The Gadflyer’s Amy Sullivan, whom I usually really like, seems to have kicked off a bit of a firestorm with her provocative essay last week on progressive constituencies. As Amy herself noted over the weekend, she apparently “touched a nerve.”
There were plenty of things in her original column that I think were fair and compelling; I even largely agree with her point about constituency groups and their criticism of Dems who are not 100% ideologically “pure.” And while I certainly don’t mean to pile on, there was just one point Sullivan made that I wanted to tear apart, I mean, respond to.
“[T]eachers unions have waged an all-out assault on school vouchers, an initiative that has significant public support, particularly in the African-American community, and that may in fact provide important educational opportunities to poor students who are trapped in low-quality public schools.
I don’t mean to go on a lengthy diatribe about the issue, but I wanted to challenge some of Sullivan’s specific points that I believe are mistaken.
First is the notion that vouchers have “significant public support.” I don’t believe that’s the case.
I’ll admit that polls on the issue are often swayed by the wording of the question. If a survey asks respondents, “Do you think under-privileged children should be able to leave failing public schools and receive funding to attend better private schools?” then sure, the polls will show overwhelming support for vouchers. If the survey asks, “Do you favor government subsidies to parochial or other religious schools?” then the results tend to be the opposite.
One of the broadest polls I’ve seen in recent years came in a Washington Post exit poll on election night 2000 (the link is no longer available). Seventy-eight percent said they wanted to fix troubled public schools, and only 16 percent opted for vouchers. That’s pretty one sided.
But forget polls for a moment. Voucher proposals have been the subject of several statewide referenda in recent years. If the idea had significant public support, at least one of these proposals would have actually passed when voters were given a choice. And yet, the public has rejected each and every one of these plans.
In fact, vouchers are so unpopular that pro-voucher advocates have been told to avoid even mentioning the word altogether. Frank Luntz created a manual a few years ago called “Language of the 21st Century,” which was distributed to Republican members of Congress. Luntz advised the GOP to stay away from the word “vouchers” because it’s an immediate political loser. Refer to them, Luntz said, as “opportunity scholarships, not vouchers….Fully two-thirds (66%) prefer ‘opportunity scholarships,’ while fewer than one in four (23%) choose ‘vouchers.'” Later in the same document, Luntz repeats his advice in all caps: “DON’T USE THE WORD ‘VOUCHER.'”
Next, and more important to me personally, is the notion that vouchers enjoy “particular” support in the “African-American community.” Again, I think Sullivan is mistaken. The NAACP, the National Urban League, and the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, among others, are all on record as formally opposing school voucher plans.
But wait, you say, these are institutional civil rights groups. What about regular ol’ African-American families? Well, I’m glad you asked.
In 2000, California and Michigan each held statewide elections on voucher plans. If African-American families wanted voucher money, this was their chance. After the votes were tallied, however, it wasn’t even close.
While all voters in California rejected the voucher plan by a 2-to-1 margin, an exit poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times showed that black voters opposed the plan by an almost-identical margin — 68 percent to 32 percent.
In Michigan, all voters opposed a similar statewide plan by a margin of 69 percent to 31 percent. According to an exit poll by the Detroit News, blacks statewide rejected the proposal by an even wider margin, voting it down 4 to 1. In the city of Detroit, where the public schools aren’t exactly known for their excellence, voters rejected the scheme 72 percent to 28 percent.
I guess it comes down to a matter of priorities. Sullivan noted that she wants to “provide important educational opportunities to poor students who are trapped in low-quality public schools.” I couldn’t agree more. The question, of course, is how we’re going to do that.
Under vouchers, some of those poor students will get the chance to leave the troubled public school. If they can cover the financial difference of the tuition that the voucher won’t cover, and if there are any open slots in the competitive private school, and if the private school is willing to take them, and if the child’s family isn’t opposed to the religious indoctrination that often comes with parochial education, then maybe that student will get a better educational opportunity.
But what about the other kids who are still back in that troubled public school? Will they benefit now that the private school down the street is getting public subsidies? Definitely not. In fact, in communities that have voucher plans — Milwaukee and Cleveland, for example — the public schools that were underperforming before vouchers were just as troubled after voucher plans were implemented.
In a follow-up essay, Sullivan noted the following:
We have children taking art classes in districts where there is no money for art supplies. We have children taking computer classes in districts where all of the computers are broken. We have first-graders in classes of 40 or more. We have entire schools that succeed or fail based purely on the superhuman effort of individual teachers and administrators. Don’t happen to have Superwoman for your teacher? Too bad, you’re screwed.
Oddly enough, I’d make the exact same argument against vouchers. Are these schools with no art supplies, no computers, and overtaxed teachers going to be better off when the private school down the street is getting public subsidies? Even if a couple of kids got to leave, what about the rest of the kids who are, if you’ll pardon the expression, left behind?
Consider an analogy. Say a local fire department is having some trouble. The department is understaffed, low on equipment, and is finding it tough to put out fires quickly. What should the local government do? Well, they can lament the fact that the department has fallen on hard times and give everyone a voucher to go and purchase their own hose and ax, or they can invest the resources needed to fix the darn fire department. I feel the same way about public schools in this country.
Sullivan added:
“I want to save our public education system. But I don’t want to sacrifice the education of thousands of children in the process while we argue.”
And neither do I. It’s one of the reasons I find the voucher “debate” so frustrating. Voucher advocates in government aren’t willing to invest in new school construction, updated textbooks, infrastructure improvements, higher teacher salaries, lower class sizes, or new supplies. But they’re more than happy to invest in subsidies for private schools.
It’s a red herring and a scam that distracts desperately needed attention on the troubles of our educational system. If we don’t want to sacrifice the education of any children, we’ll take immediate steps to improve the public schools that are underperforming. As far as I can tell, that’s the only way to ensure that we don’t leave any children behind.