Public Money for the Public

Should Public Money Go to Nonpublic Schools?

Yes.

When it comes to parental choice in education, critics of school vouchers always chant, "Public money for public schools" to denote their opposition to parents' spending tax dollars in private schools. But these same critics never say "Public money for public health clinics" when senior citizens take their Medicare dollars to the places where their medical needs can best be met. The cry then becomes, "Public money for the public!"

The principle of public money for the public should apply to the money that we, the people, raise by taxing ourselves to educate our children. Money is, after all, power, and it follows that those who determine who gets the tax money for education will control the content of education.

Teachers' unions, who oppose K-12 tuition tax credits and vouchers, want politicians to control education dollars because unions can use their political power to influence elected officials, control the education agenda, and fill their coffers with tax dollars. Conversely, union bosses oppose parental control of education dollars because parents-who don't have to worry about elections-are immune to political control and influence.

If parents control education dollars, they will demand that education providers work for their money rather than lobby or picket for it. I believe parents should spend education dollars where they see fit-whether on traditional public schools, charter schools, or privately managed schools-because all parents, wealthy or poor, have a right to demand the best education possible for their children.

Not all children are the same, so the educational approach that best helps one child may not be the educational approach that best helps another child. Parental choice in education gives parents the power to ensure that each of their children is in a school tailor-made to that child's individual needs. Give parents the financial means to pay for such a system and education providers will offer new and innovative programs customized to the needs of individual children.

Public money should be for the public, not for teachers' unions, politicians, or a mandated set of government schools. Parents shouldn't have to beg politicians to reform the public schools. Allowing them choices in education will make it so that all schools-government-run and privately managed alike-will beg parents to send them their children.

The competition among schools that will be brought about by parental choice will force government schools to cut bureaucracy and put more of our tax dollars into the classroom. It will allow government school educators to become true professionals who make their money as a function of their competence, not their political power. And it will make educators earn their money by delivering a quality product to parents who will suddenly be able to demand it.

In today's world, a good education is absolutely essential to economic success. It is time we enfranchise all parents with the power to control their children's education. This can easily be done using tax money through vouchers or, or without tax money by establishing a tuition tax credit for any parent, relative, friend, or benefactor who funds a child's education.

Bill Clinton sent his daughter to a prestigious private school in Washington using the public dollars that we, the people, paid him as his salary. Yet he has vetoed bills that would have empowered poor parents to demand a similarly high-quality education for their children.

Parents should say to Bill Clinton, the teachers' unions, and anyone else who interferes with their children's right to educational opportunities, "Public dollars for the public-now!"

Mayor Bret Schundler of Jersey City, New Jersey, was elected on a platform based largely on school choice.