Opinion
Voucher fans take heed: In politics, cash equals
control
BY MARK TALLMAN
Vouchers, which provide tax dollars for parents to send children
to the school of their choice, are promoted by activists and ideologues as
essentially a public school reform measure: Break up the public school
monopoly, they say, and watch competition force public schools to become more
like private schools.
Down in the political trenches, we know better. As a state-level
lobbyist on education issues for the better part of two decades, I know what
happens when public dollars start flowing to a school. Vouchers will make
private schools into a new kind of public institution,
subject to all the political pressures and demands of the public sector.
Voucher supporters seem to believe that it doesnt matter
where the money comes from. Whether a private school lives off the public
trough or parents checkbooks, the place will be pretty much the same. But
it defies recorded history to think that government assistance comes without
strings. There is no better example than public education, which began as a
local function, governed by locally elected officials and funded by local
taxes. State oversight was limited to basic accreditation standards; federal
involvement was virtually nonexistent.
But in recent decades, states have significantly increased direct
aid to local school districts, and federal aid, though still limited, has also
grown. Concurrently, state and federal governments have imposed regulations
that far exceed general oversight: teacher tenure and negotiations laws;
state-imposed student assessments and courses; special education requirements;
and an array of other mandatory policies.
Increased state and federal funding and control is rooted in the
concept that each child has a right to public education -- indeed, many of
these changes result from legal decisions on that basis. Private education
escaped these requirements because it was a choice and received virtually no
public funding. But vouchers are proposed precisely to give each child a right
to a choice in education, and it is unrealistic to believe that demands for
similar mandates will not, sooner or later, follow that transition.
What about new students? Under a voucher system, which is supposed
to give parents a right to choose, any private school action to deny admission
would raise political questions and legal challenges. As a public school
administrator can tell you, parent attitudes are very different when it
concerns their rights. For one thing, they usually come to talk to
you with a lawyer, and that means changes in the way schools operate.
For example, the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act gives handicapped students the right to a free, appropriate public
education, including special education services, in the least
restrictive environment. In other words, disabled students are not only
entitled to special services, but to the greatest extent possible, they should
be educated in a regular classroom, in the school they would
normally attend. If parents have the right to choose, how could
such students be denied enrollment in private schools without charges of
discrimination?
Many Catholic schools already serve students with special needs
and would serve more if they had the resources. But under federal law, special
education must include services to children with learning disabilities,
behavioral problems and serious emotional disturbances, regardless of cost.
Once identified as eligible for special education, a student may not be denied
services, even for conduct that would result in expulsion of regular students.
This law was passed by the same Republican Congress that has shown increasing
support for school choice legislation. Do Catholic schools want students so
disruptive they require a full-time aide at all times sitting in regular
classrooms? Maybe, but under a voucher system they would likely have no
choice.
If a voucher plan would significantly change the relationship
between Catholic schools and students they serve, it also portends a change in
the heart of any school: the staff.
From the 1960s to the 1990s, public school teachers turned to
unions and political action committees that won significant rights under state
laws and school district contracts. In most states, public school teachers now
enjoy tenure protection and the right to collectively bargain for wages and
working conditions. Indeed, this kind of public sector unionism has been one of
the few bright spots in recent labor history. Teacher unions have been
successful in the political arena because they represent an organized voting
bloc with considerable ability to raise campaign contributions. If the unions
lose the voucher battle, no one seriously doubts that they would see organizing
teachers at private-cum-public schools as their next great frontier.
Catholic school officials might assume that a legislature or
Congress that approves a voucher plan would never bring them under the labor
laws governing public schools. So did most public school board members before
they confronted a simple fact -- they are, and always will be, outvoted and
outspent by teachers in the political process. Teacher unions can funnel
massive amounts of money into the political process because of the vast numbers
of members they represent. They can also bring terrific political pressure to
bear because every member of every legislative body, whatever its political
complexion otherwise, has lots of teachers to whom he or she must answer.
Private schools -- especially Catholic -- have made important
contributions to American education and have lessons to teach their public
counterparts. Given those accomplishments, its no surprise that so many
people are eager to see Catholic schools, especially in the inner city, receive
public support so they can continue and expand their work. But Catholic schools
need to carefully consider what their real interests are before embracing ideas
that may have unintended consequences.
Mark Tallman is director of Governmental Relations for the
Kansas Association of School Boards in Topeka, Kan. He and his family attend
Christ the King Parish in Topeka.
National Catholic Reporter, August 14,
1998
|