Education Vouchers: Where Is Our Money Going?

While researching solutions to better secondary education, I came across a couple posts on blog sites addressing the issue of education vouchers. Not knowing much about the proposed voucher solution, I dug deep to find out exactly how these vouchers work toward improving schools. I found that the idea behind vouchers is that if children and parents are giving the choice of what school the child would like to attend, then those schools that are not being chosen will be forced to improve.

One particular blog really persuaded me in my position on vouchers. In his post Voucher Legislation in Arizona, John Wright not only points out the faults in the voucher system, but he also provides suggestions alternate ways of improving our public education system.

Another blogger advocates the voucher system. Chuck Muth's strong opinions in his post entitled School Choice Shot Heard 'Round the World are quite moving but fail to address the problems the voucher system causes.

I have included my responses to both blogs below and hope that you will follow the links to read what they have to say on the subject.

Comment: The voucher system is a great suggestion... in the sense that we need to look at different options and assess their viability in order to come up with the best solution possible. Your argument is strong because it not only points out the problems with vouchers, but also provides alternatives. It makes so much sense that instead of taking tax-payer funding and rewarding children who win a lottery, we take tax-payer funding and invest in the schools that are sub-par. This way, everyone benefits, not just a lucky few.

It seems that those who oppose vouchers suggest that we threaten to take away students and funding if they do not pass a set of tests. How can taking away means for a quality school possibly improve that institution? Rather, I completely agree that we should spend the money as you suggested: reducing class size, starting new programming, holding teachers to higher standards, and also providing the child more than an education.

Not to say that I cannot see the appeal of vouchers; "school choice" sounds perfectly amazing. It would be great if any child and his parents could choose what school he attends, but that isn't what the current education vouchers allow. Instead, they give a very small percentage of students that choice, leaving the rest to a disadvantaged school which is going to lose even more funding because of its lack of efficiency. It is as though we are making good schools better and bad schools worse. Is this fair to those students who are never offered the chance to get out of those bad schools?

As I mentioned before, we should thank those who support vouchers for helping us better understand what we must do in order to get all schools on the right path. Proponents of the voucher system have good intentions, but their plan falters and leaves us seeking new and better ways to improve schools.

Comment: The argument that school vouchers provide a solution to the weak school system is definitely full of holes. I appreciate the sense of ugency in passing legislation to improve the public school system, but I feel that throwing money into the voucher system may do more harm than good.

First of all, your argument that we need to "attain an educated populace," but not necessarily through public schools, sounds to me that you are suggesting we should invest more in privatized education. Forgive me for not understanding, but if our nation turns to privatizing education, what are we doing for those students whose families will never be able to afford sending their kids to highly-priced schools? To this, you may answer: "Well, that's what the vouchers are for!" But as of right now, vouchers are only handed out on a lottery basis. Further, sometimes they only provide half the cost of a private education--undoubtedly insufficient for some families.

On another note, I am also failing to understand your comparison between secondary education vouchers and those provided by the G.I. Bill. The G.I. Bill rewards citizens who volunteer and risk their lives to serve in our military. Considering the lack of interest most young people have in our nation's defense, providing incentives is imperative. Giving a free education for years' worth of risking one's life for the good of our country is hardly enough to pay soldiers back for their dedication. It would be completely insensitive to argue that we shouldn't have this bill.

Secondary educatioin vouchers are different though. We are rewarding students on a random lottery basis, which, yes, rewards those lucky students, but it also punishes the unlucky ones. You said that those working with you on this initiative have children of their own. How can you guarantee them that their student will be given a voucher? Do you think they would feel differently if they supported this, only to miss out on the vouchers and have their children left behind in the sub-par school? I think not.

Extended Classroom Time: A Must in Bettering Education

If it is true that the United States of America is to be considered the land of opportunity, then one must be able to prove that children are provided such chances. By making secondary education mandatory, the government ensures that each child is given the chance to become educated. If we are doing everything we can to provide for students in the classroom, then these educated children presumably have the skill and preparation necessary to enter the real world and earn enough for a descent lifestyle. But how does one show that each child is given an equal shot? It is obvious that some schools are more equipped when it comes to educating children (usually private schools or magnet schools that have efficient funding). For schools that are less equipped, it is time that new solutions are sought out so that all schools may provide the best education for their students. Sure, new solutions are going to cost, but the children are the future of the country; it would be wise to ensure that they are on the right path. Valuing education and working toward providing the best education possible would no doubt benefit our country as a whole. So what is a good solution? One recent suggestion is the desire to extend the time students are in school. An article in the Washington Post entitled "Finding Time for Success" exhibits both sides of the argument for requiring students to remain in classrooms for longer periods of time throughout the week. On first glance, this proposed solution that if children were in school longer, they would learn more appears on the surface to suffice. However, there are several counter arguments that point to the fact that this solution is not just a quick fix and that there are several deeper issues at hand. Although these counter arguments are strong, the benefits of a longer school day clearly outweigh the costs and help in providing that equal opportunity children are promised by the government.

This idea is not a novelty--it has been thrown around for the last ten years--but the pressure is finally being applied so that these ideas may become realities. One foundation, Massachusetts 2020, published a forty-page report to support the claim that extended classroom time really is a necessity. The report, published in fall 2005, lays out case studies whose results demonstrate the claim that extended classroom time is effective. The authors argue that 180 six-hour days "is a vestige of nineteenth-century agrarian econonmy. It is not designed to meet the education demands of the Information Age." What the foundation hopes to achieve is more on time task, depth and breadth, greater opportunities for planning and personal development, greater opportunities for enrichment and experiential learning, and stronger adult-child relationships. All which I think most can agree are important. Still, there are critics with many valid counter arguments.

One obvious problem that arises when it comes to longer days in the classroom is the work set out in getting teachers to agree to more working hours. An article was recently published by Dan Baer in regards to the Lynn Teacher's Union rejecting a longer school day. The Department of Education that granted the Ford Elementary School over one million dollars was not able to reach an agreement with the union. While it is true that teachers need to be adequately compensated for the outstanding work, they must remember that the real victims are the children who are being deprived of the best education possible. No one can dispute that teaching is not easy, and now with programs like Teach for America, there are better incentives for individuals to teach. Teach for America is a program that only holds teachers accountable for two years worth of teaching with the hope that a small commitment will help to eliminate burn out. Because teaching is not a glamorous job here in America, it is imperative that members of society feel an obligation to act selflessly and better the education system. They should recognize what a privilege it was that they were able to attend college and in return, provide that same opportunity for others.


Another strong argument that extended classroom time is not worth the effort or money is that substance, not time, is the real problem. What good does it do to have the students at school longer if the curriculum is not effective? While this question makes a good point--having children sit in a classroom not really doing anything certainly will not better their education--aruguing that we need to focus on a strong, effective curriculum should not undermine the argument that children should be in school for a longer period of time. Of course it is fair to argue that a strong curriculum is important; it may be the most important element of an effective school. However, it is just as fair to argue that a stronger curriculum as well as a larger curriculum is a much better solution. Studies show that if teachers are in the working environment longer, they are more likely to produce better work, so extending the school day could ideally take care of both issues.

America is on the right path in requiring children to attend school, but we need to go a step further. Students needs lots of attention in all areas--not only inacademics, but in physical, health, and sex education as well. Local, state, and government officials needs to follow through when it says all children have a chance to elevate themselves and rise up in society. More programming just seems like a clear given in doing so. Whatever needs to be done so that teachers can realize this importance and students can reap the benefits can wait no longer. Extending the length of the day is crucial for this country to provide the best education possible.