COMMUNITY VIEWS
Vouchers, At What Price?
• Proposal 1 is a ordable. Initial,
those of a different religion, those
he education community
non-partisan estimates indicate a
from poor families — all of these chil-
and the Jewish community
first-year cost of $49.8 million to
dren could be denied access. Several
face great risks if vouchers
taxpayers. If all students currently
schools, in fact, already have stated
are approved on Tuesday,
enrolled in private and religious
they will not honor vouchers.
Nov. 7. We offer the following argu-
schools eventually receive vouchers,
Proposal
1
will
only
assist
the
poor.
•
ment against vouchers not so much as
as this proposal allows, the cost esca-
In addition to tuition exceeding the
Jewish educators,
lates to $363.4 million.* How else
voucher amount,
but as educators
can that amount be paid except by
there are costs for
and others con-
huge tax increases, or having equally
uniforms, supplies
cerned about edu-
large monetary transfers out of our
and laptop com-
cation, who hap-
public schools?
puters that some
pen to be Jewish.
And, there is a hidden cost as
private schools
Public schools
well, affecting every citizen in
already require.
in America have
Michigan. If approved, corporate
Private and reli-
historically served,
tuition-tax credits would be
gious schools can
and continue to
allowed.* This means that corpora-
raise tuition. And,
serve, Jews as an
tions could, dollar for dollar, pay for
vouchers will
DRS. STEVEN GAYNOR
ethnic group
private or religious schooling rather
apply to all, even
AND
SEYMOUR
GRETCHKO
extremely well. To
than their state taxes. Money might
those who can and
Special to the Jewish News
the extent that our
come not just from the school-aid
do afford tuition,
successes have
fund, but the general fund that pro-
not just the poor.
their foundations
vides
for state police, state parks,
Proposal
1
will
only
help
failing
•
in public education, we have been well
highway repairs, mental health, etc.
Currently, only seven
school
districts.
served by a system that encourages
achievement regardless of religion —
that protects our ability to succeed
from the intrusions of any religion.
Religious minorities in the United
emt
ctsup-
niprerr
nochi
port tpo
thegMi
npguan
o sstu
alaten
sti_ tuetimoenntta
el
Apro
bliccopnre
o ts
=I aette
ndndin
States have always been protected by
elementa r y and
church-state separation, a position
secondary schools; allow the use of tuition
ii vouchers i n certain school
strongly and traditionally supported
and
require
enactment
of
teacher-testing
laws.
districts;
by the Jewish community. We see no
reason to change that position in the
amendment would:
new millennium. But Proposal 1 does
just that, by irrevocably blurring the
I sot en0,atten
rota
tc:P
lines between church and state while
tax e
damaging public-education opportu-
roper
dies,grants or l eansc!
axons
nities for all. We must not let this
happen.
T
Ballot Language
Different Perspective
Those favoring Proposal 1 support
changing the Michigan Constitution
to allow the use of public-tax money
for private and religious education.
The only way to prevent this from
happening, in potentially every school
district (not just "failing" ones), is to
vote NO on Proposal 1. While no
Oakland County school districts are
among those judged "failing," most
boards of education have voted to not
support vouchers.
Here are some claims of those sup-
porting vouchers, and our response:
• Proposal 1 will give parents a
choice. That choice rests primarily with
private and religious schools, which
select those who may attend. Children
without transportation, those who are
handicapped or otherwise "at risk,"
*TN
10/27
2000
44
Dr. Steven Gaynor is Royal Oak
Schools superintendent and Dr. Sey-
mour Gretchko is West Bloomfield
Schools superintendent.
2. Allow students to use tuition vouchers to attend nonpublic schoo ls
in districts with a graduation rate under two-thirds in 1998-1999 and
districts approving tuition vouchers through school board action or a
public vote. Each voucher would be limited to one-half of the state aver-
age, per-pupil, public-school revenue.
3. Require teacher testing on academic subjects in public schools and
in nonpublic schools accepting vouchers.
4. Adjust minimum per-pupil funding from 1994-1995 to 2000-2001
level.
Michigan districts qualify for vouch-
ers. This proposal allows any district,
with only a small voting plurality or a
vote of four board of education mem-
bers, to permanently become a vouch-
er district.
• Proposal 1 will hold private and
parochial schools accountable. Their
governing boards are not elected or
required to hold public meetings, are
not subject to the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act, do not administer the
MEAD tests of student achievement,
and do not serve all regardless of race,
religion, national origin or handicap.
How would these funds be replaced,
except by a tax increase?
• Vouchers to religiously based
schools do not promote specific reli-
gious beliefs. Imparting the faith is
the cornerstone of religious educa-
tion, meeting the needs of many
families. The question is whether
our tax dollars should support those
beliefs. (About 92 percent of private-
school students attend religious
schools.*) Thousands of parochial-
school seats are vacant currently.
This proposal could fill them, result-
ing in a financial windfall. If provid-
ing a sound education for students
from failing districts is religious
leaders' primary motivation, why
not offer to open non-secular
schools?
• Competition via private-school
choice will cause public-school achieve-
ment to rise. "There is little evidence
to suggest that choice has significantly
raised the performance of the students
participating in these [voucher] pro-
,
grams.
Before believing the arguments for
Proposal 1, the voucher proposal, ask
yourself this question: whose kids is it
putting first?
❑
Source: Citizens Research-Council of
Michigan
** Source: National School Boards Asso-
ciation
Signatories include: Judith
Low.= Adler, president, Birm-
ingham Board of Education;
Barry Blauer, vice president,
Berkley Board of Education;
Beth Borson, president, West
Bloomfield Board of Education;
Bobbie D. Feldman, trustee,
Farmington Board of Education;
Linda Finkel, trustee, Bloom-
field Hills Board of Education;
Catherine Fridson, trustee,
Berkley Board of Education;
David Gad-Harf, trustee, West
Bloomfield Board of Education;
Michael Karson, trustee, Walled
Lake Board of Education; Marc
Katz, trustee, Berkley Board of
Education; Stanley Kurzman,
treasurer, Waterford Board of
Education; Sharon Lipton, sec-
retary, West Bloomfield Board
of Education; Avery Murav,
treasurer, West Bloomfield
Board of Education; Mindy
Nathan, vice president, Bloom-
field Hills Board of Education;
Marc Siegler, vice president,
Walled Lake Board of Educa-
tion; Amy Peterman, trustee,
Walled Lake Board of Educa-
tion; Bill Rubenfaer, president,
Bloomfield Hills Board of Edu-
cation; Daniel M. Share, trustee,
Birmingham Board of Educa-
tion; Bruce Tobin, trustee, West
Bloomfield Board of Education;
Shall Weisberg, secretary, Birm-
ingham Board of Education;
Barbara Berger White, secretary,
Berkley Board of Education.