Not a day goes by without a myriad of articles in local and national papers addressing the topic of international terrorism. Since Sept. 11, the subject has permeated every aspect of American life. Today, when the President appears on television or gives an interview, the subject is nearly always in some way related to the al Qaeda and the future of American security. Flash back to the 2000 Presidential race, however, and the issues were much different. While foreign policy certainly had a role in the election, it was a minor part. The issues that really took center stage during the campaign revolved around domestic concerns, such as the economy, social security, and education. Bush, in particular, latched on to the education issue, making it part of the centerpiece of his campaign. With many public schools in large urban centers putting up abysmal scores on every conceivable objective test, Bush proposed a new education plan, that included rigorous testing and support for school choice.
Since Sept. 11, all domestic programs have been put on the back burner as foreign adversaries present the most immediate problem for the current administration. Lost in the shift from a domestic to a foreign policy focus has been the administration's commitment to school choice. Even before Sept. 11, the Bush administration had begun to back down from its support for school vouchers, and now the issue (at least in government) seems dead.
This is a sorry statement about the power of public school teachers' unions and the information level of the American public. For many bright kids who live in the inner cities, vouchers may provide the path to a better life. As of now, many public schools have failed to provide an education to the students they are supposed to serve. Voucher advocates believe that allowing parents to send their kids to private schools will increase the quality of education in the public system by forcing competition and will allow bright kids who have poor access to better education through the capability to attend top quality private schools. Opponents argue that all of the talent that is forced to be in the public schools now, due to lack of fiscal resources, will flee the public schools, and thus will help destroy the public school system.
Opponents of vouchers, which include the teachers' unions such as the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, argue that the public school system, while broken, can and must be fixed. For them, it is the school system itself, and not the quality of education that is important. This fundamental point is at the core of the debate surrounding vouchers, and cannot be under-stressed. To teachers and others who oppose vouchers, the public school system is a sacred cow which must be preserved, whatever the cost. Even in school systems which have broken down completely and graduate students who are unable to read their diplomas, teachers unions and their supporters will say "fix it." For voucher proponents, the public school system is merely one way of educating a student, and all that matters in the end is whether the child is educated. If a student can get a good education at a public institution, well and good. If not, then the student should be able to go elsewhere. To voucher proponents, the public schools are merely one possible way of educating a child, and if they don't work then they should be ignored and resources pumped into more promising avenues.
Oftentimes, public schools can and do serve a community well. However, in crowded urban areas public schools have often failed to deliver the same performance as their counterparts in more suburban or rural neighborhoods. Often, the attempted solution has been to throw money at the problem, but as Washington DC schools prove, more money does not necessarily lead to greater performance. Washington spending per pupil is near the top of the range for public schools, yet its performance is near the bottom.
Of course, the groups who suffer the most by being forced into sub-par school systems are poor minorities, who constitute a large portion of inner cities where the schools are the worst. For these kids, there exists no alternative to a bad school, while richer families are able to pay for their children to receive an education at better institutions. While not a perfect solution, vouchers, which are essentially scholarships, will give at least some kids a chance to advance in life. Opponents will say that when all the good kids leave the public system will be worse off than before because only less bright children will remain. But should our goal be to save the public school system or the children in it? Keeping bright students in the public school system just so that the system can survive does nothing to serve the interests of the student and everything to serve the interests of the teachers and administrators who work in the system.
No one knows whether giving students the choice of vouchers on a nationwide or statewide level will work. As of now, there are only a few voucher programs in the whole country. Though the results look promising (particularly in the area of parental involvement in the school community), the limited size of such programs makes it hard to judge how they will do on a wider basis. They may fail. The price of not trying, however, is to concede that miserable public schools are the only option for many bright students who lack financial wealth. These kids deserve better and the public schools aren't delivering.
