VOUCHERS: THE PARENT TRAP

Who will have the fundamental right of educating children: parents or politicians?

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.

Wait until vouchers become a federal program. You can't deny that once an entitlement is offered by the federal government it becomes a "right" of the welfare leisure class.

What makes you think someone is more likely to feel "entitled" to a voucher just because that voucher come from the feds as opposed to it coming from the state or the school district? If they don't want the voucher now (and our district's program isn't even at its maximum yet), what makes you think they'll want it then?

Also, right or wrong, vouchers aren't spun like they are a welfare program. That's because voucher opponents (more often Dummycrats) would have a lot of nerve going there considering how they've allowed some of these same families to get welfare under AFDC.

That will change the minute a private school cashes a federal voucher. That's what this is going to become before you know it; a federal welfare program.

You're assuming that the Feds will demand those changes. Considering that programs are already in place in Cleveland and Milwaukee without those demands/changes, I would have to figure otherwise.

And as for not breaking my bank account, I only propose that the monies that I would otherwise spend on public schools (i.e, those tax dollars that I'm already spending) be spent on private schools.

What I'm proposing is using it based on a collegiate model. In other words, this opens the playing field. It won't eliminate the haves/have nots situation; on the contrary - those schools that do not choose to participate will price themselves up and out of that arena. The schools like Choate or Sidwell Friends will price themselves completely out of the general marketplace.

The public schools will be forced to compete by cutting costs. Among the costs that will end up going away are those extortion fees paid to the unions. The NEA will try to strike, but in a painful process, the schools (who want to compete and survive) will have to eliminate those costs. Using the same model, those that want to exceed will have to pay for quality teachers. Those who are just passing time for a check will end up by the wayside.

The rising tide will raise all the boats. This is what the GOP is interested in. It is a far cry from a welfare program. What I'm interested in isn't a hand-out. I don't care if it's a tax rebate-based voucher or credit. I don't want to have to be forced to pay money into the failing public schools, as I am forced to now.

The NEA will wail and cry and insist that they are working in the best interest of the children, but we all know otherwise. I'm sorry you can't see that.

I do see the NEA and the other parasites wailing, but I can't see this accomplishing a thing. You still haven't explained how using tax revenues to give vouchers to the people paying the taxes in order to allow them to pay tutition at a public school does anything but put bureaucrats in the loop where they aren't able to reach right now.

If you want your kids in private school and you want to use the money you're having to pay in taxes instead of turning it over to the county or state, then that should be what you're promoting. By supporting this shell game, you're still giving the wastrels your money, but you expect them to increase it for you somehow so that you can pay private school tuition and they can get their cut as well. The only way for your state to give you the money for tuition and get their cut to pay their do-nothings is to go to the feds for funds.

I'm surprised that you think your state can magically increase the money you're paying them so that it still covers all their current waste, tutition for your children and salaries for a new bureaucracy. Why not think this all the way through for yourself instead of judging it on how loudly the NEA screams about it?

Look, if we make them stop taxing those of us who don't use their schools, we won't need vouchers.

I'm surprised that you think your state can magically increase the money you're paying them so that it still covers all their current waste, tutition for your children and salaries for a new bureaucracy.

You're automatically insisting that the "current waste" will continue under a more competitive program. The public schools will be forced to compete. They will be forced to cut wasteful spending and budgeting. They will be forced to get rid of excess overhead. It'll either be that or die.

The NEA, NAACP and all kinds of others will wail and gnash their teeth and fuss and have a veritable fit. I think the Feds could administer this just as well as the states. I think there would be plenty of overhead in the beginning, but the larger problem (and the primary reason that the Feds would have to get involved) is that there are states (like Georgia's Democratic administration) where the governor and the state administration have vowed not to make vouchers available to the citizenry.

I would prefer the vouchers to be administered on a state level, in any event. State collegiate level programs (like Georgia's HOPE Scholarship program) have a much better track record than Federal programs; I am sure that would remain the case on the grade school level. You get no arguement from me on that. I insist, however, that once the schools are forced into a competitive situation, that as a direct result of decreased costs, that the NEA will lose much (if not all) of their power. The schools will (in many cases) dump union teachers and hire from outside their ranks; once this happens, the better teachers will find positions in schools where they desire results - the ones who are only there for a check (and today find themselves protected by the Unions) will fall by the wayside.

I have to reiterate - I have no desire to pay for substandard public schools where wasting money is the norm. All I am asking is for me to have a say in where my dollars go. Of course, by asking that, the Dems turn me (and everyone else here who wants that) into some kind of heartless pariah. Now if asking for the opportunity to direct my own school dollars is a form of welfare, then maybe I don't understand what welfare is.

Some supporters fo vouchers like to point at state voucher programs and claim that they have done none of the harm predicted by critics of a federal voucher program. State programs differ from federal programs in the way a million differs from a billion.

"I think the Feds could administer this just as well as the states." - mhking, post number 230.

Their eyes are wide open, Twodees. A lot of people who support vouchers want the entitlement to education and they want to be able to spend that entitlement at private schools. Whether they are in the majority or not remains to be seen, but I think that they understand exactly what it is they want.

Aw, please. The public schools have never been "forced to compete" and won't be forced to do any such thing just because a new welfare program is instituted. Right now, public schools are losing the comparison with private schools and homeschoolers. They have been shown to be inferior consistently for 20 years and there has been no change in the way they do things except in the amount of money they waste. Letting the same government thieves control private shools that now control public schools is ridiculous and that's exactly what vouchers will end up doing.

Your state doesn't have the money to give a voucher to every student enrolled in the public schools. They'll ask for and receive federal dollars to play this game. Naturally, you know this and it doesn't bother you at all. You're saying now that this should be a federal program. I expected this kind of liberal nonsense out of the other voucher proponents on this thread, but you're surprising me here.

I'm not really surprised that this is such a hot item with republicans right now. It just reinforces what I've always observed about republicans; that they oppose democrats and think that alone can make them conservative. Thanks for showing me that you would rather have the federal government pick my pocket than to tighten your own belt, sacrifice some budget items and pay the tutition for your own children.

Yeah, you boys are just soooo much better at reducing the size of government than the democrats are. Excuse me while I throw up.

You are so wrapped up in a faulty definition of "welfare" that you can't see the forest for the trees. From your definition, "welfare" amounts to any payment from the government in any way, shape or form. You keep ranting about vouchers being nothing but a welfare program; I can't look at it that way - it is nothing of the sort. Until you get off of that kick (and the associated rants about Republicans not being real while discussing that notion), we can't even get to square one.

You don't understand what and where these will benefit. That's fine. But you're as bad as the guy last week who got on this RINO kick with J.C. Watts.

You've got no clue as to what belt tightening is - otherwise, you wouldn't make such a statement. I'm not going to go on a rant about how hard my life is; that's immaterial here.

What is material is that you and I are on the same page about public schools being inferior to private schools. Given that, what is the problem with demanding not to have to pay into such a system?

Not only that, what's wrong with getting my money back out of that system?

Here's the other side of the coin here - the vouchers cannot and will not be able to pay the entire freight for most private schools. This alone will keep quite a few in the public schools right where they are.

I'm done with your circular logic. When you come back from throwing up, let this one alone. We obviously aren't on the same page overall, and won't be.

You asked a question, though. There's nothing wrong with demanding not to have to pay into the failed public school system. Let's do that instead of letting them continue to soak us while giving us a damn little "school stamp" that isn't even going to pay tuition.

You get that done at the county level, BTW. State and federal politicians have no business even being in the loop on this either. I could teach you a thing or two about belt tightening, too but you don't want to hear it.

No, let's not allow unreasonable fears of creating another tax funded monster stand in the way of the GOP picking up some liberal voters.

The liberal voters of the teachers unions? Or Black parents in central Cleveland? We willhave school choice -- and that means vouchers. The public school system must adapt and change -- or become warehouses for the dysfunctional (teachers and students). Those public schools that survive and thrive will meet the competition by emulating it -- educating youngsters.

The liberal voters of the teachers unions? Or Black parents in central Cleveland?

The liberal voters of every color and background who have awakened to the fact that the schools suck, but still want nanny government to fix it for them.

We willhave school choice -- and that means vouchers.

Why does that mean vouchers? We can have school choice right now without vouchers by closing down the DoEd and returning control of the schools to the county school boards. Without federal help, the NEA is busted and has no control. The choice issue belongs to the counties first. We have a much better chance of changing things at the county level concerning school taxes than we do at the state or federal level.

The public school system must adapt and change -- or become warehouses for the dysfunctional (teachers and students).

You seem to be in need of a remedial course in current events. Public schools in many areas of the country have been warehouses for children and asylums for incompetent bureaucrats for decades. Functional children become dysfunctional in those warehouses.

Those public schools that survive and thrive will meet the competition by emulating it -- educating youngsters.

Yes, that's the goal, but that goal can be met more quickly by throwing off government and union influence rather than by feeding it an adjusted diet.

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.