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.
As you know, the IRS code and the states' depts of revenue number thousands and thousands of pages of regulations describing, among other things, who and which programs are eligible for what in tax credit programs.
Laws are generally written without specific regulations spelled out. Regs are an easy point of control for all Depts of Education with the stated goal being "accountability."
I think the distinction is this: First, no one is required to go to college by the government, unlike schools. Citizens are not directly taxed for college scholarships and grants. Secondly, the money for such programs as college grants comes from "general tax revenue", unlike your local public school district who taxes you directly.
Yes, it is rather restrictive. To be elligible, the student must attend a school that gets a failing grade in two consecutive years. Those are awful schools, not just a general poorly run public school.
Recognizing this, as others pointed out above, most private schools in Florida have opt-ed out of the Florida Opportunity Scholarship Program on the basis of it being too intrusive.
Thats possible, but many were probably waiting on the SCOTUS to rule on Ohio's plan, and many are probably still waiting on a ruling from the Florida Supreme Court on a similar type lawsuit(there is wording in the FL Constitution that is being contrued to mean the voucher program is unconstitutional).
The recent SCOTUS ruling that 'vouchers' are also constitutional may give Florida legislators the basis to remove some of their existing restrictions, at which point Florida's private schools may then begin to opt-in.
Possibly, I think the result of the law suit may be the big issue.
Bottom line, yes Florida has an intrusive 'voucher' program, but private schools may opt out as they choose. They are not hurt by vouchers, just Florida parents are hurt in that they still don't get the full benefit of free choice, in Florida, yet.
True! This is why I don't really see the SCOTUS decision as being that big of a victory - although it is a good start.
Of course. We should be thankful that they are not educating the children as well as propagandizing them. That Johnny can't read catches parent’s attention. That Johnny is reading "Soul on Ice" is a lot less likely to do the same.
Evil is not smart, which is a wonderful thing because Good is not all that observant.
a.cricket
"If the status quo were conservative control of public education, liberals would be screaming for educational choice."
I think parents are free to chose the schools they send their children to and either actively or passively use that freedom. They choose which neighborhood they live in, and therby which school their children go to. They control whether or not they choose to homeschool, public school or private school.
Sometimes the choice is passive, they go where they are told because they don't give a rats behind either way. But in this case they still exercise their choice- their choice not to bother choosing.
Parents are NOT held hostage. Those who think their local public school is THAT bad find some way, anyway, to send their children elsewhere. If they don't then it obviosuly isn't that bad or that important. I have seen people work two, three jobs so that the children can go to private school or mom can stay home and homeschool.
Instead I hear a myriad of reasons of why someones public school isn't that bad and their child goes there. Sometimes it true and they do have a great school- sometimes its defensive, sometimes the parent just doesn't care enough to see.
My own mother is a prime example of the excuses. To our homeschooling she says "Well you went to public school and you turned out fine." It is a defense mechanism- she went with the flow without giving a thought to it. Our doing different is a condemnation tp her and anyone else who just sticks with the staus flow because it is the easy thing to do- it makes others stop and think about what they are doing- and some people dont like what they see when they do that thinking.
I don't think I have ever heard a parent say "My childs's school is just horrible. Somebody gets shot or stabbed every day, all the kids are high on drugs, the teachers are too busy dealing with behavior problems to bother teaching,he can't read even though he is in high school." Nope because if they said that then they would have to also admit that it is neglect to send their child to such an environment.
We homeschool. Its a choice. I love the IDEA of vouchers- I don't like the reality that vouchers would be. Yes public schools are wastelands and I wish they would no longer exist- but screwing up the good education choices we still have is only going to make the problem unescapable.
They shouldn't have to. They pay school taxes, don't they? Why not use those for their choice, rather than have them stolen to pay for a dead horse? We homeschool, yet are still forced, by law, to pay for liberal indoctrination. If we were to use the money allowed the public school to educate our children, we'd use a private school and keep the change! Why give that money to public schools when we can choose another? Why be forced to dig trenches for freedom?
Some do, many under current voucher programs do not due to being low income. Remember, not everyone pays and the rich are taxed to compensate for the poor.
We homeschool, yet are still forced, by law, to pay for liberal indoctrination.
So do those who are childless. Where are their vouchers? If we had a tax credit rather than a voucher then parents could have school choice and the childless would be able to keep their money. No one would be forced to pay for public schooling or other forms of education that they do not believe in.
No the grocery stores are not regulated. But the use of the food stamps is regulated to a degree. I forget all the things you can't buy with foodstamps as it has been 12 years since I worked in a grocery storee and had to deal with that.
WIC is also highly regulated and like foodstamps the WIC VOUCHERS go right to the consumer. I know one requirement is that you have to have the children up to date on their immunizations- I remember a friend compalining about that. You have to "check in" with the authorities every so often to make sure you are doing what the feel you are supposed to be doing.You can only buy a very limited amount of items with your vouchers.
How could this be translated to school vouchers. Well you might have to do certain things to"qualify" in the first place.The government could only allow them to be used at limited schools. You might have to "check in" with the authorities every so often to make sure your children are getting the education they feel your child should be getting, and that you are jumping through whatever other hoops they feel llike making you jump through to get your vouchers. I am sure you could religiously or otherwise object to the requirements (like one can exempth theri public schol students form immunizaations) but with what red tape and hassel to get your "rights" honored?
You should read the NEA resolutions concerning homeschooling. They could recommend the same things concerning voucher usage. If you think the NEA doesn't have a lot of clout with what the government does concerning education you would be wrong. They find ways, they find ways- don't you think for a minute they don't,or won't. Just because we are paranoid doesn't mean they won't do what we are paranoid of them doing
Btw...The Vermont voucher program is around 100 years old. Maine has had a program for decades. I have not heard of government taking over private schools in those states.
Pro-voucher thread. Carefull of the liberal propaganda you read. The liberals are very good at it. "
Bush's budget calls for a $2,500 private school tax credit.
Is that just if you send your children to a private school?
People such as myself who have no children need to stop paying for other people's kids to go to school as well. I'll accept a $2,500 tax credit for not having kids.
I was hoping she would chime in as she does have much experience. She was flagged earlier too. Must be away from the computer today.
That is a good start, and something that would prove to be more popular than vouchers, which in most cases are restricted to the very groups which do not pay taxes and use services paid by others.
I'm not sure I agree with this. County school boards are taxing authorities. Whether you own or rent, you do pay the tax(its passed on if you rent, trust me). Now, this obviously does not apply to those who are in government assisted housing, but I think here in Florida, those parents are not the ones using the voucher programs.
If the NEA wasn't such a rip off, you would probably pay nothing, or at least very little at all. You're paying for a dead horse, too.
Those who make too little to pay taxes or homeschool are totally trapped. Their kids are doomed!
I say total school choice first, then work out the details. We'll do just fine.
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.