Just two days before the latest ruling on Louisiana vouchers, state Superintendent John White tweeted: "Amidst talk of legal questions I return to [a] moral question: do parents and children deserve options, no matter their wealth? Answer is clear." Now that a Baton Rouge judge has ruled that aspects of the voucher program unconstitutional, I return to a moral question: What should quality schools look like to a democratically elected government? I believe they should be diverse institutions dedicated to public interests.
Choice has become the reason for being behind the voucher program. Under the state's model, parental choice drives educational improvement. Accordingly, parents will make the best choices for their children, and their dollars will reward those schools be it private or parochial. As idyllic as the slogan "parent choice" sounds, it is not the only thing at stake with education. By inflating the value of an education as an individual good, state officials simultaneously minimize their responsibilities in promoting a democracy.
No one can argue the broad platitude of choice. Choice is a central part of being American. However, we've been down the choice road before. The aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education showed us that when families are given choices they often choose to receive an education with their social relatives as opposed to their neighbors. One of the reasons why the public education system has declined in inner cities is that families have divested from their public schools. Given our country's not-so-distant past, the state should be the public sector's biggest cheerleader. Four days before the current ruling, a federal judge found the voucher program violated the desegregation agreement in Tangipahoa Parish.
Not every choice is good for democracies. One may look to higher education for guidance. The U.S. Department of Education distributes financial aid so loosely that proprietary institutions, which also trumpet the value of choice, are fleecing many. The astronomic default rates among students who attend these institutions are burdening the rest of society.
I find this akin to the Louisiana Department of Education subsidizing schools through vouchers that also teach creationism and reject evolution. The state's economy cannot afford to subsidize and promote these curriculums. Neither example is in the interest of the public.
The haste and manner in which Jindal's education package elbowed its way through the Legislature, paired with a barren regulatory environment, revealed the dangers of what opening up public dollars can do. In addition, we should not look to private and parochial schools as an escape hatch.
The day of the opinion, Gov. Jindal tweeted: "The opinion sadly ignores the rights of families who do not have the means necessary to escape failing schools." Education reform is not just about public schools. Louisiana didn't become one of the lowest-performing states on its public institutions alone. Many private and parochial schools are benefiting not from a proven track record (if they put forth the evidence) but from the idea of private is better.
Charter advocates can take some responsibility in creating negative climates toward public schools. In addition, faith-based institutions should not pursue growth from those who crudely want an educational plan B. Private and parochial schools run the risk of watering down their product by conveniently serving the dissatisfied public as a postern door. We need the private sector, but we need them to live up to the public interest.
What's troubling with the state's rhetoric of providing options is that it sends mixed messages regarding the progress of public school reform. Public schools are the best option, especially in these tight fiscal times. Faith-based enrollments have declined significantly in the past decade both nationally and locally. The reasons were clear: Middle-class families could preserve their social enclave and receive a quality education by sending their children to publicly funded magnet and charter schools.
The state through its voucher program ignores that many private schools were erected for purposes of social exclusivity. Times are changing. Communities want public. Unfortunately, they also want their exclusivity. The rise and demand among magnet schools reflect this.
Nevertheless, as an education scholar and professional, I can reasonably say that some of the best curriculums, teachers, research, facilities and leaders are in the public sector. Education writ large has advanced because of the public sector and the discourse around it. Again, both private and parochial leaders can enact these changes. But to the chagrin of faith-based leaders, the adoption of these advancements would make their schools look and act more public.
Again, we need private and parochial schools. However, we should not create more private school escape hatches; we should create more quality public options. Louisiana needs spaces where people of different religions, ethnicities, sexual orientations, socioeconomic classes and both genders can learn these basic national principles of justice, fairness, tolerance, individualism as well as democracy. The voucher program did not advance these goals.
The voucher program proves that it's a lot easier to remove children from failing schools than to remove our failings as a society. The state should not give up on the higher principles our public schools should ascribe to. The answer is clear. The public needs better public options.