July
12, 2002, 8:45 a.m. A
Chance for Choice
On
education.
By NR
Editors, from the July 29, 2002, issue of National Review
he
Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to allow Cleveland to run a school-voucher
program including religious schools is a major victory. It is a victory,
above all, for children trapped in lousy inner-city schools. The Court
decision does not offer them a way out, but it means that the courts will
not block the door if someone else opens it. It is also a victory for
the Bush administration, which argued for the constitutionality of vouchers;
for Milton Friedman, who proposed the idea four decades ago; for the Bradley
Foundation and the Institute for Justice, which helped respectively to
fund voucher plans and to defend them in court; for conservatives generally,
who have kept the issue alive (sometimes just barely); for Tommy Thompson
and George Voinovich, who fought for vouchers when they were the governors
of Wisconsin and Ohio; and for a few black officials, like former Milwaukee
school superintendent Howard Fuller, who have been willing to buck the
liberal establishment.
Writing for the Court,
Chief Justice William Rehnquist ruled that since the voucher program aids
religious schools only as the indirect result of the "true private
choice" of families, it does not constitute a governmental endorsement
of religion. Court-watchers had worried that Sandra Day O'Connor might
qualify the result by reserving the right to strike down some voucher
programs; but her concurrence actually backed Rehnquist all the way. The
four dissenters argued that it is impermissible for the government to
pay for the "indoctrination" of young minds by religious schools,
even indirectly, and even if it is not the purpose of the voucher program
that students receive religious instruction. They also warned that the
erosion of the wall between church and state would lead to religious strife,
as it has in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. It is much less divisive,
apparently, to force all parents to pay for secular public schools —
and to trap many of their children in them — regardless of their
preferences.
Sweet though this
triumph is, the voucher movement has far to go. There are three voucher
programs operating in the country today: those in Milwaukee, Cleveland,
and Jeb Bush's Florida. Legal uncertainty has inhibited the expansion
of vouchers to other locations. But it has not been the only, or even
the chief, obstacle. The teachers' unions remain powerful and unflagging
opponents of reform. Suburban parents are generally satisfied with —
not to say complacent about — their children's schools, and easily
made to fear any proposal that seems disruptive.
America's urban public
schools are in most urgent need of reform and, in many cases, replacement.
That is where our energies should be directed; and as a matter of political
prudence, vouchers should be limited to the cities for now. There is plenty
of work to be done there. Blaine amendments, spawned by 19th-century anti-Catholic
bigotry, are still on the books in many states, keeping tax dollars away
from parochial schools. Conservatives have far to go, as well, in creating
effective political alliances with the inner-city parents who favor vouchers.
But competition would
bring benefits to suburban schools too. Charter schools should be created
where they are not present, and defended from regulatory attack where
they are. (For that matter, we will have to be vigilant about the regulation
of private schools participating in voucher programs, lest they lose the
distinctions that made choice attractive in the first place.) The trend
toward the consolidation of school districts — which reduces competition
among districts and increases the educational bureaucracy — should
be halted and then reversed. Schools should be encouraged to impose reasonable
disciplinary policies, to instruct children in phonics, and to end automatic
promotion to the next grade ("social promotion").
But private school
choice is the key reform, because it imposes accountability on failing
schools and provides opportunities for ones that succeed. Charter-school
laws, by contrast, provide no mechanism for successful schools to expand
to meet demand. A robust education market would make all the other reforms
in pedagogical practice more likely. The Supreme Court has given us an
unparalleled opportunity to improve the schools. President Bush should
ask Congress to take it — by enacting school choice for Washington,
D.C., a city that needs it as badly as any in America, now.
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
he
Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to allow Cleveland to run a school-voucher
program including religious schools is a major victory. It is a victory,
above all, for children trapped in lousy inner-city schools. The Court
decision does not offer them a way out, but it means that the courts will
not block the door if someone else opens it. It is also a victory for
the Bush administration, which argued for the constitutionality of vouchers;
for Milton Friedman, who proposed the idea four decades ago; for the Bradley
Foundation and the Institute for Justice, which helped respectively to
fund voucher plans and to defend them in court; for conservatives generally,
who have kept the issue alive (sometimes just barely); for Tommy Thompson
and George Voinovich, who fought for vouchers when they were the governors
of Wisconsin and Ohio; and for a few black officials, like former Milwaukee
school superintendent Howard Fuller, who have been willing to buck the
liberal establishment.
