By Nat T. Bender and Thomas M. Peretti
| In February, Rutgers-Newark Federalist Society hosted a debate between Professor Paul Tractenberg of Rutgers Law School and Clint Bolick, Vice President for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute. | |
 |
 |
| Rutgers Law School | Goldwater Institute |
School choice is “the most compelling Civil Rights issue of our generation,” according to Clint Bolick, the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation in Phoenix, AZ, at a Rutgers Law School student sponsored debate. Bolick encouraged his audience of law students to get involved with fighting for school choice and characterized the “other side” of the teachers’ unions as fighting to protect their jobs and power.
However, Rutgers Law Professor Paul Tractenberg countered Bolick’s social justice analogy by describing the voucher movement as constantly searching for a persuasive rationale. He pegged the start of charter schools back to 50 years ago and the implementation of Brown v. Board of Education’s decision ending formal racial discrimination in education. Whites in places such as Prince Georges County, MD, abandoned traditional public schools to move to charters schools maintaining de facto segregation.
Bolick’s next argument in favor of school choice—which he characterized as including open public school enrollment, charter schools, tax credits and school vouchers—was to counter the idea of separation of church and state. He said separation of church and state is not in the U.S. Constitution, but widely quoted from Thomas Jefferson’s letters. He claims court decisions have affirmed that state support for private religious schools is constitutional if it is the choice of the individual and the private school is only one of the options available.
Tractenberg countered that voucher programs amount to government bailouts for parochial schools who have experienced declining enrollment. He characterizes student achievement and graduation rates at parochial schools as comparable to public schools, with many studies finding public school students faring better. Considering that voucher programs may attract motivated students and parents, tipping the scale of research on scholarship in their favor, Tractenberg argued against the mythology that vouchers really boost student achievement.
Finally, Bolick termed New Jersey a “poster child” for the failure of the “money solution” to education with painfully little to show for its investment, citing court decisions mandating increased education funding. “Teachers unions are more entrenched than ever before,” he said. “Until they are not, we will not see reform. Meanwhile, we can save some kids. That is what got me into the school choice movement.”
Tractenberg called on unions to “step forward and play an active role in reform,” but said you cannot improve education by demonizing teachers and their unions. “States with best achievements are strong labor union states,” he said and pointed to countries excelling in education such as Finland, which has a 98% unionization rate. While he believes there is always room for improvement, Tractenberg also claimed that New Jersey rated well in comparison with other states and provided an example of “adequate resources and accountability” being the best way to improve public schools.
For more information on Clint Bolick’s education reform efforts, see http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/education-reform
For more information on Paul Tractenberg, see http://law.newark.rutgers.edu/our-faculty/faculty-profiles/paul-l-tractenberg
