Anti-voucher argument naive

Amy Margolius, in her column (“Vouching for Public Schools” April 6), argues that my essay in support of school vouchers was one of many “extreme and misinformed pieces of propaganda” recently published in The Sam Adams Review. While I am a little disturbed by the accusation, I am grateful for this chance to respond.

Ms. Margolius’ column is a perfect example of the intellectual attitude that would keep millions of inner-city children stuck in failing, state-run schools and then claim it is for their own good. In order to make this argument sound plausible, Margolius must conjure up a scenario in which school vouchers would actually diminish the educational opportunities for inner-city children. She argues that vouchers are “unfair” because they would allow “wealthier families” to take their children out of failing public schools, leaving poor children to rot. With no supporting evidence from any existing voucher program, Margolius asserts, “Our public schools would turn into a breeding ground for a poverty-stricken underclass.” Yet, she maintains that I employ “slanted analysis”!

Her entire argument reveals an astonishing naivete, indeed, almost a willful blindness to the current reality of public education. Rich kids already go to good private schools and poor, inner-city kids are already stuck in failing public schools. We do not have to speculate about creating this “unfair system,” for America has already created it. This unfair reality, however, has nothing to do with a lack of funds for the state-run monopoly.

Government spending, at all levels, on education is more than three times greater, in real dollars, than it was in the 1960s. The quality of public education, indicated by SAT scores and international exams, has declined over the same period of time. Particularly devastating has been the failure of public schools to teach children in high poverty areas. Voucher programs, like the ones in Milwaukee and Cleveland, are giving poor children a chance to attend decent private schools of their parents’ choice.

Socialist ideology, however, asserts the inherent value of something called a “public school” independent of the lives of individual children. No matter how terrible a “public school” performs, no matter how obviously it fails to educate real people, it must be protected from competition, nurtured and given additional funding. No institution other than the modern state can be trusted to educate children. Such thinking has helped create crowded prisons, violent ghettos, miserable standardized test scores and disgraceful illiteracy and dropout rates in large American cities.

Thankfully, low-income families whose children actually attend failing schools are not so naive. Polls consistently show that support for vouchers is somewhere around 75 percent among low-income families. In Milwaukee, where a real-life voucher program has increased test scores in high poverty areas for 10 years, 80 percent of parents earning less $11,000 a year support the program. Still, opposition to school choice is fierce among intellectuals like Amy Margolius who claim to know what is best for the poor.

CAS ’01