Despite last week's vote, the school voucher movement is not going away
Text 
No comments [ Add Comment ]By Doug Gibson
Commentary
<
em>"And you know that you fight for the lost causes harder than for any other."
-- Jefferson Smith, in Frank Capra's "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"
School vouchers are not really a lost cause, although last week's thumpin' at the polls might provide that impression. It sure was gloomy to see vouchers fall in every county.
It's easy to get down and engage in sour whines -- a prominent businessman and a think tank academic have already done that. Frustration of that sort is counterproductive, and reinforces wrong assumptions: namely, that vouchers are a sop to the rich, or disrespect public educators.
Some of the national media, looking for a theme to the voucher vote, naively expressed surprise that "conservative Utah" would reject a statewide voucher plan so overwhelmingly.
But vouchers are not a Democratic/Republican issue. In fact, among the strongest supporters of vouchers have been black parents, who traditionally vote Democratic.
The cold, hard fact -- and most voucher supporters knew this -- is that it was an uphill battle when the playing field shifted to the polls. No voucher proposal has ever succeeded in a statewide election. California and Michigan voucher initiatives were defeated in 2000.
To win political battles, an issue needs to be framed. Voucher opponents deserve credit for doing a great job of framing the issue as one of public education versus corporate education. The consistent campaign message of the teachers' unions is "public schools will be harmed if taxpayers' money goes to private schools."
Everybody loves public school teachers, right? When you see hundreds of fresh-faced, spirited public school teachers rallying against vouchers, well, it's over, no matter what Gov. Huntsman, Rep. Rob Bishop or Sharlene Wells-Hawkes says ... even if they are right.
Vouchers supporters must frame the issue as one of school choice for their children versus a monopoly that can't provide that choice. The areas where this resonates most effectively are low-income neighborhoods.
Changing how an issue is framed is not easy. It may take a generation. Until then, voucher supporters should chip away at the public school monopoly -- through targeted voucher initiatives. One idea is a bill to limit vouchers to parents with low incomes. Voucher supporters should intensify efforts to get these parents in the public eye, telling their stories.
Most voters, if they see vouchers as a chance for a concerned parent to provide a better opportunity for their child, will support this scaled-back plan. Of course, success depends on framing. But it will be easier to beat back the corporate versus public argument if vouchers are limited to families earning, say, $30,000 a year.
Vouchers will continue to see glacial, consistent progress. Utah's school test scores underscore why vouchers are needed. Minority students, except Asians, score low. Also, Utah's white, middle-class students lag behind their peers. According to the Utah Foundation, their test scores trail other states' scores with similar ethnicity, and parental pay and education.
Public education's response to these bleak numbers is predictable -- it will want bigger increases of taxpayers' money. But this school year, Utah will spend about $7,500 per student. That is more than enough to provide a quality education. But that isn't happening, particularly in these low-income areas.
Utah is facing scores of thousands of new students in the near future. If the economy turns south, it will be more difficult to keep the student per pupil spending at $7,500. In the end, vouchers and public schools will have to "marry for convenience."
One solution proposed by the moderate New Democrat magazine, and outlined in a column by TV newsman John Stossel, proposes that voucher schools be required to admit all students and comply with performance standards to keep receiving taxpayer funds. This would join private and public schools to both accountability and universal access.
The libertarian Strossel is cool to this idea, but I like it. Schools need more money per pupil, and kids need the best education they can get. Both goals are met.
Teachers' unions will oppose this. But I believe parents will like it.
Gibson is the Standard-Examiner's assistant editorial page editor. He can be reached at dgibson@standard.net.
