Justin Levi Levi is a second-year
history and political science student. He welcomes your comments at
[email protected].
Click
Here for more articles by Justin Levi
For the last several election cycles, we Californians have been
treated to some of the most insignificant ballot propositions in
recent memory. Indeed, not since Proposition 209 have we had a
chance to so profoundly correct a major problem in our state.
Fortunately, the powers that be have decided to grant us a great
opportunity once again in the form of Proposition 38, the school
voucher initiative.
I am disturbed, however, by the way the debate on this issue
seems to be unfolding. The truth, in this case, has been sacrificed
for one reason or another by those opposed to the innovative and
promising idea of school vouchers. Therefore, it’s about time
we had a little lesson in education policy.
As pathetic as it seems, we need to begin by defining that which
many of us so blindly loathe. School vouchers, the subject of this
proposition, are special state-provided grants that are intended to
help those families of lower socioeconomic status (although
Proposition 38 would provide vouchers for all) afford better
schooling. The amount of the voucher is based on a percentage of
the average cost of educating a student, K- 12, in a state-run
school.
But wait! Doesn’t that deprive the public schools of
desperately needed cash? Hardly. Allow me to elaborate. Let us take
two hypothetical institutions: Public School District X and Private
School Y. Imagine that District X has twenty students, which cost a
total of $200,000, or $10,000 per student. Now let us assume that
these students are offered vouchers of $5,000 to attend the far
superior School Y. If ten of these children opt out of District X,
the district is left with only $150,000, as critics of school
choice would argue.
This attitude, however, is quite intellectually dishonest and a
deliberately incomplete analysis. In examining this policy, we must
go a step further. While the funding for District X has indeed
dropped, so has the enrollment. All of a sudden, District X is
averaging $15,000 per student, certainly better than before. It is
this argument that demonstrates the cracking of the anti-choice
egg. As with many other liberal positions, proponents of a more
centralized, bureaucratically controlled education system are
clearly more interested in “the system” than the
students who are supposed to benefit from that system.
 Illustration by ERICA PINTO/Daily Bruin Perhaps the most
overused and under-rationalized argument used by anti-choice
proponents is that vouchers represent some sort of surrender, the
act of giving up on the public schools. Intellectual dishonesty?
You bet. Take the competition argument, for example. As we all
know, the general theory behind the allocation of funds to public
schools involves the student population at those schools. So what
happens when students leave the public school system for superior
private institutions? The individual public school loses
funding.
So, for all those public officials who have the patience level
of a two-year-old, this represents the gradual destruction of the
system. But, if given time, a public school will be forced to spend
what money they have more wisely, hiring better teachers, spending
more on books and less on bureaucrats, and so on.
A perfect example of this argument at work is the Florida public
school system. That state passed a form of voucher program two
years ago, and almost immediately saw results. The program stated
that vouchers could be awarded to students who attended schools
that received an “F” rating from the state two years in
a row.
In 1998, the year the law was passed, 78 schools throughout the
state received such a rating. This resulted in students leaving the
public schools for private schools. For example, over the course of
the next year, 138 students left the Pensacola school system, with
53 going to private institutions. The next year, only four schools
received failing grades, and interestingly enough, none of those
original 78 was among the four (“School Choice Tide
Turning?” Washington Times, July 27, 2000).
So what happened? Was it something just short of a miracle? Not
likely. Faced with the prospect that they might lose students and
funding, the failing public schools bit the proverbial bullet and
improved.
Competition produces results, period. Without competition, what
is the school system’s motivation for improvement? As long as
the perpetual pocket lining scheme between the anti-choice
politicians and the teachers’ unions continues, not much.
So what are the results?
According to a Harvard University study, elementary voucher
students in Milwaukee, by their fourth year of the program, were
scoring five and 11 percentage points higher on math and reading,
respectively, than counterparts who were turned down for the
vouchers. In Cleveland, a greater improvement (five and 15 percent)
was recorded, and two-thirds of parents reported being “very
satisfied” with the results. Surprise? Not really.
This column, of course, would be bereft of any substance if it
did not tackle perhaps the most controversial aspect of the voucher
debate: civil rights and, primarily, the possibility of public
funds going to religiously based educational institutions.
The Supreme Court, in order to prevent any confusion, has
devised a formula for determining the extent to which the
separation of church and state should be measured with respect to
this and many other issues. Known as the Agostini test, this
formula could potentially indicate that voucher laws do indeed have
a secular purpose, do not inhibit or advance religion, and are
neutral programs available to all and able to be dispersed to any
form of educational institution. Therefore, they are purely within
the spirit of the separation of church and state.
More importantly, perhaps, is the perception that vouchers are
somehow racially discriminatory, as public school systems contain
higher percentages of minority students than do private schools.
Chalk one up for intellectual dishonesty. A further examination
reveals that private schools are generally more integrated than
public schools, irrespective of the ethnic breakdown of an entire
district, while private institutions contain students from a larger
urban or suburban community. To achieve racial integration,
anti-choicers need not apply.
It is important to recognize that a majority of African
Americans favor school vouchers, and for precisely the reason that
more blacks are likely to find themselves in failing schools.
Unfortunately, the liberal, big-government sect of politics prefers
to dictate to minorities, especially blacks, on what is best for
them, including views on education. Therefore, it is assumed that
blacks are overwhelmingly opposed to school choice. What
nonsense!
The idea that because of skin color, certain citizens are
incapable of making their own decisions is not only insulting, but
borderline racist as well. In order to understand the intangible
benefits of vouchers, the average voter must understand the
importance of individual choice ““ decisions made without the
watchful eye of Big Brother Uncle Sam.
When examining this issue, one must ask why critics of school
choice consistently argue that vouchers take money away from
“the public school system,” rather than from the
students themselves? Answer: because they will lose their much
coveted bureaucratic control over a key area of public policy.
Vouchers do not promise private education to all, as those students
must still meet the academic requirements of admission, but the
school choice movement is certainly a long overdue beginning to
curing the ails of the public school system.