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

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

[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