The proposed 25 percent safeguard illustrates another basic problem of the voucher idea. Since the plan's success seems to depend, in part at least, on federal aid, one can readily see the shape of the future. The percentage figure would loom as a major proving ground over which pro and con lobbyists would clash, just as they now struggle to influence percentages in taxes, tariffs, and oil depletion allowances. Even if Congress passed a proper percentage, however, it still would have to be enforced. Ironically, some of those who purport to fear the specter of federal intervention in local affairs are also advocating the use of vouchers, not recognizing, presumably, the massive federal regulatory apparatus which would be necessary to prevent abuse. very similar to vouchers have been in use in a number of European countries for many decades. In Belgium, Holland, and Denmark, for instance, children receive equal subsidies, regardless of the sponsorship of the school they attend-public, private, nonsectarian, or religious. Contrary to the objections usually raised, the effects of government subsidies have been far from catastrophic. While the percentage of students at religious-sponsored schools has increased somewhat, the proportion now seems to be stabilized. Furthermore, apparently the religious schools are becoming less and less sectarian and more and more like the public schools. It is predicted that there will be very little difference between the two types of schools in five to ten years. The European system, however, couples close supervision by the state with certain standard requirements-in staffing and equipment, for instance-which all schools must meet. Of course, all schools must teach a standard curriculum prescribed by the state, and there are single national teacher-salary schedules and pension systems. It cannot be said that public subsidy of private schools creates illiberal, divided, and strife-torn societies, since the three countries under discussion are among the most liberal and peaceful in the world. But it must be noted that economic and social conditions in those countries differ greatly from those in the United States. First, there is no large economically deprived underclass in Belgium, Holland, or Denmark. Second, there is no large racially isolated group. Third, government is much simpler and more centralized. What seems to have become acceptable in small, middle-class, ethnically homogeneous countries under strong centralized control or supervision would not necessarily be applicable to the United States with its huge problems and deep unresolved racial, sectional, and religious antagonisms. Incidentally, France does not subsidize private schools. Religious Warfare The dynamite which lies ready for detonation just below the surface of the voucher controversy is the growing issue of public support for religious-related schools. At several meetings called by the sponsors of the voucher plan in an effort to "clarify" the situation, the line-up of religious teams was as apparent as if they had worn colored jerseys. On the one side were those Jewish and Protestant organizations traditionally zealous in maintaining the principle of separation of church and state. On the other side were the Catholic organizations and a scattering of other denominations trying desperately to save their church-related school systems. Even though Jencks and company say that vouchers would not be used to any great extent to solve the financial plight of the church schools, spokesmen for those institutions quite obviously think otherwise. Jencks thinks that the church schools would have a hard time meeting his 25 percent minority race qualification. Church spokesmen, however, feel that with federal support tuition for such schools could be reduced and the number of “free” students could be greatly increased, thus helping to improve racial integration in such schools and at the same time preventing their possible collapse. The religious advocates of vouchers point out that church-related schools now enroll hundreds of thousands of children who otherwise would be the responsibility of the public system. Unless these schools receive financial aid, they will be forced to curtail operations and send students flooding into already overcrowded public facilities. Vouchers seem to offer a way out. The tuition subsidy plan now in use in New York state, which provides state funds for college students to attend institutions of their choice, whether public or private, seems to be in conformity with constitutional requirements. Other scholarship plans using federal funds have also been in existence for many years without arousing successful legal objection. Even so, introduction of the voucher plan is almost certain to result in speedy legal challenge by its opponents on grounds of separation of church and state. Several cases now in the judicial works will have a bearing on the legal status of vouchers. One of these is Flask v. Gardner, which challenges the use of federal funds to pay for educational services conducted in religious-sponsored schools under Title I of ESEA. If the courts should decide that the use of funds in this way is unconstitutional, the legality of the voucher concept so far as the religious-related schools are concerned would be dubious indeed. The other test case is Lemon v. Kurtzman. Pennsylvania now provides state aid directly to private schools-most of them church-connected. A number of organizations have filed amicus briefs in opposition to the use of funds for such a purpose, but U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell announced in September, 1970, that his department would file an amicus brief on the side of the state, thus declaring in favor of such subsidies. Polarizer The Nixon Administration has not been slow to realize the political potentialities in the voucher controversy. Donald Rumsfeld, who was appointed by the President to become Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity (presumably on the basis that since he voted against every bill which created OEO he could not be accused of favoritism), started down the Spiro Agnew polarization trail in 1970. Rumsfeld was seeking quite obviously to exploit another of those neat splitters which have become the hallmark of the current administration's political style. By pushing the voucher plan, Rumsfeld attacked teachers, who are almost universally opposed, and the "liberal elements" who favor strict separation of church and state. At the same time, he declared himself in support of people who, according to cynical political analysis, are thought to be in the hard-hat category. He also gave aid and comfort to people who secretly hope vouchers will lead to a revival of the Southern freedom-of-choice plans. In promoting the voucher plan, Rumsfeld displayed a flair for half-truths. In a speech given September 23, 1970, before the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce "Urban Roundtable," he first detailed the all too obvious defects and shortcomings of our current system of education. Then he totaled up all the money spent by all levels of government on education. In the same paragraph he threw in an observation-unsupported-that "the pupil-teacher ratio is lower today than ever in the nation's history." What Rumsfeld left out was that the percentage of gross national product for education remained practically constant for decades and that "pupilteacher ratio" is an almost meaningless figure. Furthermore, if the ratio has gone down, how much has it decreased? A page later in the same speech, he rejected the idea that the amount of money spent on education has much to do with the quality of education. What we need, he said, are new ideas, and he charged that the American Federation of Teachers and other teacher organizations don't want any new ideas, since they are against the voucher plan and have been against other "experiments" launched under the aegis of the OEO. Quoting directly from the Rumsfeld remarks, he stated: "They [teacher interest groups] charge that money, not new approaches, is the answer to improving educational skills." He then went on to quote President Nixon, “When we get more education for the dollar, we'll start asking for more dollars for education." As a matter of fact, the voucher plan does not add a single new educational technique, nor can it guarantee that giving pupils more mobility will result in the development of new techniques. Lizard or Dragon? One of the chief objections which can be leveled fairly at the voucher idea is that it, like so many catchy educational schemes, tends to divert attention from the real and basic needs of children and the schools. Whether education is carried on by people-teachers and paraprofessionals-or by machines watched over by people, there is a relationship between cost and educational effort. No one would deny that it is possible to waste school money, but all other things being equal-the educability of students, the intelligence of teachers and administrators, the social milieu in which the school must operate—the more money you spend on education, the more education is produced. It is silly, if not malicious, to suggest that money-starved school systems will have "to do better" before the great white fathers in Washington will give them more support. Like a bright, shiny, quick-moving lizard running over a rotting log, the voucher scheme diverts our attention from the decay underneath. But what will we do if Mr. Jencks' entertaining little lizard grows up to be a fire-breathing dragon? Reprinted with permission from TEACHERS COLLEGE RECORD — Vol. 72, No. 3, Feb. 1971 For additional copies write to: AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS 1012 14th Street, N.W. / Washington, D. C. 20005 Please mention item 541 Single copies free, $6.00 for 100 |