X-Envelope-to: EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:10:00 EST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         SSOIFFER@CLARKU.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Schools: public or private

Richard,
Thanks for the questions. Let me respond to them in order.

Why should the size of the voucher have anything at all to do with
income? If the functon of a voucher system is to create a level
playing ground, then any amount less than the full cost of education
would have a very different meaning for people dependent upon
income level. If, for example, there were a range of private
options costing, say, from $2,000 to $6,000. And, let's say
that vouchers are for $1,500. I, at my salary level (which
doesn't feel like so very much to me, but I have to admit puts
our family income in the 90th percentile nationally) would have
a nice vacation on the $1,500 and would then spend precisely
the same $6,000 I would have spent otherwise. I would grumble
less, and consider becoming a Republican (maybe). Now let's
look at one of my typists, a single mother raising her very
bright son in pretty tight circumstances. I wish I didn't
have to know how close she is to minimum wage. She can take
her $1,500 voucher and try to figure out a way to find an
extra $500 in disposable income (fat chance!), and that is
her buy-in at the LOW END of that system. In other words,
she has to make a substantial sacrifice to create ANY options
while I just get a small bonus to make me feel good. To me,
this does not sound like a level playing field.

Now, on to the second question. Isn't this just a way of
redistributing income? Not if we accept the constitutional
provision that makes the education of a student the fiscal
responsibility of the state, rather than the parent. We're
not talking here about dollars that a poor parent could
instead use to buy Ripple, or whatever the fear would be.
We are talking about how a constitutional obligation is
discharged.

Personally, I think vouchers are a vile idea. They will
shuttle the non-problematic student, the relatively
advantaged student, into well financed, well insulated
settings, and leave the state with the obligation to
educate principally the more problematic students and
the students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds,
on fewer dollars per student, in a setting where they
will have ever-less ability to influence funding.
Richard, I just don't think that's the way sound social
policy that benefits a society as a whole is formulated.

I am not impressed by citing of polls in cases like this.
This is the fallacy Robert Dahl refers to as "Little
Black Box democracy." There is no accountability, no
historical perspective, no continuity. It can exist
well as an idea, but a bit less well as a social system.
This is why the Federalist Papers, in a pre-digital
setting, argue for representative government. It's
always difficult for old lefties to bring themselves
to paraphrase Edmund Burke, but we are governing in
circumstances determined by past generations, and making
decisions for generations not yet born.

Steve Soiffer
Clark University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU