From: bwg@teal.csn.org (Bryan Griffin)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:52:50 GMT

 I find it odd to hear people argue against the voucher system as being 
"elitist".  My dictionary defines "elitism" as "practice of or belief in rule
by an elite, also advocacy of such elitism".

   To me, people wishing to  maintain the public school monopoly seem 
rather elitist. They seem to feel that they know what is best for 
everyone else's children, and wish the "elite" legislators to enforce this in 
the laws of the state. They don't want to give parents the chance to disagree 
and choose a different educational institution, they must use the ones the 
elite sanction.

  Many people seem to feel that it is important to publicly fund and 
guarantee the education of every child. The question is, what is the best way 
to achieve this goal? We currently have one  monopolistic institution called 
"the public school system".  Why does this necessarily need to be the 
mechanism used to provide education for everyone? I can understand that 
some conservative people are opposed to change and new ideas, and wish to 
keep the status quo. However, why do you wish to force your own particular 
school on the rest of us? How would you feel if a group managed to make it a 
law that the only kind of car anyone can buy is a Ford, because they happen 
to feel its what is best for everyone else? What is more sacred about a 
"public school" than a Ford?

 School districts are essentially purchasing a service, education, from 
organizations which happen not to accept outside commerce, and have a monopoly
on the market within a particular area. There is nothing magic about the label
of being "public", other than being an official monopoly provider.

  In communist countries, production was done by the state monopoly. Some 
people argued that it should be more efficient, it would save duplication of 
resources and wasted time on marketing and advertising, etc. How would 
you compare Russian computers to American, or Russian cars to Japanese?
It is naive to assume that just arbitrarily creating an organization, and 
telling it to produce the best product possible, will actually guarantee the 
result. The  wrong people may happen to be in charge, or there may not be 
enough incentive to do a good job in a cost effective manner. Competition 
helps ensure that a better product will result. If one company doesn't do a 
good job, another one will come along that does. You don't "bet the farm" on 
just one possibility. 

  If a  voucher system is implemented (especially a full voucher instead of 
the proposed partial voucher), then new private schools will spring up to 
take advantage of the opportunity. This is a capitalist country, when there is 
a market  niche in an easy entry field like this companies will step in to 
compete and make money. There are many people who care about education 
who would like to start better schools.

   There are many students who would be getting a better education today if 
vouchers were available. Why do you wish to punish these children and give 
them an inferior education simply in order to maintain the status quo and 
save the jobs of some education bureaucrats? Even if the partial voucher 
wouldn't be enough to allow some poor people to escape the public schools, is 
that any reason to chain the rest of them to a poor education? (I feel of 
course that the solution is a full voucher so the poor can better afford to 
leave as well).

 I am personally concerned about the influence of organized religion in this 
country, and the separation of church and state. I have never believed in 
God, and have been involved with Humanist and Freedom from Religion 
groups. However, I attended a Catholic high school because the public high 
school where I grew up was bad, and my parents couldn't afford a more 
expensive secular private school. 

  I don't feel that allowing parents to use vouchers at parochial schools is a 
violation of separation of church and state. I feel that if the state has 
decided that an education costs $X, and a school has been acknowledged to 
provide a proper level of education, then it doesn't matter what else the 
school throws in as extras. $X is being spent on education. The religion, or 
sports, or whatever extras a private school provides over a public one, are 
essentially thrown in for free. I don't feel I have a right to legislate other
people's religious views, or lack of them.  If they choose to have them taught
to their children, it is their right.  We would be paying for what the state
says a decent education costs, not for religion.

In this case, half the cost of a public education would be provided for 
vouchers. If the non-religious educational component of these religious 
schools costs less than this, that is an indication that there is something 
very wrong with the costs of public schools.

 If the voucher proposal passes, there will be some initial revenue lost from 
the school budget to pay for vouchers for students currently attending 
private schools. However, after this schools will benefit from the current 
voucher proposal. Since only 1/2 the per pupil cost is spent  on a voucher, 
each student who leaves to attend a private school will leave half the money 
behind. Each student who leaves will increase the per-pupil amount left over 
for the other students. 

Personally, I think a full voucher system should be implemented. I do feel 
that a partial voucher system doesn't do enough for the poor. However I 
think it is still possible for private schools to provide an education even 
for the amount of these partial vouchers, and to allow some students to get
a better education.

  An even better solution may to require parents to pay for the education of
their children completely, and then have need-based scholarship to ensure
that all children can get an education. If people wish to have many children,
they should pay the cost penalty. However the children shouldn't pay the 
penalty, so if the parents can't pay then the state would. This would cut
down on taxes quite a bit. The next step might be complete privatization,
turning this need-based scholarship program into a private charity, but that
would be a long way off and be hard to convince the public it would work.

 A large part of our government is income redistribution, often middle class
welfare, which is what the current complete public funding of schools is. I 
feel that if redistribution is going to be done, it should be done more 
directly, and not hidden the way it is now.


Bryan
bwg@csn.org
Newsgroups: co.politics