Whether or not you agree with all that the ACLU does, surely we agree that public education must be defended. Public education is the cornerstone of American democracy and an educated electorate is necessary to sustain a democracy. It is the institution designed to create one nation with shared values out of many different ethnic, racial, and religious groups. We must continue to improve public education, not abandon it.

Currently, Michigan’s constitutional language prohibits the use of public funds for private and parochial schools. But in November, 2000, we will be voting to amend the Constitution to:

1. eliminate the prohibition on indirect funding, allowing parents to receive tuition vouchers for use at private or parochial schools;
2. require school districts with graduation rates below 2/3 to offer tuition vouchers, and also allow voters or school boards in any local school district to approve voucher plans with a minimal number of signatures; and
3. require teacher testing of knowledge in academic subjects.

Allowing indirect funding may be a less obvious violation of the First Amendment, but it is no less unconstitutional. There is no question that tax dollars will eventually flow to parochial schools since 85% of private schools in Michigan are parochial.

The argument you’ll hear most often from voucher supporters is that vouchers will give parent’s a choice. Every parent already has the right to choose a religious education for his or her child, but taxpayer’s should not be expected to pay for that choice.

Beyond the obvious that vouchers violate the constitutional principle of church/ state separation, framing the issue as "school choice" is false advertising and, frankly, dishonest.

• Vouchers offer no guarantee of admission.
• Vouchers require no change in a school’s admission policy. Private schools don’t have to admit students or can discriminate on the basis of mental or physical disability, IQ, achievement scores, income, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. They don’t have to offer special education services and most, in fact, do not.
• Private schools are not forced to accept vouchers. In a new voucher program in one Florida county, only 5 of 25 schools are participating; 4 Catholic and 1 Montessori. Though 91 children applied for vouchers, only 59 spaces are available.

If there is no guarantee that a voucher can be used and a school, not a parent, gets to pick and choose who attends that school, can this really be considered parental choice?

And what about the cost of this so-called "choice" to Michigan taxpayers and to the 90% of the children who will choose to remain in their neighborhood schools? Whether you have children or not, vouchers will effect your pocketbook and is simply bad public policy.

• At an average cost of $3,000 per student, vouchers will cost Michigan taxpayers $600 million per year just for the students who are currently enrolled in private schools, leaving fewer dollars to educate the vast majority of Michigan’s children.
• A costly new bureaucracy will need to be created to administer public funds to private institutions.
• Property values are largely determined by the quality of neighborhood schools and will decline if the public school becomes impoverished.
• New private schools may be opened for profit, using taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of businessmen, not to educate children.

We can also learn a lot from Milwaukee’s and Cleveland’s experience. In 1998-99, Milwaukee’s voucher program cost $27.8 million for 6,000 children; 5,000 of these children were previously in private school or in kindergarten. In Cleveland, $1.9 million was misspent and $1.4 million was spend on taxi service in 1997, and in 1998, the program incurred a 41% overrun, resulting in a $2.9 million reduction in public school funds; 75% of the children using vouchers were previously in private school or in kindergarten.

Unlike public schools, private and parochial schools are unregulated and unaccountable to taxpayers. Yet public funds will be used to subsidize private and religious education.

If the goal is really about improving education we would be discussing smaller class size since the research is quite clear - this is the most effective strategy for increasing student achievement. We would be talking about improving technology, increasing teacher training, increasing parental involvement, and improving the physical structure of the learning environment.

We’re in for the fight of our lives, but you can assure that we win by talking to your friends, relatives and neighbors. Tell them we need to improve public education for all children, not just the few who may utilize vouchers. If you read a pro-voucher article, op-ed, or letter to the editor, don’t let it go unanswered.

With no evidence to indicate that voucher students perform better than comparable public schools students, why are we talking about draining the funds needed to educate ALL of our children? The pro-voucher campaign, "Kids First, Yes!" should really be called "Some Kids First, Yes!" Consider your refusal to sign the ballot initiative petition an early NO! vote.