School Choice
... the difference that exists today . . . poor and minority students receiving the worst education. Therefore, I do not agree that achievement will be as great as claimed if school choice was an option. People who are pro-school choice argue that school choice would improve academic achievement. They claim that private schools offer better educational opportunities then public schools and that students would get a better education attending a private school. Others that are for school choice claim that choice would create competition between schools based on school quality. Milwaukee's mayor John Norquist said "Vouchers equalize the power of choice. School choice puts voucher-the power of money-in the hands of the parents of low-income children. Schools wanting that money-whether public or not-have to attract and keep the interest of out children and their parents" (Center for Educational Reform, html 3). School choice would not increase academic achievement. Competition between schools would not increase the quality of education for all schools. According to the Minnesota Education Association, "Far from creation the positive qualities of healthy competition, vouchers would build an uneven playing field and institutionalize a two-tier system of have and have-nots. Harming public schools to improve private schools hurts individuals, as well as our society as a whole" (Minnesota Education Association, html 2). On the surface, private school seem to offer a better education then public schools based on test scores. But, not all aspects are looked at, generally private schools enroll upper class white students whose parents are well educated. On the surface, school choice appears that it would increase academic achievement but, when all aspects are considered, it would not. School choice violates the Establishment Clause for the Separation of Church and State because government money would be used to educate many children at various religious institutions. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment simply states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The writers of the U.S. Constitution wanted to protect the people of America from the government forcing a specific religious stance on anyone. "Americans must ask themselves if they feel it is right for citizens to be forced to subsidize religious education which may be a conflict with their beliefs" (Coulson, html 1). Based on the Establishment Clause, it is very clear that government money should not be used to support religious education. There are problems with public education today but, school choice is not the answer to fix the problem that exists. According to the Anti-Defamation League, "There is no question there are real problems with public education in the United States. However, as with other 'quick fixes,' vouchers ultimately do not 'fix' the problem, but only aggravate it, and threaten the separation of church and state as well. Not only are they constitutionally problematic, they are bad public policy" (Anti-Defamation League, html 4). For example, "In Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, (1947) a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment barred taxation to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever for they may adopt to teach or practice religion" (White & Williams, 2000, p.58). It is clearly stated in the Establishment Clause that it is a law that church and state are required to be separated. It is clear that we, as a nation, would be violating the United States Constitution if school choice was an option because many parents would choose to enroll their children at religious institutions. Some disagree that it is unconstitutional for government money to be used for education at religious institutions, as it would be with school choice. The Heritage Foundation once said, "The strongest critics of school choice argue that the moment a dollar of public funds crosses a religious school threshold, it violates the First Amendment. Of course that cannot be the case, for such educational benefits as Pell Grants, the G.I. Bill, and federal daycare vouchers all can be used in religiously affiliated entities. School choice works the same way: Parents choose where to direct their children's educational funds" (Heritage Organization, html 5). Many insist that there is no problem with vouchers because they, the parent or student, are deciding where the money is spent. For example the final decision of the Jackson v. Benson (June 1998) court case, "the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program that permits students from low-income families to attend any approved private school of their choice, religious or not" (White & Williams, 2000, p. 60). The Court felt that the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program passed the three points of the Lemon Test, "First, the Wisconsin program had a secular purpose: to increase education opportunities available to children from low-income families. Second, it did not have the primary effect of advancing religion since the program aided 'both secretarian and nonsectarian institution' . . . and third, the program would not result in 'excessive government entanglement' with religion" (White & Williams, 2000, p. 60). Many people feel that if they pay rent or property taxes, which pays for America's children to go to school, they should be able to choose where they attend school, religious or not. I believe school choice violates the Establishment Clause unlike the individuals that are pro-school choice. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." How much clearer can it get? Is the Constitution being interpreted in a way to benefit pro-school choice people or is it just flat out being violated? In my opinion, the Constitution is being violated. With 53.2 million K-12 students that enrolled in private and public schools in the 1999/2000 school year, their teachers had a challenging job ahead of them, to help shape our country's future. Education is somewhat like building blocks, a student must learn a certain amount of material to go on to the next grade; this is done with the help of regulation. Students changing schools from one year to the next would be lost because with school choice supposedly there would not be a need for regulation so, what is taught in one school, maybe completely different with what is taught in the next. A prime example of what could happen if all schools were deregulated is best understood with the following quote from U.S News and World Report regarding Sankofa Shule, a charter school located in Michigan. This school has a African-centered curriculum and, "rather than Labor Day, Memorial Day, and Presidents' Day, it observes holidays such as African Independence day and Malcolm X Remembrance Day. 'The traditional concept of Thanksgiving, like the Fourth of July, really has nothing to do with us,' writes a teacher in the school newsletter. And a daily 'affirmation' spoken by the entire school begins, 'I Pledge to my African nation . . ." (Toch, 1998, p.34). This example is only one of many that are happening today with schools that are not regulated. There is a reason for regulation, and one is so that all students in the United States are being taught the basics of what has happened in this country. What are students being taught when they do not even celebrate holidays that were designated as remembrance of important events that have shaped our country? Holidays such as Thanksgiving, the Fourth of July, Memorial Day and Presidents Day are all very important pieces of history that have made our country what it is today. Without regulation, there would not be a minimum of information that our nations children would have to know, not even the Pledge of Allegiance. This is only on...