Vouchers, Low-Income Families, and Fairness to All
September 13, 1999
TO: Shepherd Express Metro - Editor
FROM: Chris Ahmuty, ACLU/WI executive director
DATE: 13 September 1999
RE: commentary
On Labor Day the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran a story on a report for
the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute written by Susan Mitchell regarding
school voucher regulation. The newspaper quoted Ms. Mitchell as saying
that, "School choice opponents have drawn a regulatory bull's eye on thousands
of poor students." This over-the-top allegation deserves more scrutiny.
If one looks at the history of efforts to make participating private
schools treat all parents and students fairly, it is obvious that some
voucher proponents want their schools to receive millions of dollars of
taxpayer funds without regard for fairness to parents, much less taxpayers.
For instance, prior to the expansion of school vouchers in the fall of
1998, the non-sectarian schools participating in the voucher pilot program
gave assurances that they would not violate various non-discrimination
laws. Voucher expansionists went to the Legislature to pressure the Departmentof
Public Instruction to drop these assurances. The DPI responded by replacing
the assurances with a watered downed acknowledge that the participating
schools had received certain materials from the DPI. Before this change
the non-sectarian schools seemed to manage fine under the old regulations.
No one has demonstrated that giving these assurances was a burden. Mrs.
Mitchell alleges that this and other regulations nearly killed the voucher
program by scaring off potential participating schools. Nonsense.
Another good example of the voucher expansionists reaction to reasonable
efforts at fairness is the history of state legislation that would require
voucher schools to run criminal background checks on teachers, just as
if they were licensed through the DPI. In the 1997/98 session of the Legislature
a bill passed the Senate easily, but it died in the republican-controlled
Assembly Rules Committee. In the current session of the Legislature, once
again the Senate has passed this bill, but once again it appears doomed
to die in the Assembly. As I testified at the Senate hearing earlier this
year on Senate Bill 51, it's unimaginable why private schools receiving
taxpayer dollars shouldn't take the same steps that our public schools
already take to protect our children. A background check to identify acriminal
conviction for a crime that is substantially related to job requirements
shouldn't bother anyone without something to hide. But I suspect, it's
not that these schools have something to hide (they probably don't know
that) rather reasonable regulations are an anathema to some of their ideological
supporters.
Finally, if you want to know how some voucher expansionists try to manipulate
the rules, you need to look no further than the proposed State Budget.
There is a provision in the version that came out of the Joint Finance
Committee that would change the voucher program's low income eligibility
requirement. It would no longer matter after a pupil's first year of attendance
at a participating school. That means that if a family's financial situation
changed for the better, perhaps because they found employment - or even
if they won the lottery - taxpayers would still send thousands of dollars
to the private school. This is a significant step in abolishing the low
income eligibility requirement and demonstrates that vouchers are not
about helping poor families, as much as providing a benefit to private
schools.
The notion that regulations designed to promote fairness for all parents
and children are designed to kill the voucher program is ludicrous. Businesses
have to obey non-discrimination statutes. Licensed public school teachers
have to submit to periodic criminal background checks. Parents who can
afford to pay tuition (and even some parents who can't) most often do
accept the responsibility to pay, if their children attend private schools.
Why can't the voucher schools live by the rules that the rest of us live
by? Can't they operate without special benefits in addition to the millions
of tax dollars they receive? Parents, students, and taxpayers deserve
more than over-the-top rhetoric from voucher expansionists.
Chris Ahmuty
Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin
If you agree with the ACLU and want to protect diversity
in our schools and metropolitan areas, please consider joining the hundreds
of thousands of patriotic Americans who are members of the ACLU.
|
