HURRICANE VOUCHERS: THREAT TO PRIVATE EDUCATION

 

 

 

Phyllis Spivey
October 9, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

Among the many new initiatives to aid victims of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush on September 15 proposed a $500 million program to fund school vouchers for displaced school children. Meant to aid 372,000 students who had attended public and private schools, the plan would provide compensation – up to $7500 per child – for enrollment in private, including parochial, schools "wherever students show up."

"This is a temporary situation ... a one-year relief aid package," Education Secretary Margaret Spellings told the National Press Club September 20. But we wonder: In an era when every disaster – or the threat of one – is used to expand the power of the federal government, will "hurricane vouchers" be used to launch a permanent national voucher system?

Just think. Families displaced by Hurricane Katrina have settled all over the U.S. Children have been taken in by private, especially religious, schools everywhere. Is it remotely realistic to think the federal government after one year would simply eliminate voucher aid? Not only would the cut-off leave budget problems for voucher-accepting schools, it would mean once again uprooting thousands of youngsters still in the throes of adjusting to new surroundings.

At this writing, the legislative status of the voucher proposal is murky, but it might not matter. The same day the President proposed his education plan, Clint Bolick, president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice, called for vouchers by executive order. "With a stroke of a pen, President Bush could open educational opportunities in private and charter schools for thousands of displaced children," Bolick wrote in the Washington Times.

But hurricane vouchers will inevitably give birth to flood, fire, and earthquake vouchers, as well as demands for fairness from those who cannot claim victim status. In the end, taxpayer subsidies for private schools will become so common that a defacto national voucher system will have been created with virtually no discussion on the merits.

The concept of vouchers – tuition credits used by parents to pay for private schools of choice – is not new. And, despite what most people think, it did not originate with traditional conservatives. Domestic and international socialists have long viewed government-subsidized "choice" as a method of gaining government control over private, especially Christian, education.

That government money means government control is a fact long understood by such advocates of centralized power as Socialist George Bernard Shaw who once observed: "Nothing will more quickly destroy independent Christian schools than state aid; their freedom and independence will soon be compromised, and before long their faith."

Shaw’s prophecy is sadly evident in America’s higher education, much of which was once private and established by Christian-affiliated groups, and is now not just secular but anti-Christian. The costly experiences of Hillsdale College (Michigan) and Grove City College (Pennsylvania) provide sobering evidence of government using tax dollars to gain control. Although neither of the small private colleges had accepted federal funding, the government deemed them "recipient" institutions on the basis that some students had received government loans or grants.

Determined to protect their academic freedom, both schools fought back. When in 1984 the issue ultimately reached the Supreme Court as Grove City v. Bell, the Court ruled that if a single student on campus received any loans or grants, the college or university was the recipient of federal funds and subject, therefore, to applicable regulations. To insure their independence, both Hillsdale and Grove City prohibited students from receiving federal grants or direct loans and instituted their own aid programs.

Under a voucher system supported by federal funds, then, the courts would view participating private schools as "recipient" institutions. But even nonparticipating private schools, including homeschools, could be viewed as recipient institutions simply because they’re tax exempt or because they’re already subject to some federal edicts, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Indeed, federal funding for private schools could spell danger for homeschoolers. Since they currently operate by different regulations depending on the state in which they’re located, they would likely be redefined to fit a federal one-size-fits-all mold that would be more restrictive and invasive. And because their detractors would fight to keep vouchers from them, homeschoolers would find themselves at the center of unwelcome controversy.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". But again, what government subsidizes, government controls. Consider President Bush’s Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which he established by Executive Order in 2003. Religious organizations can receive federal funds for charitable activities but are prohibited from proselytizing.

According to a January 3 Associated Press report, Jim Towey, White House director of the faith-based program stated: The Bush administration has been clear that "government money is not to fund religious activities." Never mind that proselytizing is the fundamental mission of churches.

The 2004 case of Catholic Charities, a church-backed institution, should serve as a warning. Because Catholic Charities offers secular services, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that forced the group to pay for employees’ contraceptive health insurance benefits. This, despite the Charities’ position that contraception is sinful and against their religious beliefs.

The latest controversy concerns Head Start preschool legislation. Members of Congress have recently been battling over whether faith-based preschool centers receiving federal grants should be forced to give up religious-based hiring practices. Republicans say no; Democrats say hiring based on religious considerations equals discrimination.

The Catholic Charities case and the Head Start legislation demonstrate just how quickly Christian schools could find themselves subject to government dictates that run counter to their very reasons for existing.

Proponents want parents to believe that voucher programs would provide safeguards, but for how long? One can easily imagine a liberal court stripping laws of meaningful safeguards, while leaving intact machinery that would permit increased government scrutiny of, and intrusion into, private operations. Litigation would proliferate as the enemies of freedom assault private academies for the slightest infraction – real, perceived, or contrived. Sexual discrimination lawsuits alone would soon transform curriculum, hiring policies, and the teaching of moral values.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

At best, private schools would have a fearful master as their partner. At worst, truly independent schools would cease to exist. Parents might soon discover that vouchers – the highly touted public school "alternative" – had finally and irrevocably ended all alternatives.

© 2005 Phyllis Spivey - All Rights Reserved