CLEVELAND'S public schools have been deemed underachievers. In an attempt to ensure students living in the district adequate education, Cleveland's lawmakers decided to experiment with a voucher program. This week, the Supreme Court will hear testimony as to whether the city's voucher system is constitutional. The goal of the voucher system is to guarantee that the state provide every student with an adequate education. This goal is not at odds with the public school mission. The Supreme Court will best serve the students of Cleveland, and the country at large, if it reverses the lower-court decision and allows vouchers as a viable alternative to failing public schools.
The specific issue before the Supreme Court is whether school vouchers violate the constitutional tenets of separation of church and state. The primary evidence of this is that, of the 51 schools participating in Cleveland's program, only nine are nonreligious. Critics would say that the only real choice this leaves parents is to send their kids to failing public schools or to religious schools.
It is hard to understand how allowing these two choices is any worse than forcing families who cannot afford private school to leave their students in public schools.
|
The lack of nonreligious alternatives in Cleveland is unfortunate, but it is not a fundamental ill of the voucher plan. One alternative is suburban public schools in adjacent districts. Despite the Cleveland plan allowing up to $3,300 to be paid per student transferring to a school in a neighboring district, there have been few schools willing to participate. In order to provide more secular alternatives, the Cleveland school board must more actively recruit these schools. Their lack of eagerness to participate, however, does not warrant a ruling of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court.
The use of vouchers also does not mean that attending public schools no longer is an option. The availability of vouchers doesn't mean that a district is forsaking its government-funded schools. The Cleveland law provides an alternative plan for students not using vouchers. Students who are not part of the voucher program are eligible for a tutorial grant. The number of these grants given is the same as the number of vouchers issued. Through this system, provisions are made within the public schools for students who are both underprivileged and underachieving. This policy represents the city's dedication to its public schools even as it tries to provide dissatisfied citizens with options.
Economist Milton Friedman, an outspoken proponent of the voucher system, argues that free competition among schools will foster better education ("Why America Needs School Vouchers," 21st-Century Learning, Oct. 1, 2000). He argues that, currently, private schools cannot compete with government-funded public schools for students or resources.
Vouchers would provide a free market for education, thereby improving both private and public schools. Presumably, given a better chance to compete for students with public schools, more nonreligious private schools would develop.
The implications of the Supreme Court's decision in this case go far beyond Cleveland. Vouchers are an integral part of Bush's education plan. Vouchers give parents a choice as to how they want their children to be educated. They take responsibility out of the hands of school boards and put it into the hands of the people with the most interest in students: their parents.
Far from forcing public schools out of existence, vouchers help public education. If public schools have to compete with private institutions, they will be forced to hire better teachers and make real reforms.
There is no denying that the Cleveland plan has its problems. Beyond the allegations of promoting religion, there are problems with what happens to unclaimed voucher funds. These problems, however, are not insurmountable and do not justify crushing the whole voucher movement.
America's public schools are not performing up to par. If they were, this debate would be virtually non-existent. Vouchers give families a choice - that's hardly unconstitutional.
(Megan Moyer's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at mmoyer@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
