The GOP paints school vouchers like this: There's a single African-American mother who wants the best for her bright, 12-year-old son. She's shackled by the fact that she can't escape the quote-unquote inner city -- and the local failing public school, and she can't afford to send her son anywhere else because of her limited income.
Now, thanks to a $2,500 tax break from the Republican Party in the form of a tuition voucher, she'll soon have the money to send her son to a better school, where he will excel, and then go on to college and become a doctor or an accountant.
What's wrong with this picture?
Several things.
1. In virtually every large city in America, any mother who wants to send her son to an inner-city Catholic school can do so, regardless of income. Inner-city tuition funds in some cities are in the millions of dollars. The non-public school opportunity already exists for this mother.
2. The voucher amount offered to this mother still won't be enough to send her son to a non-religious private school with a $6,000 to $14,000 yearly tuition price tag. Hence, the upper tier of private schools will remain out of reach for her.
3. The non-religious private school with a $6,000 to $14,000 yearly tuition price tag doesn't want her kid anyway. Diversity is not an objective at many of these schools.
4. I'm not sure competition is the answer. Competition works well in some areas, i.e., when you want to buy a new car, but it's not the answer in other areas, like low bidder for airport security or having competing dentistry schools within 50 miles of each other.
I think the answer lies in modifying the existing public school structure to become more creative: dedicated schools, magnet schools, charter schools, etc. I'd even support vouchers in, say, four or five test areas around the country, so we could study the effect they would have on the existing public schools.
There are simply too many hidden risks with vouchers to go full-steam ahead, IMO. |
