Posted on: Friday, June 28, 2002
School voucher plan no panacea for Hawai'i
While the nation was temporarily distracted by a tempest-in-a-teapot appeals court decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday delivered a historic ruling that could change the landscape of American public education.
By a narrow 5-4 vote, the court ruled that an Ohio school voucher program was constitutional. This will surely set off a rash of voucher proposals in other states.
Hawai'i should be wary of joining in the stampede. Particularly because of our single statewide system, a voucher program in the Islands could be dangerous to public education.
The Ohio program offers qualified families a voucher worth $2,500 if they choose to send their child to a private or parochial school rather than a failing public school.
Supporters say this offers a way out for families stuck in inadequate or failing inner-city schools. And that is an appealing argument.
But don't kid yourself. When the child leaves, so too will the money and — perhaps as importantly — his motivated parents.
Another problem with a voucher system, if it resembles Ohio's, is that a couple of thousand dollars is not enough to pay private school tuition. Thus, most of the poorest families will be left behind.
Unless, and this would almost be unthinkable, the voucher were equal to the full amount the state spends on the per capita education of a student.
If that happens, our public school system will be decimated. It will be left with a small segment of students, those from the poorest or least-motivated families and those whose educational needs are far too difficult or expensive for most private schools to meet.
Underlying the voucher movement is the idea of "choice," that parents should not be forced to send their child to a neighborhood public school that simply is not up to the job.
Fair enough. But the fix for that should start with reforms that allow neighborhood schools to flourish. And then, there are already choice mechanisms that do not involve drawing money out of the public education cash box.
Hawai'i, for instance, has a fairly effective geographic exception program for families who are drawn to schools with particular specialties. We also have a charter school program that, while it is still very much a work in progress, offers the hope of school choices that vary substantially from the standard offering of the state system.
Finally, there is the issue of the separation of church and state that troubled many in the minority in the Supreme Court ruling.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the Ohio program is "neutral" with respect to religion. But it's neutral only up to the point where a family opts to spend its $2,500 in a parochial school. At that point, the public's tax dollars are being spent to support a religiously based education.
And we wonder whether Hawai'i's many private independent and religious schools would be willing to accept the strings or restrictions that might accompany those public dollars.
Underlying the voucher system is a deep and abiding desire to see each and every student have access to a quality education.
That's an ambition we share. But that worthy goal should not be accomplished at the price of deepening the divide between the haves and the have-nots.
