Education :
The Real Verdict on Vouchers & Educational Choice

view the .pdf | note: all footnotes are included within the .pdf

October 2001

by Toni Meyer, Sr. Research Analyst for the NJ Family Policy Council

The president of the NJ Education Association recently wrote an editorial that appeared in a number of newspapers in October bashing vouchers. Conspicuously missing, however, was a discussion of what is best for the children. What she does say is that the U.S. Supreme court should not allow public dollars for “religious” schools and that they “should recognize, defend, and strengthen …
– the American public school.”

First of all, the U.S. Supreme Court recently confirmed the right of non-governmental schools to receive public dollars for special education, transportation, textbooks, and for computers and equipment. It would now make sense for the court to also recognize that it is the parents right, to educate their child as they see fit and that parents should not be forced by monetary inequity to send their child to a secular school in order to obtain that education.

Secondly, defending public schools no matter what the cost is the problem. Contrary to this teacher’s union mantra, it’s not about protecting the institution; it’s about how best to educate children. The union does not want parents making decisions about where to send their children to school whether it is a charter school, religious school or whether it involves vouchers or tax credits. They feel threatened that non-union schools may perform better and create healthy competition. Taxpayers on the other hand, are looking to educate children and they want the best education money can buy.

Fulton also neglects to mention successful voucher programs like those in Milwaukee and Florida which allow parents to take their children out of public schools and put them into schools that work for their children. These states have not only proven that you can give some students a better education by making vouchers available, but also improve public schools by offering them competition. In Milwaukee, 2 out of 3 studies found the student’s scores in math and reading increased substantially and in Florida all the failing schools were able to bring their test scores up after the state voucher program was in effect.

Closer to home in Newark, there are 44 non-government run schools. Parents there will work a second job, scrimp and save, so their child can go to schools that operate for $5000 per student and or less, – half of the cost of public education. They do this because they know from what they see, that more government money does not equal a better education. The taxpayer cost of public education in NJ is ~$10,000 per student, more than $1000 more per student than any other state in the nation.

Lastly, vouchers are not the only type of educational reform that give kids in failing schools a better choice. Tax credits, which could be used to help parents pay for educational expenses or to motivate donors who contribute to scholarship funds for students in failing schools, are a good option. Charter schools, which are government funded, are also good options. For example the Golden Door Charter School, started by gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler in Jersey City, has proven that you can provide a better educational environment and improved academic performance even for disadvantaged, low performing public school students for about half the cost of regular public schools. The evidence of this is that the student’s reading scores have increased by 40% over three years.

The bottom line is taxpayer money ought to pay for the best education a child can get. After all that’s the purpose of the education system in the first place.

October 2001.

back...