Opinions on school vouchers
Charles Landau
Education is a necessity
It is generally agreed that mandatory education is a good thing. California
law mandates compulsory full-time education for children between 6 and
18 years old (Education Code, Title 2, Division 4, Part 27, Chapter 2,
Sections 48200-48341). This may be from a private school or tutor, provided
it includes the curriculum required in the public schools.
The only quality standards or accreditation requirements I could find
in California law for private schools is that the instructors must be "capable
of teaching" (Education Code, section 48222). This is a breathtaking lack
of oversight, but one can expect the parents to exercise due diligence.
Parents, not government, must provide necessities
The party held responsible for providing for a child the necessities of
life, such as food and shelter, is generally the parent or guardian. If
they do not do so, they are considered neglectful and if necessary the
child is taken away from them. If they are financially unable to do so,
public assistance (welfare) is available. Sometimes this assistance is
in-kind, for example food stamps.
It would certainly seem unnatural and intrusive for the government to
directly provide food and shelter to children. We would agree that parents
are in the best position to select the appropriate individualized care
for their children.
Let us ignore the status quo for the moment and ask, in an ideal world,
who should be responsible for providing an education to the child. As with
other necessities, it seems natural and reasonable for the parent both
to select the type of education and to pay for it. There is no inherent
necessity for the government to provide education, any more than the government
should feed and shelter children.
Conclusions
This would imply several things:
The public schools should be privatized.
Taxes should be reduced so the money to pay for school can come from the
parent instead of the government.
Public assistance for the needy should include the cost of education, perhaps
using a voucher system.
School funding
In California, money for public schools currently comes from several sources.
54% comes from state income taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes. 30% comes
from local property taxes. The Federal government, other local payments,
and the California lottery make up the rest. (Source: <http://www.sjusd.k12.ca.us/DO/FiscalServices/budgbackov.htm>)
This proposal could result in a reduction in these state and local taxes.
The tax relief that this proposal would provide would fall both to parents
and non-parents. It is debatable to what extent non-parents should be taxed
to support the costs of raising children. I believe that if the actual
costs of raising children are made to fall on their parents, members of
society will be able to make a more informed decision when choosing parenthood.
Some argue that this situation would result in a poorer quality of education
in poorer areas, as parents there sought to scrimp on education costs.
The current system of collecting money for schools through taxes has the
effect that money for schools can be distributed more evenly than it is
collected. The distribution of money to schools is subject to a political
process, and there have been debates over how evenly it is, or should be,
distributed. Under my proposal, the people who argue in favor of a more
even distribution would still have the option of soliciting donations for
needy schools. Non-parents should also be given the opportunity to donate
to education costs. Colleges and universities have long relied on donations
to cover much of their costs. Raising money through voluntary donations,
rather than coercive taxes, is a principle of libertarianism that increases
our freedom and ennobles our humanity.
The nonprofit status of schools is another discussion, but for this
proposal I don't propose changing it.
Analysis of school voucher proposals
Returning now from this ideal world to the real world, one has to ask whether
the specific school voucher system being proposed brings us closer or further
from the ideal.
To the extent that the voucher system expands private education and reduces
public education, I view it as beneficial. Many have made the point that
increasing competition in schools can be expected to lead to increased
quality and value.
To the extent that a voucher system aggravates the problem of the lack
of quality standards for private schools, it may serve as an impetus to
institute such standards.
To the extent that it perpetuates governmental control by taxing all to
pay for education for the non-needy, I view it as unfortunate.