-Caveat Lector-
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
Skillsall 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.
