{Note: This is a slightly edited and updated version of something posted several months ago. The original is here if for some reason you care.}
I think it’s a shame the way so many voucher proponents are so staunchly against parent choice.
Oh, I know they fling these two words about a great deal, but they contradict themselves repeatedly in their proposals. And I, for one, think it’s time we call them out on it.
For those of you who haven’t kept up with the conflict, vouchers are a means by which parents would be given a percentage of the per-pupil funding otherwise going to their local public school on behalf of their child in order to use that money at a comparable educational institution of their choosing. The schools would lose a percentage of the money they’re allotted per student, the argument goes, but they’d also have one less student to serve – thus reducing the cost of bussing, heating and air, teacher salaries, food service, nursing, administration, grounds care, building maintenance, technology, and classroom supplies.
They can buy the box of 24 colored pencils instead of splurging for the 32. It’s win-win, except for lovers of ‘burnt orange’.
It’s not so different than choosing to call a limousine service because you don’t want to take the bus. Busses are crowded and dirty, while limos have little plastic champagne glasses and –
Actually, I have no idea what limos have. Just seems like there’d be little plastic champagne glasses.
In any case, you could argue that it’s only fair to ask the city for your share of whatever they spend on busses in order to offset the cost of your limo. And the bus has no room to complain – think of all the gas it will save without you adding to its weight. Heck, they’re probably coming out ahead every time someone leaves and takes those public dollars with them!
Or so the argument goes.
Opponents of vouchers are repeatedly accused of being against “parent choice,” when nothing could be further from the truth. I wholeheartedly support the right of every parent to homeschool, or send their child to a private school – religious or otherwise – or to seek out online options, or whatever else they see fit. And in Oklahoma, they already have and always will have those options, fully protected by both popular opinion and explicit legislation.
The only point of dispute is whether or not public tax dollars will be used to assist these parents in their endeavors. That’s a perfectly reasonable debate to have.
Voucher supporters argue that the money belongs to the student or the parents, to be used for whatever they think best for their child. Opponents counter that public money belongs, once collected, to the public, to be used for whatever is determined to be best for the community.
Voucher supporters argue that schools need competition and tougher oversight to improve, while opponents counter that schools are not businesses, their goals are not profits, and their kids are not products – they need support if they are to improve.
But the most flyer-friendly, talking-point-ready argument from voucher supporters is the one built on that term – “parent choice.” So, if we must have this discussion yet again, let’s at least make sure the term actually means something.
If we institute vouchers, all participating institutions should be required to accept every student who applies. If they accept any vouchers, they should be required to accept all vouchers. Otherwise, that’s not parent choice. Let’s make it a fact as well as a talking point. Whatever their child’s special needs, academic ability, personality traits, behavior issues, background, race, religion, or sexuality, we’re told parents know what’s best for their child and should be given the freedom to make that happen. So let’s do.
If we institute vouchers, no participating institution should be allowed to charge parents one dollar above and beyond the value of the voucher. Otherwise, that’s not parent choice. I realize this may prove a hardship for some schools, who already run on a rather tight budget. But surely this is easily addressed by simply identifying waste and abuse. Parents are already pouring huge amounts of money into these places – it’s obviously just not being used efficiently.
I’m sure the various sectarian and other private schools in the state could cut back on administrative costs. Perhaps several of them could be consolidated. How many principals, counselors, and secretaries could they need? A three-day week would do wonders for the bottom line, and the weather is so nice this time of year – why keep running all that artificial air conditioning? Open a window, like we did when we were kids!
If we institute vouchers, all participating institutions should be expected to provide supplies and equipment for any extra-curricular activities offered by the school. Art supplies. Uniforms. Band instruments. Otherwise, it’s not really parent choice. We’ll also need to talk about breakfast, lunch, and of course transportation to and from school. Additional reading or math tutoring as required. If a school is only willing to fully serve some students, but not others, that’s not really parent choice.
While we have any number of top quality private options across Oklahoma currently, we can’t assume they’re all so reputable. If we institute vouchers, all participating institutions should be subject to some sort of quality control by the state. We’re already considering legislation to protect adult students from for-profit colleges; refusing to do the same thing for minors would be blatant negligence.
Surely it can’t be that burdensome to comply with a few basic requirements – submit some reports, compile a spreadsheet or twelve conforming the exacting yet ever-changing demands of the state legislature. Much like with public schools, we should of course proceed under the assumption that all private school administrators are scam artists and their teachers both incompetent and wanna-be child-rapists.
The paperwork too burdensome? Why are you trying to protect scam artists and child-rapists?
If we institute vouchers, we simply must have an annual ‘report card’ of some sort so parents can know which schools are the good ones. If vouchers are to magically solve problems, increase productivity, and reduce costs, then parents must be able to make informed choices, yes? If they’re not capable of figuring out if their child’s existing public school is doing a good job or not without publishing an overly simplistic critique in the local press each year, I can’t imagine how they’d choose from dozens of options they’ve never even visited.
I’d take my chances with that kind of parent choice. I even genuinely hope that some good comes of it – anything that ends up being good for kids is good for education, period.
But if voucher supporters aren’t willing to get serious about parent choice, then I’m not sure I can take their rhetoric seriously. If they’re not really in this for the reasons they claim, what in subsidized elitism’s name could they be fighting for instead?
I, for one, can’t imagine
RELATED POST: Better Basketball Through Vouchers
RELATED POST: Let’s Talk About Vouchers, Part Four (The Story So Far)