Debate is raging in Pennsylvania over whether or not we should allow school vouchers. There are good arguments for vouchers, most importantly that they get students out of failing schools. Public schools, as a virtual monopoly, have little incentive to improve. After all, they still receive tax dollars no matter how many children in their districts attend private schools. This means school districts are receiving the same or even increased funding via property taxes even as enrollment drops. The competition angle is important because it means that schools will be forced to improve in order to attract more students.
Currently, many parents pay twice, once through taxes to fund public schools and again as tuition to their kid's school, if they can afford to do so. If they can't afford tuition or acquire scholarships, their children are stuck with a substandard education. Critics contend that if parents don't like a school district they should move. That seems like an undue hardship for most people and it's a surprising attitude from the liberal crowd indeed. These people claim that a $24 state-issued ID card every 4 years is an undue hardship for voters but they expect parents to uproot their families from the communities they love when the schools aren't good enough. That's ludicrous. People have roots in their communities, churches, family and friends, homes they love; They shouldn't have to walk away from all of those things and more simply to receive an adequate public education.
Americans shouldn't have to shoulder myriad expenses simply so their children can learn. Just consider the many effects: Longer commutes to work, family, religious services, preferred grocery stores and friends; Unnecessary closing costs or rent deposits on new housing; Moving expenses and other details to numerous to mention. Moving is a complete upheaval of your entire life. We pay a hefty premium in property taxes here in Pennsylvania and deserve decent schools for the money we spend. The system should work for us, not the other way around. It's never acceptable for our lives to revolve around what's convenient or preferred for the government-run system we are funding. The argument that we should bend to the system instead of being served by it is dangerously ignorant.
Voucher opponents are also ignoring the many benefits to communities from school choice. It will not only help people stay in their neighborhoods and be a more cohesive community but it also helps communities thrive. Private schools benefit the entire community, not just their own students. They perform community service, pick up litter, plant flowers, paint storefronts, hold clothing and food drives and many other helpful services. More students means more hands to work and more families to donate goods. Many schools or their affiliated religious institutions offer daycare, before- and after-school programs, activities, groups to join and sports. More students means more money to sponsor activities. Those little church festivals and school carnivals bring outsiders into the community who spend money. People put quarters into parking meters, visit local restaurants, buy gas and shop in an area they normally wouldn't have traveled to but for attending a scout meeting, dance recital or little league game. Depriving parents of school choice doesn't end with children receiving substandard educations. It also keeps communities depressed.
Another popular argument against vouchers is that it's tax money funding private organizations. This argument is invalid because tax money funds all types of private organizations both directly and indirectly. Tax breaks and incentives to businesses, including oh-so-popular "green" initiatives, is one very obvious means of such funding. But another one that voucher critics never acknowledge is that our state and local governments outsource most things. Lots of our local and state tax dollars go to private companies, as government is mostly bureaucratic and has little true productivity. Tax money is used to pay private contractors to design, build and maintain our infrastructure; It's used to pay private doctors, nurses and hospitals to treat people on Medicaid; It's used to pay consultants to make decisions on whether or not we should change parking rates, revise our public transportation system or create a storwater authority.
Tax money funds critical miltary supplies to protect our soldiers, all made by private firms. It funds private practice social workers, home health workers, psychologists and others in the human services field. It's also handed out in grants to private organizations that help children, the elderly, victims of abuse, people with mental and physical disabilities and for employment incentives with private companies. This is done because government has found it more expedient and efficient to contract with professionals in a given field than to employ such professionals. Education can not reasonably be held to a different standard than treating our ill, building our bridges, caring for our disabled or any other service coordinated by our bureaucrats.
If a person opposes school vouchers than they must also oppose every other aspect of outsourcing in our government. If private schools are too biased, too exclusive, not accountable enough to teach our children, then private contractors and medical professionals can't reasonably be up to the required standards of building our roads or caring for our sick. If private schools can't be trusted to educate our kids then we can't give private employers incentives for hiring displaced workers or making environmentally-focused changes. We utilize the private sector in every aspect of our government except education.
Public schools will see a decrease in funding but will have less students to educate. Very few of their costs are fixed, generally just electricity and heat. Most costs are tied to number of students so fewer students means they don't need as many books and supplies, fewer lunches to prepare and serve, lower water bills, fewer teachers and administrative personnel. Increasing funding to poor-performing schools has not led to improvements so decreasing funding won't hurt the schools; If there were a correlation between dollars spent and performance, we wouldn't be having this debate because our public schools would all be stellar. There is no rational or logical reason to continue holding students hostage to failing schools.
Currently, many parents pay twice, once through taxes to fund public schools and again as tuition to their kid's school, if they can afford to do so. If they can't afford tuition or acquire scholarships, their children are stuck with a substandard education. Critics contend that if parents don't like a school district they should move. That seems like an undue hardship for most people and it's a surprising attitude from the liberal crowd indeed. These people claim that a $24 state-issued ID card every 4 years is an undue hardship for voters but they expect parents to uproot their families from the communities they love when the schools aren't good enough. That's ludicrous. People have roots in their communities, churches, family and friends, homes they love; They shouldn't have to walk away from all of those things and more simply to receive an adequate public education.
Americans shouldn't have to shoulder myriad expenses simply so their children can learn. Just consider the many effects: Longer commutes to work, family, religious services, preferred grocery stores and friends; Unnecessary closing costs or rent deposits on new housing; Moving expenses and other details to numerous to mention. Moving is a complete upheaval of your entire life. We pay a hefty premium in property taxes here in Pennsylvania and deserve decent schools for the money we spend. The system should work for us, not the other way around. It's never acceptable for our lives to revolve around what's convenient or preferred for the government-run system we are funding. The argument that we should bend to the system instead of being served by it is dangerously ignorant.
Voucher opponents are also ignoring the many benefits to communities from school choice. It will not only help people stay in their neighborhoods and be a more cohesive community but it also helps communities thrive. Private schools benefit the entire community, not just their own students. They perform community service, pick up litter, plant flowers, paint storefronts, hold clothing and food drives and many other helpful services. More students means more hands to work and more families to donate goods. Many schools or their affiliated religious institutions offer daycare, before- and after-school programs, activities, groups to join and sports. More students means more money to sponsor activities. Those little church festivals and school carnivals bring outsiders into the community who spend money. People put quarters into parking meters, visit local restaurants, buy gas and shop in an area they normally wouldn't have traveled to but for attending a scout meeting, dance recital or little league game. Depriving parents of school choice doesn't end with children receiving substandard educations. It also keeps communities depressed.
Another popular argument against vouchers is that it's tax money funding private organizations. This argument is invalid because tax money funds all types of private organizations both directly and indirectly. Tax breaks and incentives to businesses, including oh-so-popular "green" initiatives, is one very obvious means of such funding. But another one that voucher critics never acknowledge is that our state and local governments outsource most things. Lots of our local and state tax dollars go to private companies, as government is mostly bureaucratic and has little true productivity. Tax money is used to pay private contractors to design, build and maintain our infrastructure; It's used to pay private doctors, nurses and hospitals to treat people on Medicaid; It's used to pay consultants to make decisions on whether or not we should change parking rates, revise our public transportation system or create a storwater authority.
Tax money funds critical miltary supplies to protect our soldiers, all made by private firms. It funds private practice social workers, home health workers, psychologists and others in the human services field. It's also handed out in grants to private organizations that help children, the elderly, victims of abuse, people with mental and physical disabilities and for employment incentives with private companies. This is done because government has found it more expedient and efficient to contract with professionals in a given field than to employ such professionals. Education can not reasonably be held to a different standard than treating our ill, building our bridges, caring for our disabled or any other service coordinated by our bureaucrats.
If a person opposes school vouchers than they must also oppose every other aspect of outsourcing in our government. If private schools are too biased, too exclusive, not accountable enough to teach our children, then private contractors and medical professionals can't reasonably be up to the required standards of building our roads or caring for our sick. If private schools can't be trusted to educate our kids then we can't give private employers incentives for hiring displaced workers or making environmentally-focused changes. We utilize the private sector in every aspect of our government except education.
Public schools will see a decrease in funding but will have less students to educate. Very few of their costs are fixed, generally just electricity and heat. Most costs are tied to number of students so fewer students means they don't need as many books and supplies, fewer lunches to prepare and serve, lower water bills, fewer teachers and administrative personnel. Increasing funding to poor-performing schools has not led to improvements so decreasing funding won't hurt the schools; If there were a correlation between dollars spent and performance, we wouldn't be having this debate because our public schools would all be stellar. There is no rational or logical reason to continue holding students hostage to failing schools.
No comments:
Post a Comment