Posted on 10/13/2003 7:39:22 AM PDT by jmc813
How do we do that? I don't know yet. Hopefully we'll figure it out!
I know there are some school districts that are coping with budget cuts by imposing "user fees" such as requiring parents to pay for books and other ancillaries. This is a trend we should encourage. For one thing, people who pay directly for something are going to take more of an interest in it. It's human nature. And secondly, it'll encourage more people to switch to private schools or homeschooling, without the need for vouchers. After all, they'll figure, if we're already having to pay, we might as well pay for something good.
Vouchers are no more than scholarships that are available to all who meet the criteria of need, and not based on grades. We have had federally-funded scholarships for all universities, including private and parochial ones, since the G.I. Bill revised in 1945 sent millions of veterans to hundreds of institutions including Notre Dame.
There is no doubt that the Left-Dems and their "edukashun" union allies WANT to use vouchers to extend their disastrous policies from the public system into the private and parochial schools. But as long as the voucher plans are written just like the G.I. Bill (the students/parents make a free choice of institution, and then the funds are paid into the student's account), this will not happen.
That is the central point that Ron Paul misses, because of his ideological blinders.
Congressman Billybob
Not if, as feared here, the government loads them with regulation. If they have to pay union scale, have certain class sizes, teach a certain curriculum, and so forth, then their "competetive advantage" will be nil if not negative. And if they aren't saddled with a bunch of rules, then the private schools are free to accept the money, so no big deal.
Article of Interest - Court Cases
Vouchers: Proceed with Caution
The Supreme Court’s Cleveland ruling, a stunning victory for public education reform, could loose a boa
constrictor on private schools.
M. David Stirling, California Political Review, July 17, 2002
M. David Stirling, vice president of Pacific Legal Foundation www.pacificlegal.org, writes a regular column, “Those
in Power Over Us,” in California Political Review.
The recent Supreme Court decision holding constitutional Cleveland’s use of taxpayer- funded vouchers at private
and parochial schools is touted in glowing terms by most conservative commentators. “The most important
civil-rights case in almost 50 years,” declares one. “One of the most significant political decisions ever made by the
Court,” comments another, adding that the “decision will do more to rescue a deteriorating educational system than
any other act to come from Washington, D.C.,” in 25 years. And I agree with both assessments. Indeed, recognizing
the forces in conflict within the public education arena, I am heartened that vouchers, as a concept, were preserved
by the High Court as a viable alternative in the ongoing public education debate.
Yet, while vouchers may be an effective vehicle for introducing “competition” into the moribund public education
monopoly, I am troubled by a rarely discussed, but undeniable, fact of modern government regulatory life: where
taxpayer-generated revenues fund education vouchers that are redeemable by students at private or parochial
schools, state legislatures are empowered to tie regulatory strings to the recipient schools’ acceptance of vouchers.
While vouchers may be good medicine for public education’s many ailments and the thousands of children locked
into poorly performing schools, I fear the mischief those responsible for the dismal state of public education today
will wreak on participating private and parochial schools. The independence of such schools — indeed, their
distinguishing characteristic — is imperiled by the public revenues used to fund vouchers.
In the Cleveland voucher case, the Supreme Court found only that student use of public vouchers at private schools
is not unconstitutional. The Court did not address how state adoption of a public voucher system might affect
participating private or parochial schools. But it clearly spoke to that question back in 1984, in a case called Grove
City College v. Bell, Secretary of Education.
Grove City College, a private, co-educational, liberal arts college, chose not to accept direct federal financial
assistance specifically to avoid the regulatory conditions that follow receipt of “public funds.” Also, it did not
directly accept federal student grant funds. But the College did enroll students who themselves directly received
federal student grants and used them to pay tuition. On that basis, the federal Department of Education sought to
force the College’s compliance with its regulations. When the College objected, the Department terminated it as an
approved institution for redemption of its student grants.
In short order the Supreme Court rejected the College’s argument that it should not be forced to comply with the
Department of Education’s conditions because it was not the direct recipient of the Department’s grant funds,
stating: “Congress is free to attach reasonable and unambiguous conditions to federal financial assistance that
educational institutions are not obligated to accept. Grove City may terminate its participation in the ... program and
thus avoid the requirements of (the program). Students affected by the Department’s action may either take their
(federal grant funds) elsewhere or attend Grove City without federal financial assistance.”
And therein lies the cause for my concern about vouchers. There is no appreciable difference between Grove City
College indirectly receiving federal student grant funds and private or parochial schools indirectly receiving state
voucher funds. Whether established by the legislature, or by voters through the initiative process, any voucher law
that allows students to use taxpayer-generated revenues to attend private or parochial schools will attach strings in
the form of conditions or requirements with which the school must comply.
Some private schools, including Christian schools, may decline to participate in a voucher system for fear it would
jeopardize their independence. State regulations can affect curriculum and book selection, student discipline, teacher
training, licensing, salaries, and even tenure, among other concerns. At the same time, parochial schools that for
decades have offered quality educational opportunities to poor families, may conclude that more such students can
be served through acceptance of public vouchers.
It would be sad if, some years from now, instead of vouchers adding the “competitive” element to improve K-12
public education, vouchers provided the vehicle by which private and parochial schools lost their unique quality of
independence, and thus became more like public schools. One thing seems certain: When public dollars are flowing,
those inclined to regulate — and government is increasingly filled with them, both elective and bureaucratic — will
treat private and parochial school recipients the way a boa constrictor treats its prey.
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.