COUNTERPOINT: School vouchers — a tax cut for the rich
Recently, a Republican congressional candidate said something to the effect that, though “counterintuitive,” pulling money from education would actually help it. Not only was his statement counterintuitive, it was illogical.
Today, I am writing to explain why school vouchers are a bad idea.
The voucher system, if passed, would create a program where families send their children to private schools the state will partly fund.
Families receives vouchers in the amount of per pupil public education costs. Any private school tuition amount beyond this cost falls to the parents.
This extra cost is important because it highlights a major logical fallacy committed by voucher advocates. These proponents argue that when schools are failing, vouchers allow parents of at-risk students to find a better school.
However, because failing schools often have students whose parents earn little, the extra cost of private school tuition puts these schools out of reach.
Instead of equalizing opportunity – perhaps the primary goal of universal education – vouchers merely become a tax cut for the rich: Those families sending their kids to private schools anyway.
Voucher supporters argue that these rich elite shouldn’t have to pay the costs of public education if they are not using it. This argument is alluring but problematic.
To use my wife’s analogy, imagine someone who does not own or drive a car. Since our cyclist/pedestrian does not use or damage our highway system, he would not pay those taxes. Neither would childless people pay property taxes for education.
Further inspection of voucher arguments reveals other problems. The annual per pupil education costs contain expenses that are not exclusive to one student: building maintenance, teachers’ wages, administrative costs, etc. Therefore, removing students will not relieve any strain for the public education system, while legislators in a post-voucher era may start shuffling those funds from the already weak system.
Likewise, one should be aware of other concerns with vouchers. The constitutional doctrine of church and state separation is compromised when we siphon children out of our public education system and send them to largely religious private schools.
Most importantly, why should we attempt radical alterations to our education system, when, in all likelihood, it won’t help? Voucher advocates argue because of choice. But honestly, vouchers will not make a dime’s worth of difference for low-income students in failing schools.
Instead, vouchers will probably be detrimental to them because rich elite children will be yanked into a higher class of educational facilities. We then merely accentuate the difference between the low-income child’s bleak chances and the wealthy child’s privilege. This creates a two-tier education system where separation occurs early on. Vouchers would then be tantamount to class segregation.
A better solution to our education problems is already widely known: Better pay for effective teachers and smaller classroom sizes. Teaching has become a thankless job where most incentives to do well are punitive in nature.
Connie Morgan, Democratic candidate for Utah House District 4, has been passing out fliers highlighting that the Legacy Highway debacle is costing Utah taxpayers $40,000 daily. That’s more than one teacher’s annual salary. If we can afford to spend that much each day for non-existent construction, we surely can increase the number of teachers we have, decrease the number of children we have in classrooms, reward our best teachers with paid bonuses and, ultimately, improve public education in Utah.
It’s a great place to start.
Aaron Law is a senior majoring in political science. Comments can be sent to sinatrastrashcan@yahoo.com.