Ron Paul - Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?

House Web Site ^ | 9-30-2003 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[jmc813]

Mr. Speaker, many of those who share my belief that the most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a means to that end. I certainly sympathize with the goals of voucher proponents and I believe that States and local governments have the right, protected by the Tenth Amendment, to adopt any sort of voucher program they believe meets the needs of their communities. However, I have a number of concerns regarding proposals to implement a voucher plan on the Federal level.

The basic reason supporters of parental control of education should view Federal voucher programs with a high degree of skepticism is that vouchers are a creation of the government, not the market. Vouchers are a taxpayer-funded program benefiting a particular group of children selected by politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, the Federal voucher program supported by many conservatives is little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education. Vouchers thus raise the same constitutional and moral questions as other transfer programs. Yet, voucher supporters wonder why middle-class taxpayers, who have to sacrifice to provide a private school education to their children, balk at being forced to pay more taxes to provide a free private education for another child.

It may be argued that vouchers are at least a more efficient welfare program than continuing to throw taxpayer money at public schools. However, the likely effect of a voucher program is to increase spending on new programs for private schools while continuing to increase spending on programs for public schools. For example, Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the DC voucher program, voucher proponents vehemently denied that any public schools would lose any Federal funding. Some even promised to support increased Federal spending on DC's public and charter schools. Instead of reducing funding for failed programs, Congress simply added another 10 million dollars (from taxes or debt) to the bill to pay for the vouchers without making any offsetting cuts. In a true free market, failing competitors are not guaranteed a continued revenue stream.

Many supporters of vouchers couch their support in rhetoric about a child's right to a quality education and the need for equal educational opportunities for all. However, accepting the premise that people have a ``right'' to a good of a certain quality logically means accepting government's role in establishing standards to ensure that providers are giving their consumers a ``quality'' product. Thus, in order to ensure that vouchers are being used to fulfilling students' ``right'' to a ``quality'' education (as defined by the government) private schools will be forced to comply with the same rules and regulations as the public schools.

Even some supporters of vouchers recognize the threat that vouchers may lead to increased Federal regulation of private schools. These voucher supporters often point to the fact that, with vouchers, parents will choose which schools receive public funding to assuage the concerns of their critics. However, even if a voucher program is free of State controls at its inception, it will not remain so for long. Inevitably, some parents will choose a school whose curriculum is objectionable to many taxpayers; say an academy run by believers in the philosophy of the Nation of Islam. This will lead to calls to control the schools for which a voucher can be used. More likely, parents will be given a list of approved schools where they can use their voucher at the inception of the program. Government bureaucrats will have compiled the list to ``help'' parents choose a quality school for their children.

The fears of these voucher critics was confirmed on the floor of the House of Representatives when the lead sponsor of the DC voucher amendment admitted that under his plan the Department of Education would have to begin accrediting religious schools to ensure that only qualified schools participate in the voucher program because religious schools currently do not need to receive government accreditation. Government accreditation is the first step toward government control.

Several private, Christian schools in my district have expressed concerns that vouchers would lead to increased government control of private education. This concern is not just limited to Christian conservatives; the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation league opposed the recent DC voucher bill because he feared it would lead to ``...an unacceptable effort by the government to monitor and control religious activities.''

Voucher supporters will fall back on the argument that no school is forced to accept vouchers. However, those schools that accept vouchers will have a competitive advantage over those that do not because they will be perceived as being superior since they have the ``government's seal of approval.'' Thus, those private schools that retain their independence will likely be forced out of business by schools that go on the government dole.

We have already seen how a Federal education program resembling a voucher program can lead to Federal control of education. Currently, Federal aid to college students is dispersed in the form of loans or grants to individual students who then transfer these funds to the college of their choice. However the government has used its support of student loans to impose a wide variety of policies dealing with everything from the makeup of student bodies to campus safety policies. There are even proposals for Federal regulation of the composition of college faculties and course content! I would remind my colleagues that only two colleges refuse to accept Federal funds (and thus Federal control) today. It would not be a victory for either liberty or quality education if the experience of higher education was replicated in private K-12 education. Yet, that is the likely result if the supporters of vouchers have their way.

Some supporters of centralized education have recognized how vouchers can help them advance their statist agenda. For example, Sibhon Gorman, writing in the September 2003 issue of the Washington Monthly, suggests that, ``The way to insure that vouchers really work, then is to make them agents of accountability for the private schools that accept them. And the way to do that is to marry the voucher concept with the testing regime mandated by Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. Allow children to go to the private school of their choosing, but only so long as that school participates in the same testing requirements mandates for public schools.'' In other words, parents can choose any school they want as long as the school teaches the government approved curriculum so the students can pass the government approved test.

Instead of expanding the Federal control over education in the name of parental control, Congress should embrace a true agenda of parental control by passing generous education tax credits. Education tax credits empower parents to spend their own money on their children's education. Since the parents control the education dollar, the parents control their children's education. In order to provide parents with control of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612) that provides all parents with a tax credit of up to $3,000. The credit is available to parents who choose to send their children to public, private, or home school. Education tax credits are particularly valuable to lower income parents.

The Family Education Freedom Act restores true accountability to education by putting parents in control of the education dollar. If a child is not being educated to the parents' satisfaction, the parent will withdraw that student from the school and spend their education dollars someplace else.

I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 611) that provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for in-kind or cash donation to public, private, or home schools. The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act relies on the greatest charitable force in history to improve the education of children from low-income families: the generosity of the American people. As with parental tax credits, the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act brings true accountability to education since taxpayers will only donate to schools that provide a quality education.

Mr. Speaker, proponents of vouchers promise these programs advance true market principles and thus improve education. However, there is a real danger that Federal voucher programs will expand the welfare state and impose government ``standards'' on private schools, turning them into ``privatized'' versions of public schools. A superior way of improving education is to return control of the education dollar directly to the American people through tax cuts and tax credits. I therefore hope all supporters of parental control of education will support my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.

[JohnGalt]

Ron Paul bump.

[Support Free Republic]

Your Donation Helps Counter These Guys
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[John Jorsett]

Several private, Christian schools in my district have expressed concerns that vouchers would lead to increased government control of private education.

This makes no sense to me. If you're concerned about governmental interference, don't take the money. What's so hard about that?

[ConservativeDude]

the man is a genuine genius

[Huck]

This is his argument for that:

Voucher supporters will fall back on the argument that no school is forced to accept vouchers. However, those schools that accept vouchers will have a competitive advantage over those that do not because they will be perceived as being superior since they have the ``government's seal of approval.'' Thus, those private schools that retain their independence will likely be forced out of business by schools that go on the government dole.

Not sure this makes sense either. If people are using vouchers to get out of gubmint schools, how can it be that the "gubmint seal of approval" would carry weight? If the gubmint is so great, they'll go to public school.

[inquest]

If you're concerned about governmental interference, don't take the money.

And then you'll go completely out of business, since all the other schools will be taking the money. Great choice there.

[ladylib]

The Association of Classical and Christian School's policy is not to take voucher money.

[inquest]

If people are using vouchers to get out of gubmint schools, how can it be that the "gubmint seal of approval" would carry weight?

We're talking about the same people (many of them Bush supporters) who eagerly embrace federal control over education, as a supposed "cure" to the evils of government education.

In other words, they're not ideologically opposed to government involvement, even when they do see failure. They simply allow the government to substitute one product for another, and think everything's all better.

[Tacis]

The secret to correcting the public school system is to get rid of the politicians, demagogs, and unions that corrupt core purposes to advance their own agendas. The same thing will eventually happen to any alternative system set up to regain direct control. Of course, one major but universally unacceptable change that should be made in the public school system, especially in high schools, is the abolition of interscholastic sports.

[Huck]

In other words, they're not ideologically opposed to government involvement, even when they do see failure. They simply allow the government to substitute one product for another, and think everything's all better.

I think the question comes down to choice. Is it better to have a choice between a handful of schools, all of whom are subject to some form of federal control and/or audit, or just one?

We can still have the debate about federal control, but in the meantime, families are sending their kids to bad schools, where a voucher system would help them escape that problem. Education is critical to the success of our system of government.

It seems as though a lot of people with a stake in this want vouchers, and the usual suspects are against them. That makes me inclined to be for them.

[John Jorsett]

And then you'll go completely out of business, since all the other schools will be taking the money. Great choice there.

Not if you're offering a service that people want. If the other schools are subject to governmental interference, then presumably it's hurting the quality of their product, and your school will shine.

[moehoward]

"Even some supporters of vouchers recognize the threat that vouchers may lead to increased Federal regulation of private schools."

Of course there will be strings attached to voucher programs.

As a parent I battled government schools for years. One day I put my money where my mouth is and put my daughter in private/Christian school.

Nothing would destroy this incredible learning environment faster than government influence.

[Verax]

John, this mentality is part of whats wrong with our Country today. The people have forgotten that it's THEIR MONEY.

Vouchers are not a welfare program for poverty-stricken children. We all pay for our children to go to public school. If we choose to relieve the public school system of the burden of teaching our student, the monies should follow the child since the expense has been alleviated.

How does this not make sense??

[inquest]

We can still have the debate about federal control...

Not with the voucher system securely in place. That'll make it harder than ever to get the federal government out of education, as it will be all the more entwined in the system.

There's only one direction for us to go in, and that's towards less and less federal control. Any other direction will be self-defeating.

[inquest]

Not if you're offering a service that people want. If the other schools are subject to governmental interference, then presumably it's hurting the quality of their product, and your school will shine.

People are going to go where the money takes them. At first, vouchers are going to come with few or no strings attached, so virtually every school will take them. Those that don't will look like extremist nutcases, since families won't be getting anything extra for the higher tuition rates, except some vague political satisfaction that they're not taking money from the government.

Once all the schools are hooked, then we'll begin to see some changes. As Paul said, some people are going to start objecting to kids being taught by the Nation of Islam "at taxpayer expense", and on it goes. As the restrictions start to pile up, few schools will be willing to take the step of breaking free from the cash. You see the same pattern with institutes of higher education, with hospitals, and with all kinds of other institutions that receive government money, including cities and states that receive federal subsidies: Nobody is going to let go of subsidies, once they become dependent on them. It's far and away the most insidious form of government control there is.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The schools that do take the money -- which has been confiscated from all taxpayers -- then have a competitive advantage over the one's that don't. Why should people be forced to fork over their hard-earned money to give a competitive advantage to schools they won't use?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Vouchers from state or county funds would work, but anything involving federal money is bound to be a disaster. That said, D.C. is a special case.

[jrhepfer]

This is a very tough issue since the lowest common denominator boils down to public interest. Were the public at large (taxpayers) interested in what was being done with the tax dollars earmarked for education, increased scruitiny would force public school systems to reform and produce results. Even if parents of enrolled children (a minority of taxpayers paying into public education) took an interest in the education dollars being spent, it would force the public school system to reform.

Sadly, many of us are left to fund superior education for our own children as well as public education.

The worst angle here is that, too often, schools operate for money and power and not the children. Take an example from the 1970s when my sister needed special education classes. Only one elementary schooled had offerings. During the 1980s, schools received extra funding for special education enrollments. Hence, almost all local elemntary schools began offering special eduaction classes.

Jump forward to the late 1990s. A shift has taken place where schools receive extra funding for children placed in college-prep advanced classes. Since these children must choose for themselves what classes to take, efforts to entice these children had to be made. Now we are facing vast offerings of advanced classes with very small class sizes, just to get extra funding.

Sure, these classes are great for the kids, but it puts schools into positions like a local high school here in PA. They will graduate fewer students than they did 20 years ago, but need more classrooms to accomodate all these advanced classes. Hence we are looking at proposals to expand the high school.

My point is, that the schools do less for the children than they do for their own power and income.

Please note, Pennsylvania spent an average of $8,673 per student in 2002. In 1997, the national average for private k-12 tuition was $3,100 and today could be closer to $3,500... still less than half of what Pennsylvania spends on students with much better results.

So I ask you, if I can educate my children for $3,500 why can't the state? The answer is that it is not in the best interest for school districts to do what is best for the children when they can generate this kind of revenue.

How do we change that? Remove the public school's ability to have a monopoly on the tax dollars.

How do we do that? I don't know yet. Hopefully we'll figure it out!

Regards,

Jim