The federal government should support school choice by giving vouchers or tax credits to families who choose to send their child to a private school

Title endorsed in part by:

National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)

Results so far:

Agree		50%	52 votes	Total: 104 votes
Disagree		50%	52 votes	Total: 104 votes

Agree

1 of 2

When it comes to discussing the federal government disbursing vouchers for school choice, the only place to look is that district they personally administer, the District of Columbia. And it is there that President Obama, working with Congressional Democrats, recently decided to stop issuing any new vouchers through the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. But why was this done, and was it the right decision?

The argument in favor of allowing school vouchers is very simple; if you are allowed to pick a school for your child's education, you can pick a good one, or one attuned to your child's needs or learning style. LendingTree likes to say that "when banks compete, you win," and the same is true of schools. And, since everyone pays property taxes to support your local public school district, if makes sense to get some or all of that money back if you choose to send your child to a private school, or perhaps even to a public charter school.

But did the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program work? Indeed it did. Perhaps all the proof you need is the fact that the program has had four times as many applicants as vouchers to award. Studies have shown that those who have been in the program the longest made gains in reading achievement of two years versus those not in the program. And even better, the amount of the voucher is only $7500, while the DC public schools spend over $15000 per pupil! The DC school system ranks 51st nationally in student achievement despite the enormous amount of money it spends, and the voucher program offers students an escape that improves their learning at a lower cost.

So why did Democrats in Washington kill the program? Well, I'm not entirely sure, but none of the reasons I can think of are very noble, and none of them puts the education of children first. Obama in particular has already shown himself willing to harm others to protect union interests, most recently in his threats to withhold stimulus funds from California for cutting the wages of certain unionized health care workers, and killing the DC voucher program may just be another example. Teacher unions whose members staff public schools have long opposed vouchers that could send students elsewhere, just as they fight basing teacher pay on student performance. But this isn't a good thing. The DC voucher program gets results, and deserves the federal government's support.

For basics on the voucher program and many of the facts used here, see Voices of School Choice. For more on the DC voucher program's success, read D.C. Opportunity Scholarships Boost Reading Scores, Family Satisfaction. For more information on unions and education, see The Union War on Charter School Annotated.

Learn more about this author, David Shane.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Disagree

1 of 4

by Dorothy Hoffman

The public education system in the United States has been in trouble for decades, particularly in our nation's cities. In many ways, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation of the Bush years have made things worse. It creates incentives for schools to eliminate special education programs and force out less academically gifted students, to raise the school's test scores. Faculty are also encouraged to teach to the high-stakes standardized tests, rather than educate their students. Higher scores translate into more funds and financial rewards for teachers and principals, taking desperately needed money away from the very schools most in need of help.

Like the quantitative results-oriented approach to education of NCLB, the voucher programs that began during the Reagan administration are another sign of the trend toward privatization of many basic services and institutions once regarded as part of our government's responsibility to all citizens. Advocates of voucher programs argue that schools will improve if they are left to the tender mercies of the free market, but the record of charter schools and private schools has been no better than that of public schools.

Federal, state and local budgets for public schools are already limited, and taking money away from them to subsidize attendance at private schools only further weakens the system without enabling many families to send their children to private schools. Private school tuitions tend to rise with greater demand, and many are well beyond the means of people with modest incomes even with vouchers. Typical voucher programs offer $2500-$5000, but many privates schools charge annual tuitions of $10,000 or more. A National Conference of State Legislatures survey found that 76% of voucher funds in Arizona went to families of children already attending private schools. This amounts to a taxpayer funded subsidy of wealthier families at the expense of those stuck in deteriorating inner city public schools.

In addition, many regard government subsidizing of private school tuitions as unconstitutional; since the majority of these schools are religious-based, government support violates the separation of church and state. Some opponents claim voucher programs amount to taxation without representation - private schools have no mechanisms of public accountability, though the taxpayer is covering the costs of tuition vouchers. Public schools are answerable to elected school boards, whose meeting are open to the public, and their budgets are subject to referendum.

Another problem is "cream skimming." With a larger pool of applicants to private schools, these schools can exclude members of "undesirable" ethnic, racial or religious groups as well as students with disabilities, low academic performance, or behavioral problems. The public schools are required to accept all students, and the current system of cutting funds to schools that underperform in standardized tests would even further impoverish the schools with the academically and economically poorest students.

The record of some voucher programs has also been disappointing. The American Federation of Teachers found the program in Cleveland less effective than supporters had reported, and the program in Milwaukee has left the public schools with a huge budget shortfall. The National Education Association has been a strong critic of vouchers, seeing it as a threat to educational standards, and a 2006 study by the U.S. Department of Education reported that test scores for private school students are no better than those of public school students. This undermines one of the major arguments for voucher programs, that they allow parents to send their children to better schools.

As Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman wrote in a recent New York Times column, America's strength was built on a healthy, democratic public school system. The voucher system, which is attempting to apply the same "free market" principles to education that have undermined our democracy in so many other ways and caused the recent global economic meltdown, indicates a failure of our society to support this most basic principle of democracy.

As one educational website states: "Implementation of voucher programs sends a clear message that we are giving up on public education. Undoubtedly, vouchers would help some students. But the glory of the American system of public education is that it is for all children, regardless of their religion, their academic talents or their ability to pay a fee. This policy of inclusiveness has made public schools the backbone of American democracy."

For More Information

http://www.adl.org/v ouchers/vouchers_mai n.asp

www.balancedpolitics .org/school_vouchers .htm

Learn more about this author, Dorothy Hoffman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.