Plato once wrote that "if a city is to achieve the height of good government, wives must be in common, children and all their education must be in common." While Plato's notion of communal wives and children never really took off (outside Utah), his call for quality education for the masses has endured. Whitney Houston, who is not exactly Plato, proclaimed, "I believe the children are our future - teach them well and let them lead the way." For many in this country, the public school system has not met Whitney's goal. Mark Twain once commented, "In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made School Boards." Over the past decade, standardized test scores have fallen, the performance of U.S. students has been surpassed by those in peer countries like Germany and Japan, and the cost of private education has sky-rocketed. "How to fix education" is now the hot topic for presidential candidates and soccer-moms alike. Some believe that a large part of the answer lies in the expansion of supplemental and special education programs that cater instruction and standards to those with special needs. Others, however, call for broader and more sweeping reforms of the system.
Among the most contentious and popular of these reform proposals is a "school vouchers" program that would use government funds to subsidize private school education for many of those who want it. Jed Bush, George W.'s brother and the Governor of Florida, recently saw his highly popular voucher program struck down by the courts. However, the legal basis on which it was prohibited, a provision in Florida's constitution, is not necessarily applicable to the rest of the nation. The issue divides largely along party lines: the two major Republican candidates for President support school vouchers, while the program is opposed by the Democratic candidates, Al Gore and Bill Bradley.
A good old-fashioned political debate, the controversy over school vouchers roots itself in everything from the Constitutional freedom of religion to the economic theories of Adam Smith. We here at SoYouWanna.net would like to give you our take on this fiercely contested issue. Read on because - who knows - you may even learn something (sorry).
1. LEARN THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF SCHOOL VOUCHERS
"As Americans, we believe that competition yields a better product.
Why not apply the same standard to education, making public
schools accountable to the community?"
The Argument:The Cold War is over and capitalism won. Why not let Adam Smith's "invisible hand" guide our nation toward a more efficient and productive educational system? Public schools in this country are plagued by mismanagement, inefficiency, and corruption. Recently, embarrassing revelations about teacher-assisted cheating have surfaced in New York City. Yet, for most Americans, public education is the only affordable option. If nothing else, the competition from private institutions would reform a public system designed to please teachers' unions and government fat-cats, putting the emphasis back on the students.
The Response:There is nothing un-American about letting the government control education instead of allowing private organizations to do so. Our government owes its citizens a public education system that works; the voucher problem is simply an attempt by some in government to shirk the irresponsibilities, passing this burden on to the private sector. Although competition would force some improvements, it would also lead to things like cost-cutting, manipulative marketing and friction - effects that, though acceptable in the business world, we should not tolerate in education.
"Why not let parents choose what schools' values are most compatible with their own? Right now, this is a privilege of the rich; with vouchers, it would be available to everyone."
The Argument: Right now, rich families alarmed at the erosion of values in our public schools - drug use, promiscuity, violence - can afford alternatives for their children. Why shouldn't the poor be given an equal opportunity? How can we suppress their rights in the wake of incidents like the Columbine High School shooting or the case of Amy Grossman, the high school senior who gave birth at the prom, abandoned her child, and then returned to the dance floor? Private institutions are able to escape the burdens of bureaucratic red tape and the stagnancy of politics. They can offer options that cater to the needs and preferences of specific communities.
The Response: One of the hidden assets of public education is its ability to instill understanding for wide-ranging positions, freeing students from intolerant and rigid traditions; everybody loses if we allow our children to be educated in insulated and homogeneous environments. Although some blame public education for the ills of our society, they should not be so quick to cripple a system with the potential to heal our country. Despite its present failings, our system is working to the advantage of minorities and the poor: test scores for minorities in this country are climbing steadily, and the rate of college enrollment has increased more quickly for the poor.
"Public schools are terrible. The government has proven itself unable to oversee education. If there are other institutions willing to take over, why not let them try?"
The Argument: Governments are good at things like taking money, making war, and enforcing rules; but do we really think Big Brother is caring, devoted, and intellectual enough to educate our young people? Can a community-oriented Catholic school really do a worse job than Columbine? At least if the government cannot carry out its responsibilities, it should have the humility and common sense to let those more committed and capable take a shot.
The Response: Delegating the responsibilities of education to private organizations, which often have their own religious or social agendas, is not only dangerous, it is also unconstitutional. In a country that separates church and state, it would be improper for tax dollars to be used to fund a religious education. The courts have ruled to this effect in striking down school voucher programs in Florida and Cleveland. The government might not be doing an ideal job of overseeing education right now, but it is the only appropriate institution to do so under the Constitution. Therefore, the government must improve public education, not abandon it.
2. LEARN THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST SCHOOL VOUCHERS
"The public school voucher program will drain money from the
schools that need it most."
The Argument: Even the most ambitious and daring voucher programs, like those proposed in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Florida, don't come close to offering vouchers for everyone. Instead, they are designed to give vouchers to some students at the worst schools. A common misconception is that, armed with a voucher, parents could enroll their children at any school - public or private. In truth, several obstacles would still prevent the majority of voucher recipients from ever using them: private schools are under no obligation to accept students, and would likely reject the majority of those with histories of behavior problems, learning disabilities, or unstable family situations. In many areas, the only existing alternatives to public schools are parochial schools, whose religious messages make them unappealing to many parents. Deplorable conditions await those doomed to be left behind in already struggling schools whose financial problems would be exacerbated by vouchers.
The Response: If the quality of education in this country went up, the effects would trickle down to all institutions - public and private. Of course, current voucher plans like those backed by Jed Bush in Florida focus on the schools that struggle most; it is these institutions that are doing the worst job of using tax dollars and operating efficiently. The competition the voucher programs will encourage will overcome many of the obstacles that currently stand in the way of a good education - selfish teachers' unions, unmotivated career civil servants, and a stale curriculum.
"The public school voucher program, marketed as a plan for the poor,
is of most benefit to the wealthy and the Religious Right."
The Argument: If school vouchers are really a panacea for what ails minorities and the poor, why are they supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, whose political base draws heavily from minorities and the lower class? The answer is simple: those with the most to gain under this proposal are not the working poor or minority communities, but the wealthy, who will gain tax credits for something they already do (send their kids to private schools), and the Christian Right, who are eager to use their vouchers to fund a religious education. Although these groups would be aided only slightly by the modest "trial balloon" attempts at a voucher programs in Florida and Cleveland, make no mistake - the proposal's Republican backers are aiming to expand the program, putting it to use for their supporters.
The Response: While the Democrats present themselves as the party of the poor, they are really the party of big government; Democrats in Congress and the White House have their hands tied by school unions and bloated government agencies who oppose the vouchers for self-serving reasons. Yes, the religious in the country would be well served by the voucher program, but that merely shows the program's broad appeal: it gives parents choices to do what they want. As for concerns about the voucher program being a payoff to the wealthy, legislation could be introduced that would prevent this unwanted consequence.
"Private institutions are not directly accountable for their actions.
There is no way to ensure they will act responsibly."
The Argument: Suppose your child is enrolled in a school and is being mistreated by a teacher. Or suppose he/she had a learning disability that required special attention. In a public school, parents have the right to make demands of the system, file complaints, and have their concerns addressed. A private school is exactly that, private, and under no obligation to accommodate individual situations. Similarly, though school vouchers offer assistance (though not necessarily full assistance) in paying tuition, there is nothing to prevent a private institution from raising its fees to the point where vouchers are no longer even close to sufficient. One need only look at the ridiculous costs of higher education in this country to see where private school tuitions could go. What then?
The Response: Opponents of school vouchers like to equate the program with mandatory private school. To do so misses the underlying premise of the program - competition between public and private. The school voucher program wouldn't force students out of the public schools. Instead, it would raise the standards for all students, especially those in currently failing public schools that, for the first time, will face real pressure to correct their flaws. If the private school system in this country cannot support students, we are no worse off than before, and, in fact, all the better for trying.
3. LEARN THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST SCHOOL VOUCHERS
"The public school voucher program will drain money from the
schools that need it most."
The Argument: Even the most ambitious and daring voucher programs, like those proposed in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Florida, don't come close to offering vouchers for everyone. Instead, they are designed to give vouchers to some students at the worst schools. A common misconception is that, armed with a voucher, parents could enroll their children at any school - public or private. In truth, several obstacles would still prevent the majority of voucher recipients from ever using them: private schools are under no obligation to accept students, and would likely reject the majority of those with histories of behavior problems, learning disabilities, or unstable family situations. In many areas, the only existing alternatives to public schools are parochial schools, whose religious messages make them unappealing to many parents. Deplorable conditions await those doomed to be left behind in already struggling schools whose financial problems would be exacerbated by vouchers.
The Response: If the quality of education in this country went up, the effects would trickle down to all institutions - public and private. Of course, current voucher plans like those backed by Jed Bush in Florida focus on the schools that struggle most; it is these institutions that are doing the worst job of using tax dollars and operating efficiently. The competition the voucher programs will encourage will overcome many of the obstacles that currently stand in the way of a good education - selfish teachers' unions, unmotivated career civil servants, and a stale curriculum.
"The public school voucher program, marketed as a plan for the poor,
is of most benefit to the wealthy and the Religious Right."
The Argument: If school vouchers are really a panacea for what ails minorities and the poor, why are they supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, whose political base draws heavily from minorities and the lower class? The answer is simple: those with the most to gain under this proposal are not the working poor or minority communities, but the wealthy, who will gain tax credits for something they already do (send their kids to private schools), and the Christian Right, who are eager to use their vouchers to fund a religious education. Although these groups would be aided only slightly by the modest "trial balloon" attempts at a voucher programs in Florida and Cleveland, make no mistake - the proposal's Republican backers are aiming to expand the program, putting it to use for their supporters.
The Response: While the Democrats present themselves as the party of the poor, they are really the party of big government; Democrats in Congress and the White House have their hands tied by school unions and bloated government agencies who oppose the vouchers for self-serving reasons. Yes, the religious in the country would be well served by the voucher program, but that merely shows the program's broad appeal: it gives parents choices to do what they want. As for concerns about the voucher program being a payoff to the wealthy, legislation could be introduced that would prevent this unwanted consequence.
"Private institutions are not directly accountable for their actions.
There is no way to ensure they will act responsibly."
The Argument: Suppose your child is enrolled in a school and is being mistreated by a teacher. Or suppose he/she had a learning disability that required special attention. In a public school, parents have the right to make demands of the system, file complaints, and have their concerns addressed. A private school is exactly that, private, and under no obligation to accommodate individual situations. Similarly, though school vouchers offer assistance (though not necessarily full assistance) in paying tuition, there is nothing to prevent a private institution from raising its fees to the point where vouchers are no longer even close to sufficient. One need only look at the ridiculous costs of higher education in this country to see where private school tuitions could go. What then?
The Response: Opponents of school vouchers like to equate the program with mandatory private school. To do so misses the underlying premise of the program - competition between public and private. The school voucher program wouldn't force students out of the public schools. Instead, it would raise the standards for all students, especially those in currently failing public schools that, for the first time, will face real pressure to correct their flaws. If the private school system in this country cannot support students, we are no worse off than before, and, in fact, all the better for trying.
