| Balancedpolitics.org has a decent summary of arguments both for and against vouchers. To be honest, I see both sides of the argument - but I have to come down firmly against vouchers.
It is a travesty that at this point in history we still do not place sufficient priority on educating every child. It is a travesty that certain schools, time and time again, fail their students. It is the greatest travesty of all that those students who are failed are generally both poor and a member of a racial minority group. It isn't difficult to understand why a parent would want to send their child to some other school, in some other neighborhood, by any means possible to give them the head-start in life that education promises.
But the arguments for vouchers can very simply be met with common sense reform and accountability. By "accountability" I don't mean yanking money away from schools because the students didn't pass a statewide test. I mean personal accountability from the superintendant down to the teachers in the classroom.
If a school continues to perform badly, then it is the entire purpose of the school administration to reform that school. That this does not happen is an argument for firing administrators, nothing else. Yes, there are many legitimate problems to be overcome and no one can make a perfect school by snapping their fingers. But the administration can provide an atmosphere in the school that is dedicated to learning.
But the arguments against vouchers cannot so simply be overcome. The state is bound to provide a system of education for every child. How is allowing money to be taken out of that system for private education going to help the system? What system ever worked better because it was starved of funds? Yes, a few students who use vouchers may get a better education - but what of the thousands who don't use vouchers? What will happen to their education?
This is all the more compelling in New Jersey because of the significance of the Abbott districts. If 100 students are allowed to take vouchers for $2000 per year out of an Abbott school, that represents a loss of $200,000 - the salary of at least four teachers with high levels of tenure and education. That money will have to be made up in order to keep those teachers. From where will that money come? The Abbott cow is quickly running dry.
Of course, the biggest problem that cannot be overcome is that the largest beneficiary of vouchers is not students, but religious organizations. In the landmark US Supreme Court decision of Lemon v. Kurtz, the Court laid down very clear guidelines about the state giving money to religiously based schools. Not the least of the rules was the stipulation that the use of state funds could not lead to unnecessary intanglement of church and state.
If the state gives a voucher to allow a child to attend religious school, then the state bears the brunt of ensuring that education is up to standards. That means that the entire system of administration that currently exists in secular public schools would have to be duplicated within religious schools. Voucher money, for instance, could be used to buy chalk for the teacher to teach mathematics, but not to teach any religious subject. That would require the school to set up a dual purchasing system and to track each piece of chalk. Mrs. Smith couldn't borrow chalk from Mr. Finklestein because that would constitute a violation of the Lemon ruling.
Let us not forget, as well, that almost every place that has attempted to allow vouchers has had their system struck down by the courts. This is the reason why. Entangling the structure of government with the structure of religion is always detrimental to them both. The church quickly becomes dependent on the state for its financial existence, and the state becomes dependent on the church for delivering popular support of its policies. That creates a system where votes are, de facto, purchased through the church.
But let us not forget where I began this discussion - that the pro-voucher groups have legitimate arguments that must be addressed. It is no victory to overwhelm the voucher movement if, in the process, yet another generation of children are abandoned to poverty and ignorance. If anything, it would be a greater moral failure than to sit by and let the vouchers destroy the rest of the system. All of our children deserve an education. All of us owe that education to them. |
