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

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.

The problem with Ron Paul is this: When the facts conflict with his core ideology, the facts get left on the table.

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

Latest column, "Slime and Bigotry on the Campaign Trail," discussion thread on FR. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

Interesting point. You may be correct that it would incite some scrutiny were cash to change hands.

I wonder if we could not tie private and public school enrollment dates with income tax season. You would enroll your child, receive a bill, then include it with your taxes for a rebate to pay for the tuition. You would have to pay tuition for "public" school the same as you would private schools. This way, it becomes more of a free market.

This may cause private schools to increase their tuition to match that of public schools though, then there would be no cost savings.

Perhaps there should just be a per-child tax rebate for education. For example, here in PA, I'd get a rebate check one school aged-child in the amount of $8,673. Then, I could send my child to a $3,000 per year private school, and pocket the rest. This is, of course, very unfair since I would be profiting from my child's existence whereas other taxpayers without school aged children would not (not that this inequality doesn't happen already). I doubt the inequality would last too long though since the "public" school would need to bring it's costs and quality in line with the private schools and would quickly lower the tax burden on the public in general.

I'm no economist though, no doubt I'm missing many, many things here. But, if we don't talk about ideas, find faults, discuss and debate, we will never find the best solution.

Regards,

Jim

Source: http://www.bridges4kids.org/articles/7-02/CPR7-17-02.html

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.