Empty+Promises+-+Tuition+Vouchers+Will+Cost+A+Lot,+Accomplish+Little

= Empty promises: Tuition vouchers will cost a lot and accomplish little = = = =//Published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette//= =//4/17/11//=

=Proponents of tuition vouchers -- who would use public money for private schools -- are making promises they won't be able to keep.= = Senate Bill 1, the proposal that begins by giving vouchers to low-income families in Pennsylvania, has a long list of major flaws including: It is at odds with the state constitution, taxpayers can't afford its provisions, private schools won't face enough public scrutiny and the nonpublic schools will retain their ability to restrict who is admitted. = =•= =First, the plan would provide taxpayer-funded vouchers that families could use to send their children to private, including religious, schools. That contradicts the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article III, Section 15, unequivocally states: "No money raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school."= =The second problem, equally daunting, is financial. Just when Gov. Tom Corbett is slashing $1 billion from public school districts, he and his fellow Republicans want to launch a new initiative with an estimated price tag of at least $450 million in the first three years. How can they possibly reconcile this proposal with fiscal reality?= =If the plan goes into effect, every dollar spent on a voucher would come out of local school budgets. Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, the Dauphin County Republican who is the bill's prime sponsor, argues that the money simply will follow the children, from the public schools they had attended to their new private schools. His argument fails, though, because the cost of operating a school building and offering the variety of necessary courses won't change significantly just because some of the students depart. The vast majority of children would remain in public schools, even the failing ones, which then would face even tighter budgets.= =He also ignores the fact that many voucher recipients will have been private school students all along, meaning local public schools will lose dollars without any reduction in the number of children they must educate.= =The bill would make vouchers available initially only to low-income families (defined currently as a family of four, for instance, making up to $29,000). In the first year, only low-income students who attend a persistently low-achieving school or live in its attendance area could participate. In the second year, low-income students who live in the attendance boundary of such a school and attend a private school also would be eligible. In year three, eligibility would extend to any child from a low-income family.= =A change approved last week would expand the eligibility in year four to middle-class families (a family of four making up to $67,000). Another change switched 46 schools on the original list of 144 poor performers, raising questions about the criterion and suspicion that the rules were being altered to curry favor for vouchers from more legislators.= =Proponents characterize the plan as a way to give families more choice, but the real power of choice would remain in the hands of the schools that get the voucher payments. Private and parochial schools still would control their admissions policies. In the case of public schools -- the bill says families could use vouchers to send their students to districts where they don't reside -- school boards would decide whether or not to accept students bearing vouchers. Any guesses on what the wealthiest districts might do?= =Although Senate Bill 1 was amended to require standardized testing by private schools that accept vouchers -- testing that already is mandatory at public schools -- the results would not have to be reported back to state education officials. Parents would be informed, but the only public reporting requirement would be that schools with websites would have to post results on them. It's not going to be easy for taxpayers to know if their money is improving student performance, an ostensible goal of the legislation.= =•= =Pennsylvanians have plenty of reasons to oppose the Republican plan, and they already do. In a telephone poll of 807 adults last month, 61 percent said they oppose vouchers as envisioned in the bill. The results were not an anomaly; in a similar survey last summer, 67 percent opposed vouchers.= =A vote on the bill in the Senate has been put off for several weeks. That gives Pennsylvanians time to deliver a message that's loud and clear to lawmakers: Don't squander the public's scarce education dollars on the empty promises of Senate Bill 1.= = = =Read more: [] =

= = = = =News= =home=