Five Myths Surrounding School Vouchers

The Prometheus Institute ^ | 8/9/2006 | M. Harrison

[tang0r]

School vouchers allow individual families, rather than to school districts, to select the public or private schools of their choice and have all or part of the tuition paid. They have recently become a 'hot button' issue in many local elections. Some of the common misconceptions regarding school vouchers are addressed in this article.

[amigatec]

bttt

[gondramB]

Hey! You changed the title... interesting play on words.

>>A Woman's Right to Choose (Her Child's School)<<

[2banana]

This doesn't attack the main opposition to school vouchers - this will cost the teacher's union jobs as parents are sick of paying top dollar for mediocre results. Democrats in power will never let this happen.

[freemama]

Myth # 6: Vouchers are good for the religious school that take them.

Religious schools become dependant on the voucher money. At that point, the state who makes the rules about the vouchers can tell the schools what they must teach or not teach in order to be eligible to take vouchers.

Keep the state out of religion!

[gondramB]

>>Myth 2: "Voucher programs violate the separation of church and state, because parents can use government money to send their children to religious schools."

Money for vouchers is allocated to the parent, not to a specific school, and the choice of school is the parent's, and not the government's. <<

Interesting point - What if they banned other people who get money from the government from spending it at a religious place? - Like if Social Security recipients were forbidden to tithe? Nobody would accept that.

[stubernx98]

The 5 myths are interesting and true, but how about 5 reasons while it will work.

1. It is entrepreneurial, in that the best schools will win students.
2. It allows parents to pick schools that fit their children, ie, Music, athletics, business, technical, arts/crafts, religious, disciplined, military, etc. OF course all must meet the basic standards of the 3 R's.
3. Good teachers and administrators will get rewarded big time. Losers will culled.
4. Curriculum's will be based upon what works, and the bureaucrats will have a lot less influence.
5. Teachers unions will lose influence, and the left will lose funding.

I bet you can add more reasons why vouchers are good.

PS, wife a teacher and reading specialist for many years, and I have seen the system up close - shudder.

[Aquinasfan]

Religious schools become dependant on the voucher money. At that point, the state who makes the rules about the vouchers can tell the schools what they must teach or not teach in order to be eligible to take vouchers.

A valid argument, but in the worst-case scenario, we revert to the status quo. Here's how the worst-case scenario goes.

1) Religious schools of "religion A" accept vouchers.
2) State attaches conditions to vouchers.
3) Conditions diminish character of "religion A" schools.
4) New "religion A" schools started that don't accept vouchers, representing a return to the status quo.

Keep in mind that this is the worst-case scenario. Here's why I don't think this will come to pass.

1) Currently irreligious parents and parents of various religions fight over the curriculum of their local gov't school.
2) Under a voucher regime, these same parents will gravitate to schools that reflect their beliefs.
3) If the State attaches conditions to vouchers that diminish the freedom of nongov't schools, all of these parents, whether religious or irreligious, will unite to fight these conditions.

[Common Tator]

Myth 5:

Too many people scrimpted and saved to get out of the city school system. Like it or not they do not want to put their kids in a school system that has city school children.

If you looked at the election where the Democrats took back Michigan, you will find the issue that won the election for Democrats was over school vouchers. The people in the suburbs are not going to vote for anyone who favors vouchers.

Vouchers are a sure way to elect Democrats. You may not like it, but governors can't be elected being pro vouchers but they certainly can be defeated.

[Vigilanteman]

I generally respect your commentary, but you are wrong here.

The way Democrats sabatoged vouchers in Michigan and California was two-fold:

1. Told their inner-city minority constituency that this was attempt to divert "their" public money to suburban schools.
   
2. Told suburbanites that this was an attempt to flood their schools with minorities and gang-bangers holding vouchers.

The lie can be played for only so long before it is exposed as what it is. We already have cases where vouchers work (Wisconsin, Florida), so eventually the truth gets out. In the long term, the monopoly on gubmint schools must be broken to ensure an educated electorate for our future. Even failed attempts to do so have generated helpful half-way measures such as charter schools and magnet schools to stave off the demand for vouchers.

[SoftballMominVA]

Here is my #1 and really only problem with vouchers -- With government money comes government control. Many teachers in private schools do not hold the same type of certification that public school teachers are required to have. Therefore, these people work cheap--damn cheap too in some cases. I was offered a job at a private school at less than 1/2 of my current salary. What happens when these schools are required to have their teachers licensed the same way--the price of the teacher goes up. (Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that a license equals a good teacher. The license means nothing in terms of ability, but it does represent $$ spent on education and keeping up with current requirements.)

Much of what is wrong in public schools today in terms of curriculum, time spent on basics and programs that have nothing to do with education (in my opinion) are government regulated. How long will it take before the government starts demanding similar programs in religious and private schools? How will a private school be able to keep out kids that the regular schools have to take? How long before the first discrimination law suit? Days? Weeks? The first time a child is denied access at the private school of his choice because of a disability, there will be a bottom-dwelling attorney waiting at a courthouse door with a grin a mile wide ready to file.

The article states that the money belongs to the parent, not the system--perhaps for right now. But watch a boat-load of money start pouring into Christian schools and watch for skid tracks a mile long halting that idea.

Private schools are largely successful because they can control who walks in the front door. They don't have to teach the severely disabled, the behaviorally disturbed, the moderately retarded children, or the autistic. Schools that specialize in this type of instruction charge significantly more than the schools charge for "normal" kids.

Now I certainly do support the idea of being able to switch your child from a poorly performing public school to a better one. Absolutely. If a school can't pass muster, then the children deserve a better chance and if ultimately the school cannot turn it all around, switch out the faculty with teachers that can do the job. Do something until a solution is found.

But private schools will be ultimately be destroyed with the introduction of massive amounts of government money.

Oh, and yes, I am a public school teacher. It teach reading and English to 8th graders with learning disabilities. No I am not and have never been a member of the NEA or any of their subsidiaries.

[Sloth]

Religious schools become dependant on the voucher money. At that point, the state who makes the rules about the vouchers can tell the schools what they must teach or not teach in order to be eligible to take vouchers.

Has this happened with religious colleges that accept Pell grants, federal loans, etc? And if so, can you provide an example?

[tkathy]

Taxpayer money should never ever go to private schools, especially religious schools. People who want this should pay for it themselves.

[SoftballMominVA]

YES! It has happened! The case of Bob Jones University is the best example. They were targeted because of their interracial dating policies and lost their tax-exempt status.

Whether or not you like BJU is immaterial. They use no government money in any form to run their university. So, if they are wierd, I accept that, but at least you as a taxpayer are not paying to support their weirdness. Unlike the taxpayer money being used to support Ward Churchill and his ilk.

[Hendrix]

"Private schools are largely successful because they can control who walks in the front door."

Why would that change with vouchers? Private schools would still be private and could choose who they accept (based on grades, ability, no problem kids, etc.). I don't buy your arguments. As far as discrimination lawsuits, etc., I would just write that into the voucher law that private schools still get to choose whomever they want as students. Again, the government money does not go directly to the schools, so there will be no government control over private schools with vouchers (that will be written in the law as well). The best private schools will continue to be the best only accept the best. There will be new private schools popping up who will pick up the average students and problem students because there will be a demand for them with voucher money.

[Hendrix]

"Has this happened with religious colleges that accept Pell grants, federal loans, etc? And if so, can you provide an example?"

That is the argument that makes the separation of church and state, no voucher money to religious schools fall flat on its face. We already have vouchers for private schools at the college level (Pell Grants, student loans, etc.), and even to very religious schools, and it works. There is absolutely no reason it would not work at the pre-college level. There is no separation of church and state issue because the money goes to the student--not the school.

[Osage Orange]

Taxpayer money should never ever go to private schools, especially religious schools.

It already is.....

[SoftballMominVA]

You don't know much about IDEA (Individuals for Education Act) do you? That piece of legislation is a hammer in the hands of parents who wish to wield it. 504 plans are equally destructive and in some ways more so. If a parent wishes to sue under IDEA they sue the school. If a parent sues under the 504, they sue the individual who violated their civil rights. In most cases, that is the teacher. Yes, the teacher can be sued for not allowing extra time on tests, modifying tests, whatever the 504 says, they are on the hook and must provide their own legal defense and pay whatever costs are handed down by the courts. I **think** but am not positive, that under 504, the loser pays the others legal bills. I know that is true under IDEA, just not positive about 504's.

So you think a private school can keep out kids with IEP's and 504's who otherwise fit the requirements? That is discrimination and the private school will pay a heavy cost for that discrimination.

[sportutegrl]

Looks like you went to a public school.

Vouchers are good for the religious school that take them.

Vouchers are good for the religious schools that take them.

Religious schools become dependant on the voucher money.

Religious schools become dependent on the voucher money.

[Hendrix]

Modify the law so as to remove that illogical result. Look, this works at the college level and there is no reason is should not be allowed at the pre-college level. Furthermore, private schools that are worried about government control can just refuse to take vouchers.

[Sloth]

Whether or not you like BJU is immaterial. They use no government money in any form to run their university.

Uh, if they accept no government money and were still 'targeted', then it just proves my point. That's not an argument against vouchers.

[Hendrix]

BJU has nothing to do with vouchers. There are plenty of very religious colleges that are fully qualified to accept any type of government grant and government assisted loans, and they can pretty much teach anything they like. It works people and has been working for many years.

[Hendrix]

By the way, private religious universities can refuse to accept students on many grounds (academic, etc.), including religious beliefs and they are not hit with discrimination. The same religious schools can even dictate how the student must live (no sex, no drinking, etc.) as a student and there is no problem.

[SoftballMominVA]

They were tax-exempt. They lost that status because of their beliefs. It was de-facto support. They are now a non-profit.

[sportutegrl]

There is a revolution coming against unions and public schools. Property tax rates have been rising much faster than inflation when there should be no increases at all due to the high increases in house values. In our school district the local Catholic schools charge between 4 and 6 thousand per year per child. Our district budget is about 120 million for 7000 students. If you don't know why that is bad then you had a public school education. For that amount of money, our district consistently scores in the bottom percentile among school districts in the state.

The government should give vouchers out to everyone that wants one and only provide for special education and a school of last resort. First, this would give children and their parents a much needed incentive to behave and perform so that they would not get kicked out of their choice private school. Second, this would reduce the number of parents who falsely claim that their child has special needs so that they get special treatment. Special Education should only be provided for truly needy children, not parents who are gaming the system. Finally, since private schools charge a fraction of public schools, think of the tax money that would be saved.

[Protagoras]

Keep the state out of religion!

Bingo!

Vouchers come with strings. Vouchers are nothing more than the government takeover of private schools.

Abolish government schools instead and the problem disappears.

[SoftballMominVA]

Maybe I'm just a cynic and you are hopeful. I just see any acceptance of government $$ as a path to destruction. You see it a different way.

I'd rather you be right than me since your way has fewer possibilities of litigation. I admit I am 100% cynical in this area. I just can't imagine the government allowing massive amounts of $$ going to schools without their asserting control.

Again, if vouchers do come to pass, I would rather be wrong and you right.

[Hendrix]

And there are thousands of religious universities that have not lost their tax exempt status and our tax dollars flow to those schools and religion is taught and is even a required subject in those schools. The separation of church and state argument falls flat when that fact is trotted out.

[Hendrix]

Again, private schools do not have to accept vouchers, and I would be against any law that required them to do so. If too much government control comes with vouchers, then there will be demand for private schools that don't accept vouchers and that don't have such control. That is how our free market system works. I am not the least bit scared of any aspect of vouchers because I would model it after the college system that we have now. It works and has been working for years. All this is chicken little talk to me.

[Hendrix]

I think part of the opposition to vouchers is from parents who have children in private schools and who do not want other children (who cannot afford those schools) to get the same education that their children are getting. In other words, these parents are trying to give their children a "leg up" on most of the other children with a better education, and they don't want that advantage taken away by allowing all kids to access to private education.

[SoftballMominVA]

So you trust private schools to do the right thing and use fair admission practices and not stack a private school with vouchers from perfectly behaved children who conform to a set standard.

Furthermore, you trust that the government will be a-okay with sending millions of dollars out to religous schools, either Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or whatever other religion wants to start a school.

In addition, you believe that the Drive By Media will not have a field day when they find some weirdo, whacked out school and point out that "HEY! Your tax money is paying for this!"

You have a lot of trust in the basic character of people. I wish I did, sorry I just don't.

[Sloth]

Furthermore, you trust that the government will be a-okay with sending millions of dollars out to religous schools, either Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish or whatever other religion wants to start a school.

You seem to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the government already does this by the billion$ at the college level.

[Hendrix]

Again, all your question and concerns are answered by the college system we have had for many years. Our tax dollars go to religious universities and they can teach and even require religion to be taught. Your concerns are not valid. Just look at our college system. Repeat after me: Just look at our college system.

[SoftballMominVA]

...and those funds only continue because the colleges dance to the governments tune.

[Hendrix]

...and those funds only continue because the colleges dance to the governments tune.

Well, that is the tune that works. They can teach religion with no problem. Your concerns are not valid and you just don't want to admit it.

[SoftballMominVA]

Repeat after me... why was BJU not allowed to continue its policies of interracial dating and then in the process lost its tax-exempt status? Because they did not follow the federal laws.

[Protagoras]

I have not met such people.

[Hendrix]

That is there right to do so, and the thousands of other religious universities continue to teach religion with our tax dollars and have been doing so for decades. BJU is not a good example to back up your argument. Furthermore, any religious school who chose to go the way of BJU could choose to do so, just as they can under the current system. Tax exempt status has nothing to do with vouchers. Even private schools now are mostly tax exempt. You have no argument lady. Admit when you logic fall flat.

[Hendrix]

I have not met such people.

What are you referring to?

[Kaylee Frye]

Why not? The people who pay for private school also pay taxes too! The point is that this is not the government's money - this is your money!!! People for too long have accepted this idea the tax money that the government has is just the government's money....

[Hendrix]

"I have not met such people."

It is just a hunch, but I bet there are plenty of people like that but they would never admit that is their reason for not wanting vouchers.

[Sloth]

You have yet to name a single example of a college being prevented from teaching/making whatever religious policies it wants due to acceptance of Pell grants and federally subsidized loans. BJU's tax exempt status has nothing to do with vouchers.

[Blackirish]

Myth 6...

The Bush administration was going to fight for vouchers.

[Protagoras]

I answered post #30

[Hendrix]

Yes, I figured it out after I asked you what you were referring to. Again, it is just a hunch, but knowing people like I do, I bet there are plenty of people who feel that way. Can you imagine telling the parents of a very exclusive rich private school that their kids will be going to school with some poor kids (who qualify academically) who can get into the school now because they have vouchers? Do you think some parents may be against that? If you don't, you don't know people very well.

[SoftballMominVA]

BJU is not tax-exempt, they are a non-profit. Non-profits and tax-exempts are two different creatures.

Once the case went against them and they were forced into a non-profit status,(and paid a large fine) they were allowed to have any type of policy they wanted. They did rescind the interracial dating policy about 5 years ago, but still keep the same status. I believe they keep it so that they can continue to have policies that limit admission, dress codes and curriculum.

I think it does apply, whether you agree or not. It applies because a school or institution that accepts any government $$ or even enjoys a tax-exempt status must follow many different types of regulations that intrude on every area of the school. Not following these leads to litigation and fines.

Here's a scenario--have any university try to regulate dress code tomorrow. Men must wear collared shirts and ties, women must wear dresses to the knees. Mens hair must be cut short and neatly. No possession of items from Abercrombie and Fitch or Hollister. The result? Someone would sue because that policy violated their freedom of speech.

The only reason universities keep their government $$ is because they follow the government rules. Break those rules and lose the money.

[Hendrix]

Tax exempt is a non-profit. You are talking to a tax attorney here by the way, so I think I am qualified to speak on the subject. They were a 501(c)(3) organization, and they lost their tax exempt status because the IRS deemed that they violated the anti-discrimination provisions of IRC section 501(c)(3).

Tax exempt status has nothing to do with vouchers. Most private pre-college schools are non-profit tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations now. The tax exempt issue has nothing to do with vouchers.

Brigham Young University has a dress code now. No beards, no shorts below a certain level (used to be no shorts). Again, all of the stuff you keep worrying about already occurs at the college level.

[Paperdoll]

>What if they ban other people who get money from the government from spending it at a religious place? - Like if Social Security recipients were forbidden to tithe?<

Please! Don't give them any ideas!

[SoftballMominVA]

I sent you a private reply about this, hope you don't mind. Just a question about something I don't understand, but is way off topic from this.

[tkathy]

All this voucher crap is going to do is send inner city kids to religious schools (including islamic by the way), no middle class kids will ever see a penny while we will pay pay pay.