School Vouchers - the Perils of Petrena - an Inconvenient Choice
I discovered this post when cleaning out my draft folder. I wrote it after one of the D&C community bloggers penned an essay about school vouchers. I found it distressing, not so much for the author’s ideas, but for the distinction I saw between two different philosophies. “What’s in it for us?” as opposed to “what’s in it for me?” It is especially poignant because of the recent court reversal of Maggie’s supposed FAIR plan (it’s pending appeal) and the State saying it can’t give it’s supposed record aid ad infinitum. But this is about vouchers and, yeah, Spitzer was still governor, but here it is….
Petrena penned her second Speaking Out essay. It was certainly better than the first one. Actually it was well written and provided valuable insight into the mind of a conservative -
Taxes and the benefit from taxes is good when they benefit you…not other people. The word I’m looking for is “selfish.”
So, here is the deal with the essay, paraphrased simply in my words:
Bishop Clark is in the process of closing a bunch of Catholic schools, 2 schools of which her daughters attend. Now, she and other families need to look for new schools. Petrena, who lives in Greece, states that people don’t want to send their kids to city schools with a 39% graduation rate, public schools cannot absorb the kids affected by Bishop Clark’s decision, so let’s have vouchers. But just not any voucher mind you, like what Spitzer originally proposed - income-based vouchers - but say $3000 per family so all families can have a choice. Oh, by the way, this doesn’t violate the establishments clause because in 2002 Cleveland instituted a program and it was upheld by the Supreme Court.
What problem are we trying to solve? Apparently we are trying to provide choice of school.
Where the argument misses the boat is here: We already have choice.
Sure the choices may be inconvenient - existing public schools, move, drive your kids to another school, home school - do what it takes to invest in the particular lifestyle you choose. I remember selecting the suburb I chose to reside in - the schools were first and foremost in my mind.
In Petrena’s case, she is choosing a lifestyle, in this case, to bring her kids up in the Catholic school system, a private system which over time has seen it’s tuition rise dramatically and enrollment fall 50%.
Point 1 - there are complaints when we put money into Public Schools (especially the City of Rochester) yet, now we want the government to bail out a private school system with declining enrollment via a voucher system? A private school system? Sound fair? No, it sounds like an excuse.
Point 2- there is an implication that somehow our schools are failing. Petrena uses the Rochester city schools as an example. Yet - she lives in Greece - a school system which is hardly failing. In fact, neither are the other suburbs.
Point 3 - Why can’t someone be content with Spitzer’s income-based vouchers? The up to $1000 per person? As you can imagine, I completely disagree with the concept of the voucher system. Still - if it is that important and if vouchers were really about poor people in the city escaping failing schools and finding refuge in the Catholic school system - But it is not. It is about government subsidy of private schools.
So, what is really the issue here? - she wants the government to support her lifestyle choice, specifically, her ability to send her kids to Catholic schools. Why Catholic schools as opposed to say, a Muslim school or Yeshiva? Well - I’m sure it has to do with a particular religion and just to be clear - that is fine. She has choice - just like the rest of us.
The bigger question is, why do we want to take money out of the public school system - and weaken it to strengthen a private school system?
That is why vouchers are wrong. That is why the minds of conservatives are wrong: they reserve choice and government intervention for when the circumstances fit their needs at the expense of others.
“That is why the minds of conservatives are wrong: they reserve choice and government intervention for when the circumstances fit their needs at the expense of others.”
I think that cuts both ways
Care to be specific?
Short list - think gun rights and property rights
Liberals don’t want us to own guns and don’t want us to be able to do with or on our property as we see fit
I definitely want to make a distinction here:
1) Liberals don’t want us to own guns-correction, Liberals don’t want us to own assault weapons. This isn’t about owning firearms, shotguns, even pistols. This is about owning weapons that fire multiple rounds a second. No need to own. Please Elmer-you seem to have a bit of sense for a Republican, don’t buy into that “They’re going to take our guns” crap.
2) Liberals don’t want us to be able to do with or on our property as we see fit-give me an example here. Eminent Domain is a total Republican tactic from where I stand.
Actually Elmer it is about one’s responsibility as part of a community to ensure that community thrives. Like it or not this is about being part of something.
Re guns - the wild west days are over - part of history - as a community flourished rules needed to be put in place to ensure the growth of that community
So liberals want to take your guns - Bull. I’d argue that most liberals want responsible use of firearms - background checks, waiting periods, age appropriate limits - stuff like that. I’m not sure there is a need for Military style weapons in private hands . Still I understand there are collectors and such I personally know quite a few who are more than responsible and have large collections -
But metaphorically speaking I don’t want .50 cal sniper rifles or a machine gun at Walmart
Property rights? You might own the property or pay for it but the government (short for the various levels of the government) actually control via regulation what you can do with that property.
There is an exchange - regulation for services. Services you cannot do independently. The legal services and infrastructure you used to purchase and “own” that property, the infrastructure services you need to access that property, all the way up to the benefits of protection and defense.
So this prevents your neighbor from say burying hazardous waste in their property and contaminating the ground water. I could go on with examples.
Part of being in a community, a society , a country is some level of conformity. This is done via the various regulations,.
Now unlike other places - we vote and elect or leaders - have a nation based on historic laws
Is there something amiss with that?
Sorry Elmer, you are totally wrong. It doesn’t cut both ways. Liberals think something very different.
The mind of a liberal thinks more like this: we want government intervention/action when the circumstances benefit the needs of the populace, even if as an individual I don’t directly benefit. We liberals understand that even if we don’t directly benefit from a government program like education, that there is an indirect benefit to me, that our society is bettered.
if we reach the top we help people up the ladder. we don’t kick the ladder over and say, ‘i did it on my own, so can everyone else.’
Paige, you are absolutely right. Just like my rights are not protected until everyone’s rights are protected. We liberals do realize that we all benefit from everyone getting a quality education. It’s good for society in general.
I’m not sure that taking money out of the public school system weakens it - you’re also taking out a student. If the public system can pay a voucher of a couple of thousand dollars, and then not have to pay 2-4 times as much to educate that child, then it seems to me that they would come out ahead. I know this is simplistic, so what am I missing - how does it weaken the system?
Where are you getting these numbers from?
Vouchers are funded by taxes - we transfer tax dollars to enable private schools institutions. remember this piece was about sending kids to catholic schools partially funded by the government via vouchers.
A private institution with falling enrollment mind you.
Institutions that can take the those of means (money, knowledge, ability) out of the system. Eventually - maybe not immediately the public system weakens.
My three children attended taxpayer-supported “Charter Schools” in California (several different schools, so my wife and I have some real life experience in this).
We ended up taking our kids out of the Charter Schools and putting them back in Public Schools because the Charter Schools did not match the quality of the public schools (which is not saying much in California).
The point is — vouchers are essentially the same as using taxpayer money to support private schools. As long as the schools are willing to accept the government’s meddling in their affairs that goes along with that, it’s not a bad idea in the sense that it creates competition for the public schools. But from the point of efficiency, it’s a huge waste. Unless schools are crowded, due to growth — which is not happening in Upstate New York — vouchers, and taxpayer-supported vouchers end up undermining public schools.
If parents have a problem with the quality of the public schools they should get off their butts and attend the board meetings and stop crying for a handout.
it also weakens the schools performance. typically, students with parents who care do better in school. in low performing districts, the kids who are likely to suceed anywhere (because their parents care) are the ones pulled because their parents want what is best for the child. so in a sense we are subsidizing the destruction of public schools, a long time conservative goal.
[...] up about school vouchers. She appears pretty accurate in her assessment. (As opposed, of course, tothis article where Petrena speaks.) I remember my Dad telling me that the way to understand any issue was to “follow the [...]