Monday, May 4, 2009
Vouchers
In the case of the school vouchers, I tend to agree that the vouchers threaten the purpose of public education. The more money that is spent on vouchers, the less is going to support public schools. The case said that nonreligious private schools cost over 6,000 per pupil, and it seems outrageous that so many tax dollars could be spent on just one child going to private school. This money could be going towards improving private schools. I think that too much focus is put on choice. Everyone is so caught up in wanting choices for everyone, we have this idea that need our options. In some ways I understand this, but I believe that it's having so many choices that makes us unhappy. When there are too many choices, we always think that there could be something better than what we have. If we spent our money on improving the public schools instead of giving people choices, we could improve the educations of many more students than just those who are receiving vouchers. This is true not just in the utilitarian perspective, which would argue that we should improve educations for more students, but also I think under an egalitarian perspective. We should promote equality of education, and the best way to do this is to put more money into the public schools. I agreed with Tommy Thompson's beliefs that we need to do something, and make some sort of change in the education system. However, I don't believe that this is the right change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I absolutely agree with you, Christina, that vouchers threaten the public education system. I really like your analysis of the issue from both a utilitarian and an egalitarian point of view. I think using these perspectives is an interesting and important way to examine the issue. However, while I'm quite convinced that most utilitarians would agree with your approach, I'm not necessarily sure that most egalitarians will. I believe that, while many arguments for vouchers were based on a more libertarian agenda, an egalitarian argument was also used by some in their support. Annette "Polly" Williams, for example, justifies her support of vouchers by asking "Why penalize poor parients, saying you have to stay and keep the system alive. The state is spending a lot of money to help middle-class families make more choices, but when it comes to poor people, it's a different standard" (414). Williams' main concern is clearly to give the same educational opportunities to the poor as to the rich, an ultimate goal that is very egalitarian. I think egalitarians might be more divided on the issue than you think.
ReplyDeleteI agree that not all egalitarians would be against vouchers. However, I think that an egalitarian could argue against the very existence of private schools. This would put everyone's interests in the same place, so that everyone was equally concerned about the state of the public school system. Any group of political thought has division on different issues, and egalitarians could look at the situation several different ways.
ReplyDelete