In recent years there has been much debate concerning the use of public funding to finance the costs of private schools. This issue has galvanized both camps. Proponents believe that the public school system is broken, and that only by providing private schools with public funding can America's students reach their potential. Opponents argue that the last thing we need to do is divert funding from our already overstretched public school systems. This paper will outline the highlights of both sets of arguments.
The idea of using public funding to finance private schooling originated in the late 1950s. Influential economist Milton Friedman "proposed to offer public funds to families that could be used only for education but in any educational institution, public or private. Such "vouchers" would serve to give families increased choice of the kind of education their children received" (Carnoy, 6). Friedman believed that vouchers could break what he saw as the monopoly of the public sector over education. In doing so, vouchers would increase the choice of consumers in the education market, thereby augmenting the economic welfare of all Americans.
The most strident critics today have advanced the idea of public monopoly even further, comparing our public school systems to soviet era bureaucracies: "This monopoly in our own midst is one that abhors initiative and rewards mediocrity. It's enormously wasteful, top-heavy, and bureaucratic. Many aspects of it are destructive to the family and have a decidedly anti-religious bias" (Tancredo). These critics believe that "The
benefits of a competitive education marketplace are dependent on the ability of schools to innovate and differentiate themselves from their competition. The process of innovation and differentiation improves quality and increases choices, and an industry that is given little room to do that has limited ability to improve customer satisfaction" (Omand, 2...