August 2, 2006 - No issue generates more smoke than educational vouchers for kindergarten through 12th grade students, allowing taxpayer funds to be used for private schools, including those run by religious groups.

On this issue I part company with my friends at the Goldwater Institute and others. They are wrong for the right reasons. Opponents are correct for the wrong ones.

Public education in America was based on the fundamental concept that society has an obligation to educate everyone's kid to some level. That began in local communities, usually in counties and towns, where they decided to have a school tax, buy some land, throw up a building, and hire a school marm. Teachers' colleges and statewide standards came later, the Feds and teacher unions well after that.

Some argued it wasn't their obligation to educate other people's kids. They lost. Short of a few Neanderthal conservatives and the anarchist wing of libertarianism, there's consensus on the social obligation to educate all children.

Unlike some other advanced cultures, that obligation here has generally been performed in government schools simply defined as those owned and operated by a governmental jurisdiction. Various forms of private education have grown parallel to it, and with higher education, preceded it.

Voucher advocates wish to change the system by continuing general taxation for education but want the money given directly to students in the form of vouchers to be used - by parents in most cases - on whatever school they wished. They claim that increasing competition for the government, i.e. "public" schools, would raise the quality of the latter and give parents additional options through school "choice."

Motivations for vouchers stems from two fundamental beliefs: That the current system is failing, and that the private sector can provide a superior alternative. Both concepts are debatable, but some opponents like my radio colleague Tucson Weekly columnist Tom Danehy debases his often cogent arguments on the question by personally attacking voucher advocates as somehow trying to "rip-off" the system. As many supporters have no school-age children, and there's no tax reductions, that arguments is fallacious. His point that it's anti-teacher union is closer, but that's a reasonably good motivation.

Tom believes the "choice" argument is false. Choice exists now. Can't afford it? Then quit smoking or lay off beer or get a second job and pay for it yourself, but don't take money from the current school system for your kid.

While containing some great conservative self-reliance, that argument ignores one simple fact: To use the voucher elsewhere, the parent must remove the student from the public school. That reduces both the income and the responsibility. As the dollar amount is less than what's currently being spent, public schools would clearly profit from each kid who left.

Tom scores better when he asks how many parents would actually move their kids and for what motivation. He suspects jumping sports teams would trump test scores and I'm inclined to agree. If there are sufficient parents and others unhappy with their current schools then it's time for them to knock off some school board members and state and federal legislators. Minus that groundswell, I question how many vouchers issued would cause choices to result in massive abandonment of the existing system.

One constantly repeated anti-voucher argument is the hoary old "church and state separation" cliche. Nationally, this was answered with the GI Bill, a classic voucher system. You can - even go to a seminary on public money. However, Arizona's constitution has its own clause concerning government support of religious institutions that could make matters sticky here.

The GI Bill was a great achievement but it's huge unintended consequence was the homogenizing of American higher education as a direct result of massive federal funding. What government funds, government controls. Which is OK for the hard sciences where everybody uses the same elements table, but sucks when you get to Political Science.

Which is why I oppose using vouchers for K-12.

BACK TO TOP

EMIL FRANZI

EMAIL FRANZI

BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY!

About Emil Franzi

Emil Franzi is the owner and host of "Inside Track" on KVOI - 690AM and KAPR - 930AM in Douglas. The program airs on Saturdays from 12 pm till 5 pm.

Franzi currently writes a weekly column for the EXPLORER (formerly the NORTHWEST EXPLORER). He filled the TUCSON WEEKLY with close to a million relevant words from 1993 to 2004 and was an OpEd regular with the Az Daily Star from 1994 to 1998. His writing has also appeared in PHOENIX Magazine, ARIZONA HIGHWAYS, and the late CITY MAGAZINE in Tucson.

But then, Franzi is an iconoclast.

This website is Franzi's baby, put together with work, faith, and a little help from his friends, like Tom Danehy, Joyce Downey and Mike Tully. The concept -- politics, books, humor, the Old West, movies, "Pet Talk" and letters -- is Emil's. This unique brew seems to work. This website averages more than a thousand "hits" a day and keeps growing.

You can read Emil Franzi's views on all things political and cultural, as well as opposing views, on our "Politics and More" page.