| School Vouchers | |
1. Private school
advantage? What advantage? Many studies, like those administered by the National
Assessment of Educational Progress, indicate that public schools are generally on
equal footing with private schools. Students doing the same coursework perform about
equally in both institutions. Studies which show otherwise tend to fail to factor
out things like income level, educational level of parents, learning disabilities,
etc. When such things are taken into account, we get a dramatically different picture.
2. Why should the public pay to send any children to private schools? Although
it would be nice for poor children to attend good private schools if the parents
wish, that doesn't mean that it is the government's responsibility to fund it. If
private schools wish to have such children attend, they can offer scholarships, as
many already do.
3. Vouchers do not really save money. Whatever the cost of private school
education, voucher systems typically will force the government to subsidize the cost
of such education for students already attending private schools. That would cost
the taxpayers billions of extra dollars they do not presently have to pay.
4. Private school survival? If the public wants private schools to survive,
they can donate money or authorize the government to grant those institutions some
special funds - at no point is it necessary for the government to subsidize the education
of specific students there. People who really do value the free market will recognize
that the survival of such schools are not automatically the responsibility of the
government.
5. Free market competition? The effect of free-market competition upon bloated,
non-competitive industries is often praised, but that praise can go too far and become
quite irrational. The free-market is not a god that we have to unquestioningly follow
- it is a tool which we should use when and where appropriate, and we should not
hesitate to question that appropriateness. Just because it works in one area does
not automatically mean that it will work elsewhere.
Moreover, the idea of the effectiveness of the free-market in improving an industry
is completely dependent upon the existence of real competition. However, there
would be no real competition between public and private schools. Public schools must
fund the transportation of students, whereas private schools have no such requirement.
Public schools must abide by a whole host of governmental regulations on how to treat
children, how to maintain buildings, race, religion, disabilities, etc., ad nauseam.
Private schools have few such restrictions which they must abide by, especially religious schools. Attempts by the same people who push vouchers to enact bills like the Religious Liberty Protection Act would cause such religious schools to have to abide by almost no restrictions, diminishing real competition even further.
6. Public schools will become dumping grounds for the unwanted. Private schools
are free to pick and choose whomever they wish as students, freely discriminating
for reasons of race, religion, disability, cost to educate, whatever - they are not
answerable to the public, even though some people wish to give them public money.
They can refuse admission or expel students for any reason whatsoever. Public schools
must, except in extreme cases, accept whomever wishes to apply, including those with
expensive physical or learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, contagious diseases,
or language deficiencies.
Special students requiring extra effort to educate will rarely, if ever, be accepted to most private schools, allowing them to avoid the costs and problems of educating the unusual student. This is one way that voucher advocates can claim that the per capita education costs are lower at private schools than at public schools. Once again, we find an important area where real competition is entirely absent because the playing field isn't even close to level.
7. Public schools would be robbed of critical funding. The funding of voucher
schemes is accomplished by skimming money from already poorly financed public education
budgets, possibly causing deep cuts in transportation costs, security, classroom
improvements, repairs, supplies, and staff. Inner city schools could find themselves
in even worse situations than they presently are. There is a great deal of reverse-class
envy sweeping the country, with middle- and upper-class people balking at paying
to fund social services which are designed to help the poor survive with a bit of
dignity.
This is really no different, since these people are looking for ways to stop paying to educate poor students while they look for better ways to educate their own. Why should they care what happens to inner-city and minority students? If they aren't interested in helping to feed and house the poor, they certainly aren't going to be interested in educating the poor. A permanent underclass is developing in America, and this will serve to cement that development into fact.
8. Vouchers subsidize discrimination. As already mentioned, private schools
are free to discriminate at will, refusing or expelling any student for any reason
like race or religion. Some students have been expelled because their parents were
critical of the school. This is, of course, their right. But why should the government
and taxpayers subsidize this discrimination?
9. Poor schools could take advantage of a voucher system. Bizarre religious
or political groups, cults, and even profiteers may be allowed to operate schools
and receive public funding for doing so. Immune from government oversight, they'll
be free to pursue whatever goals they may have, even including child abuse.
10. There is no double-taxation. Parents who use private schools are only
taxed once: when they pay taxes for public schools. The fees they pay to private
schools are in no sense a tax - they are instead a voluntary payment to a private
institution. Calling it a "tax" is nothing less than dishonest. Moreover,
just because a person freely chooses to replace or supplement a public service with
a private company does not mean that the government should refund any money which
would have gone to that unused public service.
People who hire private security firms do not receive money taken from police department budgets, and people who install private pools do not receive refunds because they do not use public pools. Public schools, as with public police departments, offer direct and indirect benefits to society as a whole and all individuals, even when those individuals are not immediately using their services.
Finally, unless the public decides that the government has no business providing police protection and education, then the government has the responsibility of properly maintaining and funding those services for all citizens - even for those who are not presently using them in a direct manner.
11. Private schools will not "fix" morality. If our children suffer
from any moral deficiencies, it is the fault of the parents, not the schools. Inept
parents will not find sudden changes in their children just because they've started
attending a private school. The problems facing our nation's youth are difficult
and complex - it is absurd to try and simplify them by claiming that they are the
result of a lack of prayer or Bible reading in public schools, and it is equally
absurd to claim that their inclusion in the school day will have any significant
impact.
12. Funding religious schools is a violation of the separation of church and state.
Religious schools are, quite properly, viewed by both supporters and detractors as
ideological and educational extensions of churches. Awarding them public money for
their functions essentially taxes all citizens for the religious goals of a few.
Even if the money goes from government to parent to school, constitutional problems
remain.
In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled against a voucher program in Louisiana which was designed to thwart public school segregation. In the decision of Poindexter vs. Louisiana, the Court explicitly declared that "The United States Constitution does not permit the State to perform acts indirectly through private persons which it is forbidden to do directly." That, of course, is exactly what voucher schemes try to accomplish. Just as the government cannot subsidize churches by funneling money through sympathetic private citizens, it cannot subsidize church schools by funneling money through those same persons.
First Page > Introduction
About Vouchers > 1, 2,
3
Index of
previous articles
Do you have an opinion about this article? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!
Get weekly updates about what's new on the site and news from around the world:
|
|
|
|
Read the Latest News on religion, freethought and related topics from around the world! Updated regularly. |
Archived Articles: |
|
Make your opinions be heard on the
|
|
