From: wolniewi@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WOLNIEWICZ RICHARD H)
Subject: Re: =>School Vouchers (Amendment 7)<=
Reply-To: wolniewi@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WOLNIEWICZ RICHARD H)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:14:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.131817.20708@colorado.edu>, weverka <weverka@drip.colorado.edu> writes:
|> In article <1992Oct8.022147.19845@colorado.edu> Matthew Young,
|> youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU writes:

(Description of Amendment 7 deleted)

|> Yeah, and if it works we can use vouchers for Police too.

(Parody of vouchers for police deleted)

|> and if it works we can use vouchers for the Military too.

(Parody of vouchers for armies deleted)

|> -Ted
|> weverka@boulder.colorado.edu

It seems to me that a far more relevant analogy is the existing use of state and
federal funds, through grants and subsidised student loans, used to help college
students in higher education.

No-one seems to complain that all such subsidies should be reserved for public
colleges only.  Rather, a student who attends a private college generally has the
equivalent opportunity to take out low interest loans or receive public need based
scholarships as a student at a public university.

The reason for this is simple.  It is generally believed that it is beneficial to
our society that people receive a college education, regardless of its source and
regardless of that person's financial status.  It is hard to see how the goal of
providing quality education to students would be improved if all public assistance
was reserved for students at public universities.  Instead, this would grant a
monopoly of sorts to public universities (for low income students), which would
make the less efficient, and would reserve the remaining private institutions,
which would be fewer, for the wealthy.

This system has resulted in one of the highest quality higher education systems
in the world, in which both public and private institutions coexist and do well.
Hardly a bad track record.

Despite this, I have yet to hear of a serious argument against vouchers that would
not also argue against government subsidies to students at private universities.
The main argument one hears is that this will somehow bankrupt the public education
system (as it is put in the Democratic platform).  This is surprising, since CU and
other public colleges do very well in this state despite competition from Colorado
College and others in the state, where students can receive subsidies as well.

I have a child in a public elementary school here in Boulder, and another child who
will be entering public school in a few years.  I have no plans to put either child
in a private school or to home-school my children, but I will vote for vouchers.
Recently in Boulder those of us who are parents have had a clear illustration that
a government institution with a mandated monopoly has no need to listen to the
concerns of the people it serves.  Thousands of parents in Boulder signed a petition
expressing concern over some district wide changes that will influence academics,
and those concerns have essentially been ignored.  And why not?  The Boulder Valley
School District has nothing to lose by alienating parents.  Vouchers would provide
a solid reason for a public school system to listen to the concerns of the people
it serves, for the simple reason that its budget might be adversly affected if it
does not.  Ultimately, competition in K-12 education will help focus the attention
of all K-12 schools on the concerns of the parents and children, which primarily
involve academic quality.  Through this we may provide more impetus for K-12 education
to match the quality available in collegiate education in the U.S.  That is why I
will vote for vouchers.

Richard Wolniewicz
wolniewi@cs.colorado.edu


Newsgroups: co.politics