Posted on 03/12/2003 12:51:00 AM PST by JohnHuang2
| At the beginning of the 1993-94 school year, D.C. Council member Kevin Chavous enrolled his 9-year-old son in Holy Trinity, a Jesuit-run parish school. Chavous explained to the Washington Times that his son "needed extra attention" as a result of his "starting to act up" in public school. The paper reported that Chavous was unapologetic about the move because he saw a change for the better almost immediately: "You have to do what is best for your children," Chavous said. There aren't many people who would disagree with that decision. As a wealthy parent (in 1993, Chavous was already earning nearly $150,000 a year as a lawyer), Chavous had the means to pay for private schooling. Too bad that he and other D.C. Council members who oppose school choice for their less well-to-do neighbors don't preach what they practice. A survey I recently conducted of D.C. City Council members (3 of the 13 members did not respond) shows that many of them send their children to private schools. Only Carol Schwartz has children who have graduated from D.C. public schools. Five (Chavous, Sandy Allen, Harold Brazil, Vincent Orange and Kathleen Patterson) currently have children who are either in private school or have graduated from private school. Two members (Adrian Fenty and Phil Mendelson) have toddlers; two do not have children (Jim Graham and David Catania); and three did not respond to my calls and e-mails (Linda Cropp, Jack Evans, Sharon Ambrose). At the same time, these "public" officials oppose school choice for the District, which would provide parents with the means to send their children to those same private schools -- or wherever they want to see their kids educated. Either way, the children would not be stuck in D.C.-designated educational ghettoes. Over the next few months, we can expect the members of the City Council to denounce efforts to improve educational choices between charter and public schools. D.C. Council member Fenty, who attended the public schools until he enrolled in a Catholic school to start the 9th grade, is expected as early as tomorrow to introduce a resolution condemning vouchers. It isn't a new phenomenon for D.C.'s political and educational leaders to fiercely defend the public school system while sending their own kids to private schools. According to a 1977 U.S. News & World Report article, "Representative Walter Fauntroy, a black Democrat who is the District of Columbia's non-voting delegate in Congress, has a child in private school. So does Sterling Tucker, black chairman of the D.C. city council." District officials who avoid the local public schools have counterparts in Congress. For instance, Heritage Foundation analyst Jennifer Garrett found in 2001 that 47 percent of House members and 51 percent of senators with school-age children sent them to private schools in 2001. Thirty-five percent of Congressional Black Caucus members and 33 percent of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus members sent their children to private school in 2001. Most of their members remain opposed to school choice plans outside of the public school system. In a commentary published last summer, Chavous wrote: "After overseeing reform efforts in the D.C. Public Schools, I am convinced that our traditional school system is capable of reform -- but incapable of reforming itself. Effective reform has to be radical in nature." Chavous personally engaged in school choice a decade ago. It is time for lower-income parents to have options beyond charters and traditional public schools. Casey Lartigue is an education policy analyst with the Cato Institute. |
So: Why hasn't school choice made more progress? We're still in the tiny-pilot-program stage, just about everywhere. Are the special interests simply too powerful to overcome, or is the enthusiasm for school choice more a matter of lip service than actual willingness to get behind it and push?
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
PTA:Parent Teacher Associations use scare tactics to convince parents that vouchers would cream off the pick of the crop, which would then result in a public school system laden with children with behavior problems and disabilities.
Response: Charter schools quickly pop up to deal with children with special needs, because their parents are necessarily more involved. Private schools would also be interested in special needs groups, particularly if voucher programs allocate extra funding for high-cost student programs.
Successful Private Schools: Private schools that are functioning well, have long waiting lists and have no need of additional students. They believe that opening the doors to voucher recipients would increase their risk of lawsuit exposure (statistically they are correct) and would bring some of the same problems public schools are currently facing (behavior, lack of parent involvement, increased absenteeism, increased dropout rates, reduced standards, lower test grades).
Religious schools fear public intrusion into curriculum and conduct.
Response: These points are all valid and true, theoretically however, schools would not be forced to accept voucher students. Undoubtedly, the free market would prevail and new schools would quickly open, fledling schools would mature and some public schools or charter school would privatize. It is critical that the liability issue be addressed prior to the implementation of the voucher programs.
Public School Teachers (aka, NEA): Public school teachers are the most fearful of the three groups. They see pay decreasing, loss of civil servant status (which includes early retirement), and classrooms full of problem children. They believe things would go from bad to worse.
Response: Choice applies to teachers, too. Teachers would no longer be at the mercy of a top-heavy or power driven administration. They would be able to choose less stressful day-to-day working conditions. They would also be able to choose to work with special-needs children in environments that are conducive to success. Vouchers would encourage specialization, and schools focusing on special needs would be able to develop programs in response to their population's needs. Teachers usually underestimate the power of the free market, if they even remember to think about it at all.
Personally, I oppose vouchers for the following reasons:
1) Public accountability: State laws mandate how public school boards are run. Any resident of the legal age can run for school board. School board meetings (except for personnel meetings) are open to the public. In some states like MO, schools can't even raise taxes unless the citizens vote for it.
By contrast, private schools, especially church schools, have self-perpetuating school boards usually chosen by the pastor or other board members. Board meetings are NOT open to the public. This is not a problem *unless* you have tax money involved. Then, tax money should only be given to institutions that are directly accountable to the public.
Some bad public school districts do NOT invalidate the public accountability argument. When the residents of those districts choose to let their schools go down the drain, the state takes them over - which is another extension of public accountability.
2) Religious independence: Religious schools, to maintain their doctrinal independence, need to be free of state money - because state money brings state control.
A corollary to this argument: not all religions are equal, and some religions should not in any way be helped along by tax money. Fundamentalist Islamic schools are a case in point. Should we spend tax money on religious schools that teach that Jews are "dogs and monkeys," and which black out Israel on their maps? They shouldn't get tax money to spread their religious opinions, even if they're allowed to hold them in this country.
3) Vouchers are another form of welfare: One reason so many voucher referenda go down in flames is because most middle-class voters *know* that vouchers are another form of welfare. Every voucher program advanced so far is means-tested, and only the poor qualify. Money for these voucher programs will come directly out of limited state education funds, since the poor districts don't even have the money to support themselves, and are already heavily subsidized by the state. This means that the state taxes will go up - and the middle class will pay, as it always does. There will be less state tax money for their own schools (which are *not* failing.)
And there are so many stupid "straw man" arguments displayed ... often they work because people are too stupid to see through them when the 30 second sound bite displays the "horrible reasons not to vote for vouchers" .. but a careful study of them shows that there would be significant benefits. (Read Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell for great articles supporting vouchers/free market, etc.)
The extremists feel that ANY government involvement is evil . . . but their rationale goes like this .."If the government funds it, the government can control it." Well, there is some truth to it, and to be honest, individuals can then choose how much government money for vouchers and how much government control they are willing to accept - and if they don't like it, then they can refuse both.
As Hillsdale College refuses ALL government money to avoid entanglements, any private school could do the same. Parents can send their children to Hillsdale - and arrange for non-government funding sources (not even government-backed loans are permitted.).
But opening up the possibility to ALL people means that the current system might improve. Granted, it can slide back down . .. but to refuse to allow the system to be improved is nothing short of mean-spirited to deny the opportunity to fix a system that traps so many lower-class people into horrible schools. It would be like being opposed to slavery, but unwilling to see the government do ANYTHING that might eliminate slavery - there might be good "excuses" why the government shouldn't take some action, but the results on the oppressed is unconsionable!!
Some anti-religious people wanted the post WWII "GI Bill" that gave returning veterans money for college to be used ONLY in public colleges. The debate was heated . . . but ultimately the decision was that the free-market would work better than any government controls. And they were right. About 80% of the money went to public colleges, but the competition forced the public colleges to change many ways that they did business, and the public colleges actually gained more "respectability" as a result of the increased funding. But without the "choice" option, the public colleges wouldn't have changed, knowing that the Vets couldn't go anywhere else . . . and the quality of the school wouldn't have probably improved.
Ultimately, if one city - Washington D.C. - granted vouchers worth 1/2 the cost of public education ($6,000 instead of $12,000) - the taxpayer would benefit - and the competion would probably make education much better. And to worry about the 1% - 3% of parents who might want to put their own child in a poor quality school that focused on religious indoctrination then ignores the failing 50% - 70% of students that ARE NOT SUCCEEDING RIGHT NOW!!!!
Walter Williams states that the D.C. School system couldn't have been more harmful to black kids than if it had been designed by a malicious KKK person. And the school is managed by wealthy blacks who don't have to suffer with the problems!!
My feeling is that people who would deny a chance to fix the present system are no better than that hypothetical malicious KKK'er .... or those Saudi "religious police" who blocked the doors on a burning school to prevent girls from leaving because they were not properly covered. Horrible ... just horrible!! For the middle-class people to allow the poor to suffer ... just plain mean-spirited!! (and racist!!)
Mike
The GI Bill isn't remotely comparable to vouchers. This is how a completely *equivalent* system would work:
1) the grant would be paid directly to the parents; i.e. the parents' name would be on the check, the parent would endorse the check, and the school would NOT be involved directly.
2) The parents would have to receive the money as a *consequence* of doing something for their country, like serving in the military. The GI Bill is a benefit given to veterans for their service, not an entitlement.
3) The student would only have to be enrolled in school. If he were enrolled in a school that had free tuition, his family would still get the money.
4) The family would probably have to *pay* for a portion of the benefit. Soldiers now are *paying* into a program that allows them to receive more under the GI Bill; those who pay less receive less money.
Note that there are fewer than ten, probably five colleges like Hillsdale in the entire US. To my knowledge none are engineering or technical schools.
But you ignored the point that the current system is a type of welfare payment .. one that benefits the middle-class while screwing the taxpayer and the poor. A true "constitutional system would abolish all government schools, and parents would pay directly for their own children's education. The government would not be able to tax people to pay for other children's schooling. But that will never happen ... like we will never abolish the Social Security system (too bad!).
Any voucher option would save taxpayer dollers and help the poor.
I am middle class, have home-schooled my 3 ... so I won't benefit. BUT I am not racist, I don't want to see the children of the poor consigned to horrible schools ... so I figure any voucher system would be an improvement.
But then again, there are those extremists who will discard a 60%+ good because it is only 60% good - and then let people suffer with a 5% good (and 95% crap) solution. (Sort of like the "Constitutional Party" members who won't vote for a 100% pure conservative - and will allow an extreme Democrat to take office over a moderate to conservative Republican. (And then when all forms of liberal trash are foisted off on us ... they suffer too, but maintain it isn't their fault ... WHEN IT IS!!!)
Mike
I don't agree that "all government schools" should be abolished. It looks like we disagree about that premise. Personally, I believe that government is required to play a role in many areas: in the interstate highway system; in sewers; in public health, and I include public education in that category. There should be no *federal* role in public education, but in general public education administered on a *local* basis is IMO one of the purviews of government.
The point with taxes is that voucher recipients *don't pay them* anyway. Voucher programs are means-tested; therefore voucher residents do not own their own homes (thus do not pay real estate tax.) They are most likely paying little or no state tax (from whence the bulk of education for the poor comes), and they are most likely *receiving* cash transfers under the Earned Income Tax credit rather than paying federal income tax. They pay sales taxes but that usually is a far smaller proportion of education funding.
Let's talk about race. Last I looked, NO voucher program has been extended to poor *rural* children (most of whom in this country are white.) Voucher programs have largely been directed at *inner cities* where the recipients are largely black. I would say that so far voucher programs have been predicated on *reverse racism* in that they disproportionately favor blacks as opposed to poor *whites* who go to inferior schools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.