Vouchers ignore realities
Published May 18, 2014
Editorial by Greenville Daily Reflector, May 17, 2014.
As the courts decide the constitutionality of the state’s Opportunity Scholarship Program, the state is free to operate the program and send tax dollars into the accounts of private schools. That is the result of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday to stay an injunction from a lower court.
GOP legislators and other supporters of the program are hailing the ruling as a school-choice victory for more than 5,000 low-income parents who have applied to receive tuition vouchers through the program. Fewer than half of that number could be offered the vouchers.
For the parents of roughly 1.5 million children who do not qualify for the program or would be turned away, the ruling highlights the potential for further weakening of a public education system in which they have no choice but to remain.
If the objective is to increase the quality of tax-supported primary and secondary education, providing tax dollars for the private education of a few while reducing resources for the public education of the majority is a formula that is fundamentally flawed.
From the standpoint of fair taxation alone, the government should not allow a select few parents to choose where their tax dollars for education will be spent while the vast majority can be afforded no such choice.
State Rep. Brian Brown, R-Pitt, one of the primary sponsors of the law creating the so-called voucher program, has said it provides low-income students “the opportunity to attend the school that best meets their needs.”
Asked why other students and their parents should not have the same opportunity for choosing the school that best fits their needs, Brown says they should. But if every parent were empowered to direct their children and their tax dollars toward the school of their choice, the result would be a chaotic collapse of school systems everywhere.
Such a utopian view of public education ignores the reality of how tax-supported schools must be able to serve the needs of all students with support from all taxpayers.
State lawmakers, during the short legislative session, are considering an election-year budget plan from Gov. Pat McCrory that would increase funding for public schools in several areas that have been lacking for a long time. It would give teachers a long-needed and much-deserved bump in pay, return funding for textbooks and reverse some recent laws that would harm the teaching profession and the quality of education.
Lawmakers should approve the governor’s plan and dedicate their full support and political energies toward enhancing and empowering the schools that must serve everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status.
http://www.reflector.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-vouchers-ignore-realities-2480775
May 18, 2014 at 8:11 am
Richard Bunce says:
Just because we do no not yet give all realtively low income parents the same education choices that realtively wealthy parents have long had does not mean we should not give any of these parents this choice. Had the legislature fully funded the program you would be here complaining about that level of funding too. If your government school system is so great then you will have nothing to fear if just a few parents choose a different education system for their children. Unfortunately too many parents realize that the majority of students in government school systems are not proficient at basic skills. Do not punish them for wanting more for their children. If funneling more money into the government schools was the formula for success then Washington DC would have the finest school district in the nation... it does not.
May 18, 2014 at 1:53 pm
Norm Kellly says:
Once again, let's prove that I am not a rocket scientist. What's the difference between myself and those who write editorials and those who write about topics they shouldn't? I'm willing to admit it.
The editorial/post says 'If the objective is to increase the quality of tax-supported primary and secondary education'. What part of this did the author miss? The objective is to improve education for kids! What other objective should there be? NONE! The objective is not to strengthen the teachers association/union. The objective is NOT to make school boards or principals happier with their job. The objective is NOT to reward school systems that are top heavy with management. The objective IS to improve education for kids; to actually produce educated kids who can graduate into the world and SUPPORT themselves. The objective is to provide PARENTS with choices that allow THEM to send THEIR kids to the school that THEY believe will best EDUCATE their kids.
A secondary outcome of this COULD be and SHOULD be that the education establishment is improved. Competition generally improves all of the competitors. It could happen with big education as well. But it's important to note that big education is essentially a government monopoly. Unless the monopoly adjusts and improves, it will become a dinosaur. So a secondary goal of allowing parents to choose a competitor is to encourage, if not force, big education, the education establishment, to improve so as to continue to attract families and therefore dollars.
Let's quote the author once again 'one of the primary sponsors of the law creating the so-called voucher program'. Try to speak as negatively as you wish about the program. Call it a 'so-called voucher program' until you are blue in the face. Make fun of the program. But what is it really? Why do you object to competition to the education establishment? Is it because the tax-supported schools are doing such an excellent job of educating kids? Because the graduation rate, of intelligent, thoughtful, world-ready kids is so high in our tax-supported education system? Berate the supporters, make fun of the name of the program. But what is it really? It's a VOUCHER PROGRAM! That's what IT IS. It is NOT a 'so-called' voucher program. Typical of libs, when you don't have a strong argument, try to change the direction of the argument. The education lottery is a 'so-called education lottery' because education can be supported so much better by other means. Gambling is the WORST way to fund any part of education. Yet it is CONSTANTLY referred to as 'the education lottery'. A misnomer, but one that makes libs especially FEEL good.
'increase funding for public schools in several areas that have been lacking for a long time'. That's an important part of this argument to remember. A point that libs MAY repeat, but don't want you or the teachers' union to pay attention to. The problem with funding big education goes back a 'long time'. Who controlled education funding for most of 'a long time'? The DEMOCRATS! Who actually CUT the budget for the education establishment? The DEMOnCRATS! Not kinda, sorta, maybe cut education spending. But ACTUALLY CUT spending for the education establishment. Since the Republicans have taken control of Raleigh, have they returned all of the money that was cut by the democRATS! Not yet. It's a big hole to fill. But their most recent budget INCREASED spending for the education establishment. Wasn't it Democrat Gov Purdue who hired a SECOND state superintendent of public education? The original superintendent was left in place, but a second one was hired. Duplicating spending on NON-EDUCATION staffing. NOT improving the educational outcomes for kids, but duplicating state spending for NO PURPOSE. Wasn't it the demoncrats, when they took control of the Wake County public school system, who fired the superintendent because they disagreed with his policies? Didn't it cost the education establishment within the county GREAT piles of money to make this partisan political agenda item happen? Did it improve the educational outcome for a SINGLE kid? Did it help improve the graduation rate in our high schools? But didn't an awful lot of money get spent that didn't need to be? Partially because the education establishment has this philosophy that ONLY an educator can lead an education system. Just like the libs have this outdated notion that only a black can represent blacks, only a woman can represent women, and only a lib can help a helpless black person. Remind me who it is that looks first and foremost at external characteristics? Don't libs refer to this as 'profiling'? But who is guilty of profiling?
