The letter from the president of the New Jersey Taxpayers association ("Support School Choice and Keep Tax Dollars," News Transcript, July 9, 2008), which attacks the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) for opposing the "scholarship" (voucher) program being considered in New Jersey requires a response.
The suggestion that the head of the NJEA is in favor of denying underprivileged students a good education because she opposes vouchers is a semantic trick, and is typical of the type of attacks on public education that come from such right-wing organizations as the taxpayers association. The writer of the letter represents an association that is every bit as self-serving as he claims the teachers association to be. These groups want more for themselves and less for the public good- without a loss of services.
Public education is this country’s last hope for true democracy as its mission concerns the intellectual and emotional development of all children, and aims to produce students who can effectively function as free citizens in a diverse society and global economy. To provide public support for private education through vouchers, or "scholarships" will simply magnify the already significant gap between the haves and the have-nots in this country. The true disingenuousness comes from those who profess to be siding with the underprivileged, when in reality they want public dollars to subsidize religious and other private schools. Most civil rights advocates see this for the Trojan Horse that it actually is.
The premise of the argument articulated in this case is based on two transparent fallacies; that schools can improve through competition, and that private schools are "better" than public schools. While competition is appropriate in the cut-throat world of business, it can not apply to schools without hurting children.
Imagine a factory that is having difficulty with quality control, and it determines that the problem stems from defective parts from a hired vendor. In business, the manager simply fires the vendor, and engages another who might produce a superior product. By having control of these inputs, and all of the other factors of production, this business has a better chance to compete based on the abilities of its workers and managers.
In schools, there is no control over the inputs as children (at least in public schools) cannot be turned away simply because they do not have a high enough test score or because they have a learning disability. Since the schools can’t control inputs, how can they be expected to successfully compete?
Actually, school choice as a method of establishing competition could have exactly the opposite effect it intends. For example, if students are free to move from "failing" schools into "successful" schools, how long will the second school be successful if the arriving students are deficient in certain academic areas? Should the Board of Education in the target school district be able to pick and choose the students it would be willing to take? If not, how can a competitive environment be workable? Obviously, the idea is fatally flawed.
The comparison between private and public schools made in the letter I’ve referenced is inaccurate and misleading. Every recent study reports that when all factors affecting education are considered, public and private schools are dead even when it comes to student achievement. It would be interesting to see what would happen if, as a result of voucher programs, private schools were suddenly expected to accept at-risk students. How would their needs be met in an environment that has never had to address them?
Voucher advocates, whether they represent taxpayer associations or a certain political point of view, want to have their cake and eat it too. They want public money to support private schools, but don’t want these schools to be held accountable for success as described by such draconian measures as No Child Left Behind. They want competition to improve education, but want children to be able to attend the school of their choice. You can’t have it both ways.
In the interest of disclosure, please note that I have been a public school educator and advocate for the disadvantaged for nearly 35 years. Currently I serve as a school principal in a large, suburban district.
Charles Welsh
Howell