Today on talk radio the subject of school vouchers was addressed by the host. His argument was simply that the state should help children who are in "substandard" schools to be enabled to attend a better school perhaps only across town or in another district or even in a private school. For my way of thinking, this is flawed thinking on many different levels.
- Yes, parents do have a right to move their children to private schools if they so choose. However, they do not have a "right" to expect the state to pay for it. The state is already paying for it, and so are these parents who will continue to pay the taxes that finance public education. It must also be remembered that in the rural areas of the state, a private school education is not always feasible. And according to the state Supreme Court, what is good and necessary for one child is good and necessary for all the others.
- An individual child may benefit from vouchers that will help pay for the child to attend a different school, but how will this voucher address the problems that this child is trying to escape? I promise you these problems will not go away; they will only become greater and more acute the longer we ignore the core problems that obviously exist.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that our funding of public education is not "adequate" or "equitable". This goes back to the basic argument that if a larger school district can spend $7100.00 per student (this is a real figure!), then the other districts must be able to match it. In other words, a child in Backwater AR is as entitled to the $7100.00 spending level as a child in, say, Little Rock.
- If the atmosphere from which one child is trying to escape is not conducive to sound learning, it must be reasonably assumed that other children are suffering equally. So rather than run away from the problem, how about we actually identify and fix the problem? Sending the child away from it does not mean that the problem will no longer exist.
- If we cannot afford to raise spending levels to adequately match this $7100.00 spending level, we certainly cannot afford this spending level while financing private education with public funds. Being unable to raise spending to "equitable" levels means that the state can be held in contempt of a court order. Would this then mean that as long as the legislature continues to apply a band-aid over an open wound and defy the Court that the Court could actually "take over" the state school system?
What is disturbing about news reports from the governor and the members of the legislature is that these tiny ideas keep floating to the surface - and they may not be entirely without merit in their own time - the fundamental issue of "equitable" or even "adequate" is not being addressed. This is not a "panic" plea for someone to do something - QUICK! - before the state Supreme Court takes over the schools. It is, instead, an admonishment to those whom we have elected to office and entrusted to the task of keeping state government functioning.
And I will assure you: your pensions and raises have NOTHING to do with the well-being of public education.
It is time for serious people to address very serious problems. It is also time for voters to pay closer attention to what our elected officials are doing with their time and our money. We do not need more band-aids. We need teachers and administrators to show us, dollar for dollar, what it takes to operate a successful school. No more lawyers and no more politicians.
And above all else, no more excuses.
4 comments:
Yes, parents do have a right to move their children to private schools if they so choose. However, they do not have a "right" to expect the state to pay for it. The state is already paying for it, and so are these parents who will continue to pay the taxes that finance public education. It must also be remembered that in the rural areas of the state, a private school education is not always feasible. And according to the state Supreme Court, what is good and necessary for one child is good and necessary for all the others.
How about this alternative: parents who wish to put their children in private schools can receive a rebate for whatever taxes that they pay in support of the public education system which they do not use, yet are forced to pay for.
This has been proposed in the past, but the legislature and the governor have been reluctant to seriously consider it because of the loss of general revenue. And if I recall, the vouchers for "needy" folks to send their children to private schools at state expense sort of fed off such a proposal in a very welfare-like, round-about way.
Of course it's not really a state expense. Rather, the people are simply getting their money back for a service (public education) that they aren't interested in.
I wish I had paid more attention a few years ago when this business really began. Now that they have my attention, it's all I can do to keep up, let alone catch up!
Post a Comment