 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
|
To
the Editor, I
was very pleased to read your July 16th Times Union dueling commentaries
regarding school choice. This debate, relentlessly forestalled by the
teacher unions, is long overdue. I
would like to see this debate waged between two non-partisans or balanced
by hearing the views of extreme partisans on both sides. I am an unabashed
partisan, and very 'Pro' on the idea of school choice. I agree with
much of what the 'Pro' Mr. Goodman wrote, but he has erred in assigning
a 'cause and effect' relationship to more money and better education.
Property values are not improved by being associated with a good public
school. In fact, school taxes are just as important as interest rates
when a bank is trying to determine a buyer's potential. A home's value
is determined by a potential buyer's ability to pay, and every dollar
spent on taxes is a dollar less buying potential. In as much as most
home buyers don't even have children in school, they view high taxes
as a detriment. The
Rev. Lynn's 'Con' commentary is very good for the cause of freedom of
choice because it is so filled with blatant falsehoods. While I wonder
where he ever became ordained, and for what purpose, I welcome the opportunity
to debunk his myth's and expose his hypocrisy. He refers to a parent's
natural and God given right to choose, as a "religious school voucher"
scheme and a violation of the separation of church and state. Both of
these arguments have their roots in the secular humanist camp and it
is sad to see people who call themselves educators and ministers repeating
such nonsense. Parents
pay the taxes that the State uses to pay the teachers. Ideally, parents
would pay the teachers directly, but for political expediency, the only
way we can restore some parental freedom is to return some of their
taxes to them in the form of a voucher. They can then choose the type
of education that best suites their children. They may choose any school,
secular or religious. Our Constitution gives us the right to live without
religion if we so choose. Public schools have denied many of us the
right to choose religion. Rev.
Lynn's tired argument, that vouchers take money away from public schools,
is patently untrue and can be used to illustrate the fact that public
school tax dollars are not making their way to the classroom. If we
remove a child from a historically more expensive public school and
put that child in a historically less expensive school, we will have
spent less on his/her public education. We would also reduce the public
school's expenses associated with that pupil. This is a good thing,
unless you're a public school administrator who is spending education
dollars on non-academic budget items. Private
schools typically cost half that of public schools. In its purest form
a voucher would reduce the cost to taxpayers by 50%, but most voucher
proposals have given that savings to the public school that the student
left. In this way the public school would be appeased by an increase
in funding per pupil. Contrary to their "It's for the children"
mantra, the types of funding placed at risk by vouchers are non-academic
budget items like physical plant management and administrators salaries.
These and many other expenses really have nothing to do with the classroom
needs of the children. History has shown that public school bureaucrats
do not reduce their operating expenses when the student population diminishes.
They are, however the first to claim they need more money when the student
population increases. There
are many other specious reasons why some people oppose school choice.
I once spoke to a teacher who said: "Don't you realize the glass
ceiling has finally been broken in public schools." Meaning most
public school teachers are women, unionized and exceedingly well paid.
Private schools are not required to hire union labor and vouchers used
in a private school would jeopardize the unions' dominance. Also at
risk of reduced funding are the politicians supported by the unions,
mostly Democrats. Political realities are in the way of what is right
for the children.
|
