SCHOOL CHOICE WILL BENEFIT OUR CHILDREN

OCTOBER 15, 2006

Like millions of other Americans, I am unhappy that current interpretations of the doctrine of separation of church and state have led to removing moral instruction and prayer from public schools. What could be wrong with teaching our children honesty, fairness, tolerance, self-control and self-sacrifice, respect for others and their property, compassion and charity, promise-keeping, and the like?

There is more to today’s school problems than the absence of religion, however. There are many instances of student apathy, high dropout rates, disorderly conduct, the prevalence of drugs and gangs, promiscuity, disrespect for authority, threats to teacher and student safety, and a lackluster academic performance.

Critics say the lack of school choice removes an important incentive for educational excellence. This claim is supported by the fact that, when parents are able to afford a choice and place their children in private or parochial schools, their children’s performance on standard academic achievement tests improves.

In spite of the evidence that supports the claims of academic improvement through school choice, and in spite of the positive track record of current voucher programs in other states, a resistance to school choice remains on the part of some. Perhaps the resistance is based on misperceptions. Here are some of the primary concerns, and some answers.

Do students really benefit from vouchers? Yes. Prior to receiving vouchers, most students who receive them, scored in the bottom third on standard academic achievement and proficiency tests. After receiving them, they improved significantly. In Milwaukee and New York, for example, the voucher students improved academically enough to score in the upper third of all students tested.

Will school choice through vouchers take money away from public schools? Not according to the evidence from voucher programs currently running in other states. All the money given to parents through vouchers goes right back into education, but it does so in a way that gives parents the freedom to choose the school for their children. This makes schools more responsive to the parents’ expectations and preferences. In Arizona and Minnesota, for example, voucher programs are based on individual income taxes, so they do not directly affect money budgeted for public schools. In Florida, public schools that are given a failing grade for the poor academic performance of their students are receiving millions of dollars of additional federal and state funds for their improvement. Schools given a “D” also receive millions of dollars of additional funding for the same purpose. The governor has reported that public school spending per student will remain constant, regardless of the number of students who use vouchers. In Cleveland, public schools still receive per-pupil money for students in the voucher program. The revenues received by the public schools have actually exceeded the entire cost of the voucher program. In sum, where voucher programs are in existence, money is not lost from public schools; it is put to more effective use.

Another objection to vouchers is that they may lead to new forms of segregation, with parents selecting schools on the basis of the racial composition of the student body instead of the quality of the education offered. The evidence suggests otherwise. Students in private and parochial schools, where choice has free play, are more likely to be racially integrated than those in public schools. Moreover, private schools students are more likely to ignore racial differences than those in public schools.

Does giving tax dollars to parents, who might use them to enroll their children in parochial schools, violate the separation of Church and state? No. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a famous 1971 ruling, determined that three criteria, known as the Lemon test, will determine whether or not a proposed initiative would violate the separation: First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion”.

Vouchers do not violate any of these criteria, because the use of vouchers amounts to citizens making use of public funds to exercise freedom of choice. The vouchers are not given to religious institutions: they are given to parents, so that they may freely choose the school for the education of their offspring. Vouchers are indifferent to the religious beliefs of the parents who use them and to the educational institutions where they are used.

Would school voucher programs result in more regulation of private and parochial schools? There is no reason why they should. The First Amendment protects private schools from state regulation, and the vouchers would be given to parents, not to institutions.

Does the public support school choice? A majority does. As I mentioned last week, polls by Gallup, Phi Delta Kappa, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, and others have shown majority support for voucher programs since the 1990s. The level of support has been growing, ever since. Significantly, where voucher programs are already in use, such as in Wisconsin and Ohio, taxpayers have voiced greater support for vouchers than in states where they have not been tried, and they have indicated a preference for the programs continued and expanded.

At present, we have school choice, but only for those who can afford it. I would like to see school choice available in the State of Texas for everyone, especially the poor. Let us allow the merits of experience to decide whether a voucher program helps our children. Ultimately helping our children receive the best education possible should be our primary concern, and the primary measuring stick of the school policies we choose to enact.

+Bishop Raymundo J. Peña

last updated 05-Jun-2008 9:48 sitemap