As a 2008 payoff to the national teachers unions, congressional Democrats killed a local school voucher program in Washington, D.C., in spite of its popularity among low-income black parents (presumably a Democratic core constituent group), perhaps because teachers unions are more generous campaign contributors.
Now, vouchers may be making a comeback in D.C. But this time, “D.C.” stands for Douglas County, Colo., a conservative stronghold that actually has a slate of Republicans governing its school board, a rare occurrence in the politics of public education. And that explains why this district is considering a school voucher plan that would give parents the ability to choose private education alternatives in the county. Parents could select a school and a program that best suits their children’s needs and interests. The presence of that choice would spur public schools to elevate the quality and variety of their product in a more competitive environment.
There’s a broad consensus in America that education should be publicly funded. A voucher program doesn’t change that. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the main purpose of those public (taxpayer) funds: to educate individual children, not to finance particular school buildings or the people who work there. Vouchers simply allow the dollars dedicated to a child’s education to follow the child to the school of the parents’ choice, public or private.
This would end the monopoly currently enjoyed by government schools on the delivery of publicly funded education. Since teachers unions composed of government employees are direct beneficiaries of this government monopoly, they’ve spent millions to defeat voucher programs whenever and wherever they surface. In their selfish interest, they deplore educational choice and competition, preferring a captive clientele of students and parents.
Hoping to strangle any voucher proposal in its crib, opponents have wheeled out their shopworn arguments:
“This will drain money from public schools.” No, it won’t. Under the D.C. plan, only 75 percent of per-pupil state funding would follow the student to a private school. The remainder stays with the public schools. Fewer public school students would require fewer teachers, fewer buildings, fewer buses and lower expenses, so the district’s public schools would actually have more money: the 25 percent they get for the kids they don’t have to teach.
“Money would be diverted to religious schools.” So what? Taxpayer dollars already can be used for college tuition at religious schools. You can use the G.I. Bill to go to Notre Dame or Yeshiva University. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Establishment Clause is offended only if government favors or discriminates against a particular religion. In a voucher program, the parents are making that choice. Might I disagree with some religious teaching? Perhaps, but I can live with that. I disagree now with a lot of what’s taught in public schools.
“There currently aren’t enough non-religious private schools available.” Market demand stimulated by vouchers will attract new schools to fill the void. Popular charter schools have long waiting lists. Some may go private and expand.
“Private schools aren’t better than public schools and parents might make bad choices.” I’ll leave that judgment to individual parents. We call that “freedom” in our society. It works quite well in every other area. If you like your current public school, stay there. Why deny that choice to others?
“How would transportation be provided?” Motivated parents and private schools will figure that out. This is less of a challenge than coming West in covered wagons.
In 2003, the liberal majority on the Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote, struck down a state voucher law for low-income students, claiming it undermined the control of local school boards. Since this D.C. plan is the brainchild of a local board, the liberal Supremes would have to contrive a different excuse to kill it.
Mike Rosen’s radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850-KOA.
