In spite of tremendous success, school voucher programs still have their opponents. Most are Dems beholden to the powerful unions.
Typically, school choice is opposed because the programs are said to "take money, better students, and concerned parents away from already troubled public school systems without offering any solutions to existing problems. Another criticism is that taxpayer-funded vouchers for tuition at religious schools unconstitutionally breach the separation between church and state."
Other arguments against school choice include some weird theories, like voucher systems are really plots by conservatives to do away with public education altogether by chipping away at funding. Some claim that the goal is to get rid of public schools to establish a theocracy, all under the pretense of helping disadvantaged children.
Scare tactics are also employed to turn people against voucher programs. There's a campaign in Milwaukee to frighten homeowners into siding with the anti-choice crowd. Mailings warn that school choice drains funds from the public school system, which results in less successful neighborhood schools. This means home values in the area will plummet.
DO YOU WANT YOUR HOME TO DECREASE IN VALUE???
Sadly, I'm afraid some homeowners, particularly senior citizens, would be influenced by this misinformation.
John J. Miller, on National Review Online, June 28, 2002, accurately predicted another argument that school choice opponents would adopt.
In his discussion of school choice, Miller writes:
Although Zelman v. Simmons-Harris displeases the anti-school-choice forces, it also hands them a potentially effective argument they haven't used before. Zelman lowers the wall separating church and state — which means it also lowers the wall separating mosque and state. A potential problem for school choice is that will enable quirky subgroups to establish quirky schools. For years, Afrocentrism was seen as a possible threat, though it must be said that nobody has yet founded a Leonard Jeffries School for Sun People in either Cleveland or Milwaukee.
But what about jihad schools? Could radical Muslims, at some point in the future, exploit school-choice programs? The answer is probably not, though don't be surprised if school choice's foes start talking about how public schools are an essential feature of American unity.
They'll drape themselves in flags, and say it's vital for poor kids to keep on attending lousy public schools, where they aren't supposed to recite that divisive Pledge of Allegiance.
It's as if Miller read Hillary Clinton's mind, three and a half years in advance.
On Tuesday, she was a speaker at a breakfast of the South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation.
Hillary went off on one of her uncontrolled rants, bashing school choice.
She said:
Suppose you were meeting today to decide who got the vouchers. First parent who comes says, "I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic school," and you say, "Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher."
Next parent who comes says, "I want to send, you know, my child to the Jewish day school." "Great, here's your voucher."
Next parent who comes says, "I want to send my child to the private school that I've always dreamed of sending my child to." "Fine, here's your voucher."
Next parent who comes says, "I want to send my child to the school of the church of the white supremacist." You say, "Wait a minute, you can't send -- we're not giving you a voucher for that." And the parent says, "Well, the way I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy, and therefore, you gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, you gave it to a secular private school parent. Under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me."
So as the next parent comes and says, "I want to send my child to the school of the jihad." "Wait a minute, we're not going to send a child with taxpayer dollars to school of the jihad." "Well, you gave it to the Catholics, you gave it to the Jews, you gave it to the private secular people, you going to tell me I can't? I'm a taxpayer, under the Constitution." Now, tell me how we're going to make those choices?
"School of the jihad"?
That's exactly what Miller foresaw. He said that nuts would use that argument to scare people away from supporting school choice.
What's scary is that one of those nuts is a U.S. Senator and wants to be President of the United States.
Actually, I think it would be helpful if parents requested taxpayer dollars to send their kids to the school of jihad.
That would alert the government that a training ground for terrorists exists on American soil.
I'm being facetious (sort of).
Anyway you look at it, Hillary's argument is idiotic.
In the Wisconsin school choice program, there are controls in place. The private schools are required to do testing and meet criteria in order to participate.
Tax dollars aren't handed out in a slipshod fashion. The schools must show evidence that children are being educated according to specific standards.
Does Hillary really think that a suicide bombing curriculum would be supported?
Moreover, as long as laws are not being broken, and children are being taught the necessary basics -- reading, writing, math, science, etc. -- what gives Hillary the right to tell parents that a given school is inappropriate for their children?
I guess it takes a village only if it's ruled by Queen Hillary.
The fact is school choice is good for kids. Overall, it works.
Obviously, Hillary and her cohorts care most about votes and campaign cash. Unions supply those. Children hoping for an education that will give them an opportunity for a bright future don't make large donations to candidates, nor do they have the power to deliver desired election results.
If kids could do that, rather than being a fear monger about school choice, Hillary would be promising vouchers for all.
Instead, she is content to take her place standing in the schoolhouse door.
No comments:
Post a Comment