Setting Priorities In Education
"There is no question that the success of a society's future hinges upon the education of its children. ... What we look for today is a way to incorporate state controls over structure and quality without impinging upon freedom of thought and diversity of opinion."
Other Resources
Interested in discovering more about this topic? Explore these links ...
- Voucher schools accused of violating admissions laws, February 3, 1999
- Cleveland's School Voucher Program: The Politics and the Law, February 1998
- The education divide, Sept. 20, 1997
A Political Essay by Kevin I. Makice
May 1, 1999
Unless one is a flag-burner these days, our society is a filled with
personal choices and expressions. Ignoring the factors of birthright,
culture, skill and luck, we choose what we want to do, where we want to go
and how quickly we want to get there. That is what makes the term "school
choice" endearing. It implies self-determination. (What better way to
display this freedom than to choose your own school?) However, as vouchers
are examined beyond that shiny exterior of accountability and freedom, serious issues emerge.
Education voucher programs -- which provide a government-funded coupon redeemable, in theory, at any educational institution -- are often called "school choice." That is a misnomer.
True, more options are made available to some people. Middle-class parents considering pulling their kids from a public school to register in a private one will not be as hamstrung by the prohibitive costs of doing so. Breadwinners who work outside of town will have the option to enroll their kids in a distant school to help facilitate transportation issues. Athletes could gather together on high school teams that have the best programs or opportunities to play. Since no voucher package also mandates transportation, nutrition or even admissions standards, however, the poster children for voucher advocates -- the wayward urban youth -- have no guarantees that their choice will be reciprocated. By virtue of their economic and cultural status, choices for some will become much more restricted, making their education worse in the process.
Beneath the educational rhetoric at the surface, vouchers have purely fiscal motivations. The primary forces behind any educational voucher program are middle-class families in search of private schools and private schools in search of revenue. The economic elite have no need for government help in determining where their children get their education, having ample means to make their own financial decisions. The underprivileged lack the peripheral supports to create true choice with a mere voucher. The many families committed to public education will simply be frustrated by the additional paperwork required to attend each year. "School Choice," then, is limited mainly to those currently choosing to "pay twice" for their kids' education when enrolling their children in private schools.
This is an important realization because the Voucher is not an issue pitting two sides over education. "The status quo is unacceptable, totally unacceptable," acknowledged Mary Jean Collins, the national field director of People for the American Way. "No matter who you think is responsible for it, it's got to be fixed" Any parent who wants what is best for children is in favor of a good education. The differences lie in the perceived impact of school vouchers on our general welfare.
It has become increasingly popular these past two decades to compare entities to a successful economic enterprise. "If the government were a business, they would be out of business," goes the catchphrase. While lessons are to be learned from watching a successful business operate -- in particular, financial management -- it is inappropriate to otherwise consider a school a business.
There are similarities, of course. Schools provide jobs, just like a business. They rely on a market in which to operate, just like a business. They require consumers to endorse their work, just like a business. The glaring difference is that children are not products. If we deal with the education of children in the same manner we do a plant assembly line, we buy into the notion that there is such a thing as acceptable rejection.
Voucher programs, like the one threatening to emerge in Florida, are based on the idea that only market pressure will improve a failing school. Assuming for a moment that limited understanding of education has merit, the voucher system itself creates failure. In fact, vouchers endorse failure as a vital component in the process.
The typical defense is also a myopic one: "Poor public schools might suffer the loss of students, and deservedly so," wrote voucher advocate Stelle Synder in a 1997 column for a Charlotte website. This perspective examines only the effect vouchers might have on an institution and not how individuals trapped in the failing school will suffer. The Seattle Times put it best in a 1998 editorial:
- "A voucher system is designed to benefit children one at a time: One voucher equals one child's education. This destroys the economies of scale that enable school districts to build new schools, design comprehensive programs and plan for future growth. Instead, taxpayer money flows out the door several thousand dollars at a time, with no guarantees of a return on the investment."
The other failing of the business model places parents in the role of mere consumers. By framing vouchers as a choice, proponents imply that parents don't have one without the government-funded coupon. Yet choice exists every day in the form of elections to the local school board, mentoring programs, local property tax rates, after-school activity groups and how much attention parents pay to their own children. If a school is failing its students, it usually means the community is failing the school.
Content originally provided by 3rdparty.org is not subject to copyleft freedoms in its original form. Any reproduction of 3rdparty.org content published in this wiki must be accompanied by the following link to the original version: