Idaho Statesman Does Not Understand Freedom of School Choice

This link begged for a reply

https://amp.idahostatesman.com/opinion/article272594979.html

 Editor

Idaho Statesman

I live in New York.  If you ever have the chance to move here, don’t. I lived in the Inland Empire including Priest River for a number of years and pay some attention to events in your neck of the woods. (I hope Bryan Kohberger gets the chair).  Idaho has always leaned conservative/Libertarian and I hope the influx of Californians has not changed that.  It surprises me your attitude toward school vouchers is so negative.  I understand your points and they are anything but radical but your assertion that parents already have “choice” is simply not true.  Most education “choice” comes with a price tag that many cannot afford.  No funding = no choice, except for the wealthy.

The sole purpose of the education dollar, no matter who pays it, is the best education (as defined by parents) of the child.  Government has a monopoly on education; that monopoly is directed by the unions and the political whims of those in power (right now the direction is toward “woke”). To NOT allow the money to follow the child creates elitism and provides no opportunity for the parent (except the wealthy) to dodge woke or other offensive education direction du jour. On the positive, having the voucher allows the child to attend schools that may be specialized.   In other words, only the most well-off parents can afford to send their child to the variety of schools that folks of modest means cannot.

You state the proponents of school choice do not want “school choice.”  “What they want is a means of redirecting taxpayer dollars into a privatized education system.”  You call that direction “disastrous.”  The education unions and administrators must be slobbering over your position and choice of words.  I don’t know the quality of public schools in Idaho.  Recently a study indicated that in the Baltimore public school system, not ONE fourth grader was proficient in math at the fourth grade level.  Appalling - and inner-city kids are incarcerated in these schools.  When our beloved Bill Clinton was in office it was either the New York or D.C. Archdiocese that offered to accept 10,000 inner-city children in their system.  I do not know if there would have been a cost to the parents.  Between Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton this proposal was nixed.  The “separation of church and state” issue is raised whenever parents who ask for vouchers to enter their child in a religious school system.  The “horror,” folks, is children who do not learn to read or write and can tell you the earth is dying but cannot balance a checkbook or discuss the Bill of Rights. All with the sole aim of protecting the public school monopoly.“Horror” is the thousands of children yearly who are sent off to earn a living poorly prepared.  My guess is the Idaho public schools do provide a decent education. Nevertheless parents have a right to pursue education they want for their kids.

The Idaho Constitution is quite clear that no public funds may be directed to sectarian institutions but a voucher system would encourage the development of higher quality, less expensive non-sectarian education cooperatives.  Your position ensures that the curriculum is top-down; that parents are not permitted to vote with a voucher (“voting” in school board elections remains).  Until there is significant competition for the education dollar, a public education will be more expensive and more difficult for the public to control. That the constitution “requires” public funding for every school does not mean the public dollar cannot fund “...every school system anyone comes up with.”  Your wording is demeaning and condescending, in case you care.

Until your editorial board comprehensively discusses all impediments to a quality education, it won’t just be Baltimore fourth graders who cannot do math. Your insistence that only public schools are equipped or authorized to teach kids is misguided and backwards. 

Yep, all taxpayers, whether or not they have children, are going to pay for the education of others.  I don’t fully agree with your flowery argument why public education is a societal responsibility but recognizing that argument won’t disappear any time soon, it does not matter to whom the childless pay. The childless pay for the education of children but the parents retain the right to seek the best education for their children.  This is accomplished with the voucher.  That the childless pay does not provide for the childless to direct the education of children.  That is the responsibility of the parents. The childless can influence decisions via the local school board but as we have seen on the national level dissent from the wishes of the boards is not tolerated.  The childless folks ought to be pleased that the parents care.  You quote from the Idaho constitution the responsibility for the state to “...establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools…”  I don’t know if private school funding has been tested in the Idaho courts but I do not believe that “duty” precludes payment to parents who choose to educate their kids in a private school.  I understand you quoted the statement from the constitution but clearly “the stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people” does not mean a private education is not qualified. In fact a “diversity” (we do adore that word, no?) of education strategies allows better analysis of all schools and education methods.  Under this bill, parents who insist that their children be educated in the public schools are simply NOT going to be denied that choice.

Fraud!  You narrowed your discussion unreasonably, no?  I worked for Washington State for 25 years and I challenge you to find programs that do not endure and even tolerate fraud. (“It costs more to investigate and prosecute fraud than just to allow it”).  COVID relief funds have been fraudulently diverted by business and individuals alike in all commerce, not just in voucher programs.  The answer is not to choose to deny funding to a program that might become fraudulent but to spend money and investigative time on fraud in all programs funded by state or local government.  You write “And in states that have implemented voucher systems with little oversight, (My emphasis) cases of large-scale voucher embezzlement abound.”  The key words are “little oversight.”  There should be oversight.  Grantors in any government program who do not require strict accountability are to blame for the fraud, not the parent who wants to send his/her child to a private school.  If prevention of fraud ever becomes important in the public sector, trust me, few government programs will survive scrutiny.   By the way, in addition to “fraud” is spending decisions that are unwise, even if abuse is not intended. You write that the bill provides no oversight.  It does, actually.  Section 33-6603(2) says that annual audits shall (my emphasis) be done as well as random quarterly and other audits “as needed.”  If audits are not requested, fraud then rests on the shoulders of program administrators. Indeed, audit these programs as well as other state funded-programs.  You want to test kids to monitor their progress, outside reviews, curriculum standards. GREAT.  The bill dictates that the state will NOT direct the programs though few would claim it is unnecessary to monitor progress, as long as the standards are no different for the public schools.

If you eschew vouchers as an “entitlement program” you have to be joking. Again, the purpose of the education dollar is to educate kids. The education is the “entitlement program” not the funding method.

*&*&*&*&