As a parent of 4 children, 3 of whom attended public schools, the news and letters to the editor about Ky. Amendment 2 and school vouchers have caught my attention. It seems that the focus in these pieces is primarily on school funding, budgets and financial resources associated with funding our public school systems rather than the benefits that come with free and equal competition to produce the best product, our children’s education. Competition to produce the best product generally makes us all better in many ways. In this case, the product is our K-12 youth and the future of our country.
A few consistent themes always seem to persist with the facilities of the public school model. Equipment always seems to be state of the art compared to private schools, while staff pay always seems to be higher compared to private schools, but is always presented as grossly inadequate by the voices of politicians and teachers union leaders.
My observations of private schools include excellent teachers teaching for less pay (because they’re just not there for the money), a focus on building character and future leaders, and generally taking a backseat to the pursuit of public school facilities, equipment, and pay levels. All of this happens while private school parents help fund public schools through our property taxes, don’t use public school resources, and dig deep to pay for private school tuition. Owensboro Public Schools also benefits from free school meals for all students, while the vast majority of private school students pay for their school meals.
There doesn’t seem to be much of an argument about Amendment 2. Public school advocates are strongly encouraging the amendment to say “no,” while school choice advocates are strongly supporting the initiative. Wouldn’t the passage of Amendment 2 expand the opportunities for “choice” in education for many low-income K-12 students who currently attend public schools? It’s a choice that is not readily available right now. Why would choice in education, especially for low-income students and families, be a bad thing, and what are those who oppose the amendment really afraid of? Instead of focusing so much on student enrollment and student numbers to justify public education dollars, how about focusing on the students? Isn’t that what this argument should be about? How about focusing on which model provides the best quality education for our youth instead of how many dollars the public school system stands to lose if Amendment 2 passes? If the public school system provides the best outcomes for students compared to private schools, then public schools should not lose any students. Let the two models compete on the basis of the product they produce, not on the basis of investments in expensive advertising, lobbying and teachers union rhetoric to undermine Amendment 2.
I hear horror stories about relaxed public school discipline and the advocacy of progressive trends, while the private school model is far from perfect, but holds students to the basic discipline thresholds that most responsible people support. I have seen no focus or attention on healthy competition and how healthy competition, in most other aspects of life (including but not limited to education), promotes improvement for all and makes us better.
In our house, we are nearing the end of our direct involvement in public versus private education as our youngest is nearing high school graduation. However, I have serious concerns about prohibiting healthy competition as measured by the impact and outcome of education and student character in K-12 education.
—Bill Blincoe, Owensboro, Kentucky
Letter to the editor Agree or disagree?
This article originally appeared in the Louisville Courier Journal: Let Public and Private Schools Compete. Vote Yes on Amendment 2 in KY
