives, foster empathy, and strengthen democracy – we can work towards a more equitable and fulfilling future for all.
Impact on Autistic Students
The contradiction between use value and exchange value in education has particularly significant implications for autistic students, whose learning styles and needs often align more closely with the intrinsic benefits of education. Autistic students frequently display intense curiosity and passionate interests in specific subjects or topics. This intrinsic motivation to pursue knowledge and master skills is a hallmark of autistic learning and a powerful driver of intellectual and personal growth.
For many autistic students (myself included), the joy of learning lies in the deep exploration of our special interests. We may spend countless hours researching, experimenting, and creating in our chosen fields, driven by an insatiable desire to understand and engage with the world around us. This type of learning is often non-linear, self-directed, and focused on depth rather than breadth. Autistic students may excel in subjects that allow us to delve into complex ideas, make unique connections, and pursue our passions with intensity and focus.
However, in a voucher system that emphasises education’s exchange value, there is often little room for these autistic learning styles. The pressure to demonstrate marketable outcomes and standardised achievements can lead to a narrowing of educational options and a devaluing of non-traditional learning paths. Autistic students who thrive on exploring our own interests in-depth may find ourselves constrained by a standardised curriculum that prioritises breadth over depth and tests scores over individual growth.
Moreover, the commodification of education can lead to a focus on “normalizing” interventions rather than accepting and celebrating neurodiversity. Schools competing for voucher dollars may feel pressured to prioritise ‘therapies’ and ‘interventions’ aimed at making autistic students more “employable” or “productive” in a narrow, market-driven sense. This approach can pathologise autistic traits and behaviours, rather than recognising them as natural variations in human cognition and development.
The emphasis on market-driven outcomes can also lead to a lack of support for the social, emotional, and sensory needs of autistic students. In a system that values conformity and measurable achievement above all else, autistic students who struggle with social communication, executive functioning, or sensory processing may be seen as a liability rather than a valuable part of the school community. This can lead to exclusion, stigmatisation, and a lack of access to necessary accommodations and resources.
Furthermore, the competitive, high-stakes environment fostered by voucher programs can be particularly challenging for autistic students who may already struggle with anxiety, social comparison, and self-esteem. The constant pressure to perform and meet standardised expectations can take a toll on the mental health and well-being of autistic individuals, who may thrive in more collaborative, supportive learning environments.
To truly support the growth and potential of autistic students, we need educational systems that value neurodiversity and recognise the inherent worth of each individual’s unique strengths, interests, and learning styles. This means moving away from a narrow, market-driven conception of education and towards a more holistic, student-centered approach that prioritises intrinsic motivation, creativity, and personal development.
By embracing the use value of education – its ability to enrich lives, foster curiosity, and promote self-actualisation – we can create learning environments that allow autistic students to thrive on their own terms. This may involve investing in specialised programs, accommodations, and support services that recognise and celebrate neurodiversity, rather than trying to suppress or “normalize” it. It may also require a broader shift in societal attitudes and expectations, valuing the diverse range of human abilities and contributions beyond just their market value.
Thus, the commodification of education through voucher programs poses significant challenges for autistic students and other neurodivergent learners. By prioritising exchange value over use value, these systems risk marginalising and excluding those who don’t fit into narrow, market-driven definitions of success. To create a truly equitable and inclusive education system, we must resist the urge to reduce learning to a mere economic transaction and instead embrace the intrinsic worth and potential of every student, regardless of their neurotype or learning style.
Implications and Alternatives
The commodification of education through voucher programs and other market-based reforms has far-reaching implications for how we define and measure success in learning. By prioritising education’s exchange value over its use value, these systems reinforce narrow, standardised notions of achievement that often marginalise autistic individuals and other neurodivergent learners. However, alternative educational models that center the intrinsic worth of learning and the value of neurodiversity offer a promising path forward.
One such approach is self-directed learning, which allows students to take ownership of their education by pursuing their interests and passions at their own pace. In a self-directed learning environment, autistic students can delve deeply into their areas of expertise, develop their unique strengths and talents, and engage in learning that is personally meaningful and fulfilling. This model recognises that success in education is not one-size-fits-all, but rather a highly individualised journey of growth and self-discovery.
Similarly, project-based learning (PBL) emphasises the application of knowledge and skills to real-world challenges and problems. By engaging in collaborative, interdisciplinary projects, autistic students can leverage their intense focus, creativity, and problem-solving abilities in ways that traditional, lecture-based instruction may not allow. PBL also fosters important social and communication skills, as students learn to work together, share ideas, and present their findings to others.
Other alternative models, such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and strength-based approaches, prioritise the use value of education by recognizing and supporting the diverse ways in which students learn and express their knowledge. These approaches emphasise flexibility, choice, and multiple means of engagement and assessment, allowing autistic students to showcase their abilities and potential in ways that are authentic and meaningful to them.
By embracing educational models that prioritise the inherent worth and value of each individual learner, we can create more equitable and inclusive learning environments that celebrate neurodiversity and challenge narrow definitions of success. These alternative approaches recognise that the true measure of education’s impact lies not in standardised test scores or market outcomes, but in the joy of discovery, the development of unique talents and passions, and the cultivation of lifelong learning and growth.
Investing in these models, rather than doubling down on market-based reforms that commodify education, is essential for ensuring that all students, including autistic individuals, have the opportunity to thrive and reach their full potential. It requires a fundamental shift in how we think about the purpose and value of education, moving away from a transactional, exchange-based mindset and towards a more holistic, student-centered vision that honors the intrinsic worth of every learner.
Final thoughts …
The school voucher debate, one that I’ve featured here before, raises fundamental questions about the purpose and values of education in our society. As we have seen, voucher programs are rife with contradictions that disproportionately impact autistic students and other neurodivergent learners. By prioritising education’s exchange value over its use value, these market-based reforms reinforce narrow definitions of success that leave little room for the diverse ways in which students learn, grow, and thrive.
The commodification of education through vouchers is often touted as being “for the children,” but a closer examination reveals that it is more accurately “for the corporations.” By funneling public funds into private enterprises, voucher programs prioritise the interests of businesses and investors over the genuine needs and well-being of students. The focus on profitability and standardized outcomes undermines the very essence of education as a public good and a means of personal and societal growth.
To truly serve the needs of all students, including those ‘on the autism spectrum,’ we must reevaluate the purpose and values of education in light of these contradictions. We need to move away from a transactional, market-driven model of education and towards a more holistic, student-centered approach that recognises the inherent worth and potential of every learner. This means investing in inclusive and equitable learning environments that value neurodiversity, foster intrinsic motivation, and celebrate the joy of discovery and growth.
Alternative educational models, such as self-directed learning, PBL, and UDL, offer promising paths forward. By prioritising choice, flexibility, and multiple means of engagement and expression, these approaches allow autistic students to thrive on their own terms and develop their unique strengths and talents. They recognise that success in education is not a one-size-fits-all proposition, but rather a highly individualised journey of personal and intellectual growth.
Ultimately, the voucher debate is not just about the allocation of public funds, but about the very nature and purpose of education itself. As we navigate these challenging times, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to an education system that truly serves the needs of all students, not just the interests of corporations and investors. By embracing a more inclusive, equitable, and student-centered vision of education, we can unlock the full potential of every learner and build a society that values the rich diversity of human experience and potential.