From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Summary: If it's not unconstitutional, I can't imagine why not
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:36:36 GMT

youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young) writes:
>Amendment 7 grants a voucher for each K-12 student in Colorado,
>to be redeemed by their parents at the school of their choice, whether
>public, private, or in-home. Competition will improve our public
>schools in the long run; alternatives will liberate our students today.
>This may be the only way to fix our government's failure in education.

Let us agree that the current public school system is not doing the job.

But vouchers are a cop-out.  The concept doesn't even make sense...

1.  The tax money comes from everyone.  It should not be handed over to
parents as if it were "theirs" to spend.  The basis for the general
taxation for education is to produce a public system that benefits
everyone.  Consider those of us who don't even *have* children!  About
40% of our tax money goes to support a system which benefits us only
very indirectly.  Where is the logic (let alone the fairness) in taking
money from us and giving it to others, to spend at their discretion
without any way for us to say what's done with it?

2.  Parents already receive a tax benefit:  For a given family income, the
more children you have, the less tax you pay.  The benefit is small, I
realize that--but it's there.  Again, those of us without children are
paying to support those who do have children.

3.  I *do* believe in paying my share to help educate the country.  But,
for what I pay in taxes, I should have some say in how it's run!  Everyone
should have some influence, not just the parents.  If education really is a
general public need (and I can't see how the hell you can run a democracy
without it!), and it's to be financed by general taxes, then the money
better be allocated and spent in such a way that the public controls it.

4.  There's a substantial segment of religious-based schools in the world
of private schools.  While I have no objection to private schools with
religious teaching as part of their curricula, if *my* tax money is being
given to parents so they can send their children to religious schools, then
I am being taxed to support a religion.  That is unconstitutional, and it's
serious.  If the voucher amendment passes, I will immediately join up with
anyone who mounts a court challenge of constitutionality.

5.  The counterpart of (4)--which should be a matter of concern for those
who advocate private schools--is that people *won't* stand for having no
control over the schools they're being taxed to support.  If government
regulation bothers you, think about what sort of bureaucracy can emerge to
oversee schools where vouchers can be spent...and it will happen, the first
time a newspaper digs up some private school getting a bit too lavish
somewhere.  The phrase "taxpayer's money being spent on..." is a powerful
one to incite people.

6.  The whole thing is a wimp-out.  The public education system used to
work.  Nobody turned off a big cosmic switch so that public schools stopped
working.  So go figure out what's gone wrong, what's different, and work on
changing it back.  I don't want to trivialize it, but if it worked once it
can work again.  OR...if you *don't* believe the public system can work, go
for the private schools--but do it with your money, not mine!

7.  How will "competition" make schools better?  Not every endeavor admits
of competition and judging "winners" vs "losers".  In fact, what will
happen is fairly predictable:  Schools will compete, not based on the task
(educating students) but on the measurements (standardized tests, for
example) regardless of whether the tests are meaningful.  I can see other
ways the "competition" will go haywire--for example, in accepting students.
If they're private schools, they can set whatever criteria they want (sub-
ject to usual non-discrimination guidelines, but that's not the point).  If
they want to be able to advertise that 20% of their graduates end up at Ivy
League schools, they'll just skim the cream of the students.  Since there's
already a financial "skimming" of students going on, you end up with the
public schools handling the poorest, least motivated, least apt students...
making their problem just that much worse.

I can see that we've got a real problem with the public schools, and I know
that some parents (particularly now) will decide to spend the extra money
for a private school.  But I don't see the point in encouraging motion away
from public schools instead of fixing them...and I surely can't see any way
to excuse siphoning off everyone's money for private schools.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
   ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
Newsgroups: co.politics