real accomplishments of public education and the false promise of vouchers, The

Journal of Negro Education, The, Winter 2002 by LaCour, Nat

In this lecture, Mr. LaCour begins by acknowledging that our public schools serving poor children remain in need of improvement. However, he argues, vouchers are not the solution. Vouchers are political and economic schemes designed to create a market system of schools that would effectively reinforce separate and unequal school systems. He also explains that there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of vouchers or the superiority of private schools. Moreover, he argues that the evidence demonstrates that public schools have made substantial progress in raising the achievement of poor children and in narrowing the achievement gap between White and Black students. He also discusses research about non-school contributions to the achievement gap.

It is an honor and privilege to participate in the 2001 Charles H. Thompson Lecture at Howard University, one of this nation's finest educational institutions and a leader-- past, present, and future-in the education of African Americans. The standard set for this lecture by the example of Dr. Thompson is a very high one. Dr. Thompson was both a scholar and an advocate. He fought hard for equal educational opportunity and championed public schooling, but he was also clear-eyed about its shortcomings. Dr. Thompson knew that being a true advocate also means being an honest critic, even of the institutions you believe in.

I do not pretend to be a scholar, certainly not in Dr. Thompson's exceptional league. But I embrace Dr. Thompson's standard as a teacher union activist whose lifetime has been spent challenging the very institution-public education-whose accomplishments and promise I continue to believe in. I am therefore not interested in defending the status quo, especially when it comes to the education of poor and minority children. There is no question that our public schools, as well as the political and social institutions on which they depend, must substantially improve. But, I also have no question that vouchers will make matters much worse. Rather than being the next civil rights revolution, as voucher proponents' rhetoric now proclaims, vouchers would instead produce a devolution that would reverse the considerable educational progress we have made in the United States since 1954.

Another Name for "Separate and Unequal"

Although memory is growing dim of a not-so-distant time when "vouchers" and "choice" were simply code words for maintaining separate and unequal educational systems, a majority of Americans, including minorities, continue to favor public school reform over vouchers (National School Boards Association & Zogby International, 2001; Rose & Gallup, 2000). Moreover, all statewide voucher referenda have failed by wide margins, most recently in California and Michigan, and minority opposition has been even greater than that of the general population.

Nonetheless, legitimate frustration with the persistence of the achievement gap coupled with a prolonged period of often illegitimate attacks on public education have resulted in a greater disposition towards vouchers, notably among younger minorities (Bositis, 2000). Much like the political right wing has repackaged itself as "kinder and gentler," vouchers have been repackaged, too. Vouchers are now touted by their proponents as the educational salvation of poor and minority children, and a means for improving, rather than defunding, public schools.

Undoubtedly, there are some voucher advocates who genuinely believe in the "new" voucher movement. However, the fact still remains that the voucher movement is primarily financed and orchestrated by the political right, by individuals and organizations that have never stepped up to the plate for poor or minority children, and continue to resist every measure on their behalf except for school vouchers (People for the American Way Foundation, 1999a, 1999b, 2001; Rethinking Schools, 2001). "Choice," "parent empowerment," "civil rights revolution" are all resonant words. But at their political heart vouchers are about money and responsibility-that is about defunding public schools, subsidizing private school families, spending less on disadvantaged children, and transforming education from a civic and social responsibility into an individual one.

"Vouchers," of course, are merely a short-hand term for creating a market system of schools. As any introductory economics course would reveal, it is not the role of markets to produce justice or equity, nor are they good at it. Rather, it is the obligation of government to ensure justice and equity. Indeed, in most countries where vouchers or closely related market mechanisms have been tried in education, they have benefited the welloff by subsidizing parents already able to send their children to private schools at the cost of public school defunding and greater social and economic stratification. Moreover, promised achievement gains have not materialized, neither in general nor among the poor or minorities (Ambler, 1994; Carnoy, 1998; Gauri, 1998; Ladd & Fiske, 2000). There is no reason to believe things would be any different in the United States.