My wife is a member of the NEA and she votes Republican, for the most part. As many teachers probably vote Republican as Democratic, since most teachers live in the burbs, including those that teach at inner-city schools. Your contention that liberals oppose vouchers because it threatens their base, i.e., the NEA, is based on fiction, not fact.
The other problem I have with vouchers is that the program would tend to siphon off the high-achievers from public school classrooms. Every class needs achievers to set an example for the others. Virtually every big city in the country has a fund-raising program whereby the Roman Catholic diocese gives scholarships to needy children who wish to attend Catholic schools. Do we really need the federal government delving into an area where the Catholic Church is doing quite nicely? Comments from those who feel we have too much "big government" would be welcomed in response to the above question.
I reiterate: The voucher program is just a slick attempt by Repubs to boost their standing with Roman Catholic parents, i.e., the so-called "Reagan Democrats."
I've got a better idea: Pick one big-city school district, Kansas City, for example. Then close down all the public schools and fire all the teachers. Then contract out educational services with, say, five private educational companies. Let each of 'em run a grade school or two, and allow parents to send their kids to whichever school they prefer. Study the program with a microscope. If the idea works, extend it to other cities.
Gee, this is an idea from a "liberal" that some "conservatives" could embrace. |
