[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 72 (Friday, June 10, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            THE WRONG CHOICE

                                 ______


                          HON. PHILIP M. CRANE

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 10, 1994

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, in efforts to reform education in our 
country, some people have proposed tuition vouchers. This system would 
allot a certain amount of money to parents for all schoolage children 
which would be applied toward tuition at any school, public or private. 
Although the tuition voucher system can provide an opportunity for 
stronger education for those who normally could not afford private 
education, the following article, ``The Wrong Choice'' by George Roche, 
warns about the possible danger involved with this system. We should 
proceed cautiously in reform as private schools may become obliged to 
comply with Federal rules if students accept Federal funds. As an 
advocate of school choice, I believe that educational reform is 
important, yet we should not endanger the quality of private education 
by subjecting it to the same standards as public schools. I recommend 
this article to my colleagues as a warning against some potential 
pitfalls of this otherwise worthy idea.

                            The Wrong Choice

                           (By George Roche)

       The recent defeat of the education reform initiative in 
     California was no surprise, since public employee unions 
     spent some $17 million to fight an idea that would have 
     brought dramatic change to the way schools are funded and 
     run: education tuition vouchers.
       Had the measure passed, parents would have received a 
     $2,600 voucher for each school-age child, to be applied 
     toward tuition at any school in the state willing to accept 
     it--any public school or any private school. Giving parents 
     such economic leverage would have delivered a crushing blow 
     to the state education monopoly, which poll after poll has 
     shown Californians are convinced is a dismal failure.
       One factor in the resounding defeat (70 percent of voters 
     said `No!') was that the initiative would have provided a 
     windfall for private schools. For instance, within three 
     years, some $1.3 billion in tax money could have gone to 
     students already in private education. And everyone knew 
     that, with cash in hand, countless more California families 
     would have abandoned the public schools at first chance.
       The opposition pointed out that private schools receiving 
     voucher money would not be bound by the rules under which 
     public schools function. Indeed, the initiative stipulated 
     that any proposed private school regulation would require a 
     three-fourths vote of the legislature. So the unions, 
     naturally, promoted the idea that vouchers were blank checks 
     to any crackpot with a theory of what a school should be.
       Of course, the fact that private schools have been largely 
     free from the onerous mandates and regulations that have 
     undermined public education is what makes the voucher idea 
     attractive in the first place. But is it realistic to believe 
     that private education could remain free, if government money 
     started pouring in? Perhaps a personal experience could be 
     illuminating. . .
       In the mid-1970's, the federal government demanded that 
     colleges and universities report statistics on the ethnic and 
     gender makeup of faculty, staff and students. Hillsdale 
     College refused to comply on the grounds that we received no 
     federal funds and had maintained an equal admissions policy 
     for women and minorities since our founding in 1844.
       The government countered that since some Hillsdale students 
     had federal loans and scholarships, the College was an 
     `indirect recipient' of government funds and, therefore, 
     obligated to comply with federal rules. The Supreme Court 
     upheld that position. So, Hillsdale took the unprecedented 
     step of declining to accept student money derived from 
     federal loans and scholarship program based on endowments and 
     special funding provided by foundations, companies and 
     individual donors.
       The lesson we learned from this experience is that, when 
     government is involved, there are no guarantees. No one 
     imagined that federal money given to a student could subject 
     a college to regulation by the government. But that's what 
     the Court decided. And in an age when there are few scruples 
     about twisting the law to achieve any goal, it's impossible 
     to predict the consequences of any action, no matter how 
     well-intentioned.
       The education reform movement will go on, despite this 
     setback in California. But school-choice advocates should 
     proceed cautiously. It would be a tragedy if, in the end, all 
     the nation's private schools are re-formed into the image of 
     the very public schools that have failed so miserably. That 
     would definitely be the wrong choice.

                          ____________________