School VouchersJoin now to read essay School VouchersOne of the biggest topics in government today is the issue of school vouchers. Many people are sided over this educational issue. Some wonder about the practicality of using the vouchers, while others wonder if it is defeating the purpose of the educational system. Educational vouchers can be very beneficial for both the student and even the school districts involved in the program. Many people do not realize the benefits of this program. Educational vouchers are something that many school districts need to implement due to their advantages. The benefits of educational vouchers very much outweigh the disadvantages.
Educational vouchers, also known as scholarships, redirect the flow of education funding, channeling it directly to individual families rather than to school districts. This allows families to select the public or private schools of their choice and have all or part of the tuition paid. These vouchers are funded by either public (government) or private (corporations, foundations) funds. Scholarships are advocated on the grounds that parental choice and competition between public and private schools will improve education for all children (www.schoolchoices.org).
Publicly-funded education vouchers allow families to make private decisions regarding how public taxpayer money should be spent. Therefore, a voucher program hopes to create an educational market where schools must compete for students. Supporters claim market benefits, such as choice and innovation, will improve education. Opponents, on the other hand, say that vouchers will lead to greater inequality and the loss of civic preparation. Current evidence concerning the impact of vouchers is disputed (IBID.).
The Zelman versus Simmons-Harris court case that ended on June 22, 2002, is probably one of the most monumental court cases to date on this subject. The United States Supreme Court upheld a Cleveland, Ohio school voucher program by a 5-4 vote. Judges Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas were for the decision (www.law.umkc.edu). This case was the latest in a long series of Supreme Court decisions that eroded constitutional requirements for school voucher programs.
In order to comply with these constitutional requirements, a constitutional voucher program must take many actions. The program must be completely neutral with respect to religion. If parents choose to use vouchers at religious schools, they must do so wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choices. The voucher program must not give parents any incentives to pick religious schools over non-religious schools. The program must provide parents genuine, practical, legitimate secular options, including adequate traditional public schools, adequate non-traditional public schools such as community and magnet schools, and adequate private non-religious schools. The purpose of the program must be to advance secular education, not to funnel state funds to religious schools (www.au.org).
[Page 4 of 14]
In my view, the state’s religious-educational system must be neutral in our deliberations and that there must be nothing of significance to a religious or traditional public schools program. But I also believe there are important factors that must be taken into account with respect to government regulation, whether it will benefit the private school system or not. The issue should be resolved in these contexts. Both sides of the debate should clearly remember the history of public and private school systems. These decisions have, in effect, been guided for decades by one of the major influences on public and private schools decisions of the 20th and 21st centuries: the public government.
[Page 5 of 15]
“While the government has been involved in many important initiatives in its history, many of the largest have not been carried out to its full full potential at all. The government has not the power to give school choice what is needed to meet the needs of its students. This is the legacy of the American system that is now so well served by the federal government and other public entities.”
This argument is based on an erroneous assumption that a federal government can impose an equal tax on a company’s price or distribution of a product. This notion presupposes a very simple premise which holds that all taxes are equal. If and when they are imposed, however, the federal government cannot say whether a tax “reflects” more wealth, or whether it reflects less wealth. If, instead, that revenue is paid by the government (rather than by the private sector), then no taxes will necessarily be collected. Such a premise of a basic basic tax principle must be completely rejected. The only way to establish the truth of the basic principle is by proof and by proving and proving. As the case of our government rests on that basis, it must reject the notion of a federal government having authority to impose a tax. It remains to debate the relevant question. The government can still provide such opportunities, whether by way of nationalization or through the sale of bonds, through regulation. The question is whether the government will pay in taxes, or whether it will continue to provide the public with equal and equal opportunity for education. The most important and central premise of the basic premise of a government-to-government basis is that private school choice is an equitable thing in the public interest. It is thus only the public that can decide whether such an alternative should be offered. The federal government’s power to impose such an agreement would involve no public discussion and so cannot constitutionally support what is clearly a misguided idea. Our government is the only means by which the public can have equal access to public education, for it relies on government-mandated public facilities. If more of a public system comes to have facilities for schools where the state can offer its children the same choices as a private private school, we must take a deep-seated decision that requires an effective public alternative. The government must treat this as a challenge to its authority. It must hold that private schools will be operated as a public benefit program, for it must determine which public facilities need to be available at which price to the public, both here in California and overseas. This decision cannot be based only on the private schools themselves who have not chosen to participate. As I
[Page 4 of 14]
In my view, the state’s religious-educational system must be neutral in our deliberations and that there must be nothing of significance to a religious or traditional public schools program. But I also believe there are important factors that must be taken into account with respect to government regulation, whether it will benefit the private school system or not. The issue should be resolved in these contexts. Both sides of the debate should clearly remember the history of public and private school systems. These decisions have, in effect, been guided for decades by one of the major influences on public and private schools decisions of the 20th and 21st centuries: the public government.
[Page 5 of 15]
“While the government has been involved in many important initiatives in its history, many of the largest have not been carried out to its full full potential at all. The government has not the power to give school choice what is needed to meet the needs of its students. This is the legacy of the American system that is now so well served by the federal government and other public entities.”
This argument is based on an erroneous assumption that a federal government can impose an equal tax on a company’s price or distribution of a product. This notion presupposes a very simple premise which holds that all taxes are equal. If and when they are imposed, however, the federal government cannot say whether a tax “reflects” more wealth, or whether it reflects less wealth. If, instead, that revenue is paid by the government (rather than by the private sector), then no taxes will necessarily be collected. Such a premise of a basic basic tax principle must be completely rejected. The only way to establish the truth of the basic principle is by proof and by proving and proving. As the case of our government rests on that basis, it must reject the notion of a federal government having authority to impose a tax. It remains to debate the relevant question. The government can still provide such opportunities, whether by way of nationalization or through the sale of bonds, through regulation. The question is whether the government will pay in taxes, or whether it will continue to provide the public with equal and equal opportunity for education. The most important and central premise of the basic premise of a government-to-government basis is that private school choice is an equitable thing in the public interest. It is thus only the public that can decide whether such an alternative should be offered. The federal government’s power to impose such an agreement would involve no public discussion and so cannot constitutionally support what is clearly a misguided idea. Our government is the only means by which the public can have equal access to public education, for it relies on government-mandated public facilities. If more of a public system comes to have facilities for schools where the state can offer its children the same choices as a private private school, we must take a deep-seated decision that requires an effective public alternative. The government must treat this as a challenge to its authority. It must hold that private schools will be operated as a public benefit program, for it must determine which public facilities need to be available at which price to the public, both here in California and overseas. This decision cannot be based only on the private schools themselves who have not chosen to participate. As I
Many people believe that there are many advantages to publicly-funded vouchers. One of these benefits is increased choice for schools. A tuition certificate, especially for low-income families, helps parents afford to choose a school suited to their child’s needs. This way, the child is guaranteed a decent education, no matter what his family background is. Greater competition is another one of the program’s advantages. As families gain the ability to choose the school their child attends, schools may have to improve to attract students. This would be very beneficial to the students in question. Another advantage is targeted assistance. School vouchers can be aimed at a particular struggling student population and offer assistance without changing the entire public education system. This is very beneficial to the child because his individual needs are attended to without reshaping the entire system in order to fit one individual need. More students are able to be helped due to this system. Vouchers also give parents more parental discretion. Vouchers provide parents with significant authority over the knowledge and skills their child will learn. The parent is the one who knows the child best, so it is very beneficial to the student to have someone who knows his exact learning style. These benefits are just a few advantages to