A Critical Analysis of the Wrong Ruling on Vouchers

The main argument in the article titled “The Wrong Ruling on Vouchers” is that the decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the use of school vouchers in Cleveland was a gross assault on the American constitution and the rights of its citizens. This argument is originally concentrated on Cleveland’s school system but the author spells out its implications in the context of the larger American public and not just the students who are directly affected. Prior to this ruling, Cleveland has been applying these vouchers to its school system in such a manner that each child is allocated just above 2000 dollars annually in fees paid to the public school system. In the event that the child, the parents or both decide that they want to transfer, the money available in the voucher program is just the right amount for the parochial schools that are situated in this state (New York Times, 2002).

The main bone of contention that emerges is that the state inadvertently ends up funding religious education of its citizens using taxpayer’s money yet the first amendment clearly dictates that there should not be any teaching of religion in the public school system. These institutions invest more in religious articles than academic ones. This means that either way, the chances of learner getting a quality education with the money provided is slim. Private schools may offer better quality but their cost is significantly higher than the amount that is covered by these vouchers provided. This means that the court as a state organ acted ironically by contravening an amendment that only it can defend.

This argument is however flawed since the author seems to have an issue with the subject of religion more than the real problem that is at hand. The issue of vouchers is that they are meant to facilitate public education for the children in Cleveland. The matter of religion is secondary yet it takes centre stage in the article yet the main issue seems to be deteriorating standards of education due to a gross inadequacy of funds. The main controversy in the thesis is that money that has been forked out by Americans in the form of taxes is ending up sponsoring children to learn in mostly catholic based learning institutions. This argument is controversial because the author seems to be pointing an accusing finger at the state when the real decision makers regarding the voucher money are the parents. If there is a failure, the cause is not the state’s action but rather a loophole in the system that has led to the exodus of students to parochial schools.

To show that this argument on the ruling is flawed, I will first focus on the main issue which is public education. The next issue will be the author’s claims about religious education. Third, I will look at the main decision makers and finally explore possible reasons that have led to the situation as it is.

The Cleveland school voucher system was initiated with the purpose of expanding the scope of choices that were available for young students who resided in the state. The stipend provided was not meant for them to go to a religious school of their choice but rather to make a choice between public schools and other institutions whose fee was within the figure budgeted for by the voucher program. The author then points out that in practice, there are only two choices, that is the public schools and the parochial schools which if I may point out have been in existence long before the vouchers were introduced. Clearly, the author’s view is biased since the state and the Supreme Court by extension has not showed any intention to channel learners towards religiously affiliated institutions.

The author also claims that the first amendment is meant to ensure that the public education system remains as religiously neutral as possible owing to the fact that the issue of religious faith is highly divisive. It is true that the parochial institutions are biased towards Catholicism. This however is not sufficient proof that their sole purpose is to denigrate other faiths. It is a well-known fact that such schools in fact stress on including the morality element in their learning programs. This is in stark contrast of the public schools that are clearly overwhelmed with students who have been put under the charge of demotivated teachers. The author is in effect suggesting that the students are better off in a place where nobody cares about their moral development just because the first amendment says so. The author’s claim is not backed up by hard facts yet the same article quotes the exact amount at which the stipend has been capped. This clearly shows that the author does not have any solid evidence of parochial education being a source of havoc for the country’s education.

The third reason that disqualifies the argument carried by this article’s author is that the issues being raised do not reflect any views by the key decision makers and stakeholders in this matter. He is likely to be a stakeholder and has the right to know how the tax is being spent. However, the author is not the only tax payer. The parents of these children are also citizens of the country and therefore also pay their taxes to the government. For this reason, they are exercising their freedom of choice over where they want their money to go. In a democracy, the will of the majority prevails and this is a good example of the majority, who in this instance are the parents, have their way with things. Secondly, the author does not as much as provide an example where a student or a parent who changed schools complains about the services being offered in the parochial institutions. They obviously decided to do so because of different elements that the author has failed to highlight. It is very possible that the children could have been moved due to the issue of distance or another issue other than poor quality learning being offered at these schools. A unilateral stance on the side of the author leaves a lot to be desired regarding the validity of the thesis he employs to support his discourse over the issue.

The author of this article clearly has legitimate concerns about religion being included as part in the curriculum for some students who are having a state-sponsored education. However, using this as an argument against the Supreme Court’s verdict concerning these vouchers holds no water since the issue at hand is the funding of public education and not about whether or not the vouchers can be used in parochial schools.

References

The New York Times (2002) The Wrong Ruling on Vouchers