Let's run a scenerio with school vouchers.
California approves school vouchers paying families $4,000 per year per child. Families that already have kids in private schools immediately cash in, causing a jump in the budget expense. Other middle class families take advantage, removing kids from public schools and claiming their bounty. Kids from poor families cannot take advantage, as there are no public schools that will take only $4000 for yearly tuition (average is more like $10k).
As kids are removed from the public school districts, the total enrollment declines, leaving a higher percentage of disadvantaged kids. Since there is a correlation between economic level and scholastic results, test scores in public schools decline, causing further defections from the public school system.
Public school systems would need to consolidate to make up for the declining enrollment, meaning school closures, longer student commutes, higher bussing costs. At the same time, public schools will need to advertise to attract business, removing a significant amount of available money to actually educate kids.
What would result is an even wider disparity between the education received by the 'haves' and 'have nots'. Further down the road, resulting crime and welfare costs increase. At the same time, California is unable to continue its dominance in high tech, for lack of an educated population. These high tech firms start to look elsewhere for their needs, eroding the tax base and further accelerating the economic decline.
California schools die from their supposed cure.
I do agree that a solution is necessary. I have two kids in elementary school right now, with two to follow. The solution to the entire problem escapes me, but it is clear that vouchers are not the answer, IMHO. Btw: my nieces live in the same district, and go to private school. They appear to receive no better an education than my public school children, which throws a wrench into the whole voucher premise. |
