Posted on 07/05/2002 6:49:32 AM PDT by capecodder
Vouchers: The Parent Trap
Texas Eagle Forum March 1999 Cathie Adams, President, Texas Eagle Forum
VOUCHERS: THE PARENT TRAP
Who will have the fundamental right of educating children: parents or politicians?
By Cathie Adams, president of Texas Eagle Forum
Virtually every candidate for political office claims that if we elect him, he will fix public education, and since 92% of our children attend public schools, such political promises appeal to almost everyone. Those political promises have led to a multitude of unproven education fads introduced in public school classrooms, but there is one idea that has yet to overcome political opposition: vouchers, a.k.a. school choice. There are two major sources of opposition for the idea: teachers' unions who are afraid of losing part of their funding and those who hold to free market ideals and oppose government regulations.
Voucher supporters claim they would create competition for the public schools and thereby improve them. But columnist Charlie Reese sums it up nicely: "Government schools cannot compete in any sense of the word. They are government schools, creatures of law and politics. Faculty, its pay, and the curricula are determined not by the schools, but by politicians, bureaucrats and, in some cases judges. To state that public schools can compete with private schools is like saying a bronze statue of a horse can compete with a live one."
In reality, public funding would destroy private education. Saralee Rhoades outlines why in The Freeman, a newsletter published by The Foundation for Economic Education:
Private schools will become dependent on this new source of money and in time unable to exist without it. Private schools electing to safeguard their freedoms, not taking advantage of "free" money, will not be able to compete. When the only schools left are government schools, is there any assurance that the quality of public schooling will not precipitously decline as it has before? The resultant government monopoly will preclude any form of competitive standards. Costs will skyrocket as offices are set up nationwide to monitor the expenditure of government funds, protect students from exploitation, and expand services as further needs arise. Eventually the aim will be the maintenance of the program, not the education of children. Compliance with government policy and maintenance of the status quo will assume greater and greater importance, as more workers become dependent on government-subsidized salaries. The bottom line is that government cannot fix the educational problem because government is the problem.
Some insist that voucher legislation can be written to protect private schools. Chester Finn, chief architect of the National Goals (presented in former President Bush's America 2000 plan and President Clinton's Goals 2000) and a voucher advocate refutes the claim. "Some to be sure, like to think they can have it both ways; i.e. can obtain aid without saddling themselves with unacceptable forms of regulation. But most acknowledge the general applicability of the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and are more or less resigned to amalgamating or choosing between assistance or autonomy."
Texas voucher supporters believe that if legislation denies federal funds, then private schools would be free from government strings. In 1995, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 1 and created the Texas Workforce Commission that have brought about systemic reforms required by federal education laws, Goals 2000 and School-to-Work. The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) is being restructured to come into compliance with the rewrite of Texas' essential elements into performance standards/outcomes called Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills-all an outgrowth of the federal programs. It is logical that if private and public schools are answerable to the same bureaucracies, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Texas Comptroller, then they will both be controlled by the federal government programs.
State regulation is guaranteed. Governor George W. Bush has said, "I believe we ought to try a pilot voucher program that is tied to our accountability system [the TAAS test]." Rather than public schools being forced to compete in an education market place with private schools, the private schools would be forced to conform to the same outcome-based standards and performance-based tests prescribed for every public school by both federal and state governments. Ronald Trowbridge, vice-president for external programs and communications at Hillsdale College in Michigan, wrote in The Wall Street Journal "If government vouchers are extended to private primary and secondary schools, truly private schools in five, 10, 15 or 20 years will become virtually extinct."
Courts have broadened government control over private schools that take government funds. The infamous Grove City College vs. Bell case decided that even though the GI bill funds went directly to a student rather than a school, it came under federal regulations. The all-male Virginia Military Institute was forced to admit women or forgo state funding. And Liberty University dropped their religious worship requirement in order to retain their state tuition assistance grants. George Roche, president of Hillsdale College writes, "What is especially galling about this (attitude of 'you take our money, we own you') is that federal money was forcibly extracted from us in the first place. When they 'give' some of it back, it comes not with strings attached, but chains." Hillsdale is the only college in the U.S. that refuses even the GI Bill because of its federal tentacles of control.
The bottom line is: Vouchers would cause the demise of private schools because they cannot compete with what some parents will perceive as "free" schools. And government regulation will force them to be like public schools.
Vouchers would grant the government the "right" to collect your money and redistribute it to the more needy or dictate where and how you spend it by granting you a voucher. Collecting taxes and redistributing them is socialism.
Vouchers will cause private school tuition to escalate as witnessed by the sharp increase in public college tuition after the GI Bill was passed in 1943. Fewer parents would be able to afford true private schools.
Vouchers would politicize private schools the same way as public schools. Dr. Gary North, president of The Institute for Christian Economics, describes how voters/parents have consented to a system that rewards educational bureaucrats rather than serving parents as consumers with legal authority over their children. The chief losers of the political scheme are the students.
Vouchers would methodically expunge religion from private school curricula. George Bernard Shaw of The Socialist Fabian Society of England frankly stated, "Nothing will more quickly destroy independent Christian schools than state aid; their freedom and independence will soon be compromised, and before long their faith."
The only voucher bill filed in the Texas legislature as I write this report is HB 709 by Rep. Mike Krusee (R-Round Rock). The bill would mandate that: parents notify the state for a scholarship; the voucher "entitlement" be paid to the school instead of to the parent; the private schools be accredited by a private organization recognized by the Commissioner of Education and report to him on the school's performance on the academic excellence indicators; the private school not refuse to enroll a child on the basis of religion or academic achievement; and that the private school must certify to the Texas Comptroller all admissions regulations.
Senate Education Committee Chairman Teel Bivins (R-Amarillo), also will sponsor legislation calling for a limited voucher program. He says private schools that participate must be accredited and must test their students with the TAAS. This would make the once "private" school economically, spiritually and educationally beholden to the state.
Government vouchers sound good at first, but when we measure whether they will bring more liberty or more government, they certainly grow government. And it is uncanny that conservatives would encourage government to reduce welfare and support a reduction in the size of government, but advocate school vouchers. By cycling taxpayers' money through government hands, then back to parents, the voucher program would create a new category of people who will become dependent upon government largess. We cannot mouth limited government while our actions promote limitless government.
Hardly, since those recipients are precisely the ones, through their advocates, who would oppose the creation of tax credits for private secondary education.
Vouchers are government payments; no more, no less.
Think about it for a second. This decision was a MAJOR loss for the NEA and all of its minions. Also, it was a victory for those who know that their children are not getting a real education. Remember, over 65% of inner-city American black parents supported school choice initiatives while the Democrat legislators did not support the wishes of their own constituents. This is what I mean when I say that political understanding on our side is woefully inept. If we cannot see that this is an opening large enough to drive ten Mack 18-wheelers through, then we are hopeless. But no! Listening to some around here, let's just throw away this political win before we can even begin to use it.
I'm unapologetic when I say that this is absolutely STUPID on our part. We must learn to do better.
Our goal when we voted for Reagan and later for the republican overthrow in Congress was to abolish the federal Department of Education, not to chip away at the iron fist of control over our kids' futures with a shell game like this voucher idea.
Okay. But did you get it? Nope. I agree with the goal of the complete dismantling of the Department of Education because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't provide for education of any kind for any person or persons. In fact, I'm in line with Milton Friedman in that I want to abolish compulsory education altogether. But such radical and wide-sweeping initiatives are difficult if not impossible to accomplish. So, the next best thing is to secure a victory and build from there.
For whatever reason, our side doesn't want "the next best thing." We want all or nothing, and more often than not, we end up with exactly nothing.
A giant win for our side would be to get the dismantling of the DoEd back into the national discourse again.
Yeah, it would be. But we don't have that today, do we? So what are we to do? Work with what we have, that's what.
If you want vouchers in your county, get to work and get the provision adopted.
I'm aiming at a much larger target. This solution is nothing. And you just mentioned something about "too little, too late." You saying that vouchers are "a total pig in the poke" reveals political misunderstanding, and nothing else.
Congress critters don't want this to be addressed at the level of county property taxes because it will leave out everyone who is currently freeloading anyway.
That's an understated slant, but it didn't go over my head. Whatever. If this is "freeloading," how many millions of others have "freeloaded" then? I see terms such as "welfare" and "freeloading" within this subject. I wonder why...
The educational system we have now has been in place for years and years and years. When it came down to the state of the awful education that public schools were giving, especially to our inner-city areas, deserved mockery and disdain were given by our side. It was, and is, terrible. But now that the education issue is addressed where it can actually help push us toward what we truly want (and poorer blacks are the initial beneficiaries), the term "welfare" is thrown about. Question: If going to school before was not described so openly as "welfare," then how the hell is it "welfare" now? I wish we'd make up our minds.
That's how it should be: if you pay property taxes, you can get relief of those taxes in proportion to how much tuition you pay a private school or in proportion to how much county property tax is spent per student in the county schools. that this is not what is being discussed by the politicians should tell you something. It should tell you that they have another welfare scam in mind.
Is this what we have now? No. Can this be initiated tomorrow. No. So your point is... what? It amazes me that you fail to see that this is the first serious step towards this goal. But you don't want it. I'll take it, however. And the reason why I'll take it is that the sooner kids get a quality education, the sooner they'll realize that the world is not how they've been taught previously to view it. Moving away from the Leftist indoctrination that our children receive is a more than worthy goal in my book. And lastly, it's just the start. We must start somewhere. If what our politicos are not saying should tell me something, the amount of wailing coming from the NEA and Democrats should tell you something.
It depends upon who is the president at the time. As long as the Republicans are in I don't think private schools have anything to worry about. However, Democrats are to be feared. They will take over private schools since they want to introduce their leftist propaganda to every child in America.
Then what was the money given per pupil to the schooling system before?
Having said that, *all* of your arguments *at least in theory* would apply equally to foodstamps yet the logical conclusion you make (e.g. government will take control of producers) did not happen in that case. For this reason, this apparent pitfall in the anti-voucher argument deserves to be taken seriously. It also deserve an explanation by opponents of vouchers....especially since serious voucher advocates, such as Friedman, make this comparison and draw conclusions from it.
Even more political naivete. Remember, their "advocates" didn't want vouchers in the first place. Think a little, please. It's not hard to see how your words here will fall flat on their face.
Thanks for proving my point, Twodees. I appreciate it.
Vouchers are government payments; no more, no less.
Of course they are since they come right from the state department of public instruction to the parent and the school(at least in my state.) They still aren't a break on taxes or anything like that since they aren't based on taxes paid and the recipient doesn't count the voucher as income. That's the point I was really making.
In the meantime, I don't want to see parents who accept vouchers stigmatized as welfare grabbers, for they are no more that than if they were sending their kids to public schools. Not to mention all the other "welfare" that the goobermint pays for.
I feel ya but no private school has to participate in the voucher program and the vouchers cannot be used at any school not electing to be in the school choice program. They also can't be used at private schools outside of the city limits. In my state, the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod (the most conservative of the three main Lutheran synods) opted all of their schools out of participating in the program.
I know you mean well but this is an inaccurate generalization. I have taught at a voucher school myself and know many families who participate in the program.
One of my good friends is the single mother of four (three at home)- she works full time, always has, drives used cars and owns her home. Her income falls within the limits necessary to get a voucher, so her kids go to private schools on vouchers. Her income has also been low enough for her to get food stamps and Medicaid insurance at various times. Her kids aren't perfect (what kid is?) but they're hardly headed for gangstaville either and she feels these private schools have done better by them than the local publik skools.
I could go on and on. I enjoyed part of my day yesterday with a couple that has actively fought for vouchers. Their kids and grandchildren are in both private and public schools. Again, not a junior gangsta or gangstarette in the bunch- one of their grandsons leaves to start college next month. He went to some private and some public schools.
I could go on and on but you get the point- vouchers allow decent, hardworking but still low-income parents to do better by their child's education. Until we can do better, I will support vouchers.
I see that this thinly veiled nonsense didn't get past you, either.
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.