As should be no surprise to those who read my essays last year, I’m in favor of citizens having a choice in public and publicly financed services, such as health care and education, whenever possible. On egalitarian, not “right wing” grounds. And with some of his proposals in this year’s budget, Governor Spitzer has attempted to take a step in that direction. But the devil is in the details. More charter schools would provide more choices, but only for some. A tuition tax deduction would, in a very insignificant way, subsidize alternatives for those affluent enough to afford them on their own. The best news for choice in education in the proposed budget, in fact, could be a policy that has nothing to do with it directly.
A couple of years ago, when my children’s school asked me to write a letter to the Governor in favor of tax breaks for elementary schools, I didn’t. Instead I wrote the Bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn and pointed out that tax deductions are worth more to those who have more income, since their tax rates are higher, and do nothing for those who pay payroll taxes but not income taxes, since there are not taxes to be deducted from. Later, however, I read in the newspaper (and yes I know I might be wrong based on what I read in the newspaper) that the actual proposal was a tax credit, and a reversible one at that, which would be paid whether or not tax was owed. It would be equal for everyone, except that it would phase out at higher income levels, and not be available to those who could do without it. Although this isn’t the mechanism I would prefer (I’d rather the state just help pay for non-religious teachers providing instruction in state mandated subjects the way it pays for books), it was something I could support. Although Governor Pataki, who did few things I agreed with in 12 years, supported the tax credit plan, Speaker Silver did not.
The chief benefit of Governor Spitzer’s tax deduction proposal is that since it provides virtually no benefit, it costs virtually no money. As one advocate told the Albany Times Union, “One would think that with billions coming to public schools, basic decency would have you more generous with parents.” Maybe. But although the proposal would provide perhaps $90 to a family earning $125,000 (above this it would phase out, the paper says), it would provide nothing to the working class family earning $40,000 and struggling to send its children to St.-Closed-In-Two-Years. The proposal would thus does little except reinforce the false idea that choice in education favors the better off. A $1,000 credit would cost real money, but so will educating children displaced from parochial schools crushed between underpaid teachers and families who cannot afford more tuition. If the Governor is going to fight (and take $350 million in municipal aid away from New York City) that would be worth fighting for. If this deduction is all that the Governor plans to do, however, I’d say don’t bother.
Charter schools could provide real choice for less well off parents and students. They might also help to attract the non-poor back into cities such as Buffalo and Rochester, where many have been unwilling to go because of the quality of education. Those concerned with sprawl and urban decline need to face the facts about why only the poor are willing to live in older urban areas. Ask suburban parents, and the schools would probably be near the top of the list. Our country is therefore paying a high price in urban decline for social exclusivity in the suburbs, and a lack of choice in education in the cities. Opponents of choice in education need to decide if that cost is worth it. For me it is not. Still, there is the lifeboat issue. By providing an escape value for the easiest to educate children of the most motivated parents, charter schools could allow those who matter to remain content as the schools that most children attend sink. Like the gifted and magnet programs in New York City did until more middle class parents started staying in the city and there weren’t enough to go around.
The proposals I like best are the simple formulae for education funding, with more money for disadvantaged children, proposed at both the city and state level. I do not believe, as the New York Sun does, that these formulae open the door for vouchers (perhaps the Sun is trying to sink them by saying so). What they could do, however, is open the door for more choice within public education.
Within New York City, if as I have suggested monopoly Mayoral control were replaced with three competing school systems, one run by an appointee of the Mayor, one run by an appointee of the City Council, and one run by an appointee of the Borough Presidents, then the simple fair formulae could be used to allocate public education money between them. Perhaps the Upstate Cities could have two public school systems in addition to the Charter Schools and, I would prefer, the tax credit. What this would mean is that everyone would have a choice of two or three competing public education organizations, and perhaps a private one, right in their neighborhood. There might even be some choice in the suburbs if state aid followed the child to a competing district, leaving parents to just make up the local cost.
Everyone wants choices for themselves, if not for others. Even teachers when considering their own children’s education or their health care. And as I teased here http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield/a_modest_proposal_on_vouchers.html, no elected official would dare to take choice away where it already exists. Yet some people, generally those more powerful, have choices, and others, generally less powerful, do not. If you believe as I do that government should reduce, or at least not exacerbate, inequalities, then choice should be equalized as well.