I Disapprove of School Vouchers. Can I Still Apply for Them?

I suspect that the school voucher writer's dilemma stems less from a concern about ethical issues - there are none - than about hypocrisy. And I think she (I also suspect it is a woman writing) is off the charts hypocritical. Women have an ongoing problem with guilt. They don't like it. Thus, the letter writer is looking for absolution from the NYTimes designated ethicist by framing her dilemma as an ethical one, thus leaving the door open for absolution, where there can be absolution in terms of hypocrisy. If it any consolation to the letter writer - nobody really cares. If she were running for office on a "hurray for public schools " platform, somebody might.

With ethics like these, who needs indemnities?

When does "The Ethicist" change its title to, "Is it legal?" Next week? Or are the new business cards still 2 weeks out?

These people “believe” in public school, but their kids are too good to go there. That means you don’t really believe in public school.

Well, I blew that. I meant to write ...where there can be NO absolution for hypocrisy. And again - nobody really cares.

Nothing like the integrity of actually living your values, LW1.

Special obligation is nonsense if it comes at the expense of other people's children. It's just a justification for common or garden selfishness. In a few years time you'll have the choice of pretending you approved all along or explaining to your child why doing something you believe is wrong is all right as long as your close family benefit. I'm pretty sure that your child will learn far better lessons than that at public school.

My issue was not with Kwame’s response which I felt was appropriate, but with Name Withheld’s question. How disapproving of school vouchers can you be if you are seriously considering using them? IMO, hypocritical to say the least.

Yes, it is hypocritical to accept a voucher for a private school for your son, while spouting out that public school is best for all (others). If that is what you are asking.

I personally don't think this letter is real. But if it were real, it is okay to use school vouchers for your child even though you disapprove of the fact that the program exists. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

What exactly makes the author an expert in ethics? If you believe siphoning public money to private schools is wrong, then you should not participate in a morally bad action for your personal benefit. You can't just argue that "the government is doing it, so I'm not responsible." In Jewish tradition, this is called "joining hands with the wicked," and it's considered unethical.

The Ethicist got it wrong on this one. Three things immediately popped into my mind when I read your answers here, Kwame. 1. The Categorical Imperative (Kant) 2. The Tragedy of the Commons (William Forster Lloyd) 3. Interest Convergence (Derrick Bell, Critical Race Theory) But all that aside, it's also that advice handed down from those who raise us: that if something doesn't feel right, then it's probably wrong. The innate selfishness we often feel--and that which is so awfully strong in parents--can be overcome. Selflessness and altruism are necessary if we are serious about striving toward equity.

Public school, in theory, is a wonderful thing. I support it. But I also support freedom of choice. I think the ethical question is not so much the vouchers, but the fact that choice in the matter of education is only offered to lower income people, in the form of vouchers, and the wealthy who can afford to choose Montessori education if they believe it's a better educational theory than the testing mentality that drives public schools. The way we fund public education is deeply flawed. Relying on a system of local property taxation puts a much greater burden on the middle class than it does on the wealthy. The people who are funding the schools are the only ones who are not given the right to choose how their children will be educated. I understand the reasoning behind refusing to give voucher money to religious schools and think that reasoning is sound IF the school is devoted to proselytizing or denying science. But Montessori school is non-sectarian. It's not a religious dogma. It's a proven educational system that helps many children thrive - children who would have struggled under the less rational system at work in public schools. There is no contradiction between doing what is best for your child, even if this means taking them out of public school, and supporting public education. Schools are funded on a per-pupil basis. When you take your child out you relieve them of a budgetary burden. Pay your taxes. Vote in a good school board. Volunteer.

I live in the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia, minutes from Camden, in a community that offered my children good, safe schools when they were young. I congregate with liberal thinking people and we agree on the need for quality public education, but I interact with people who live in Camden, with the work I do. Camden schools are inferior to the ones we have in the suburbs and the risks of violence are much more. I've talked with countless Camden mothers and fathers, and there is widespread support for the charter school program. I don't think our intellectual and liberal beliefs in public education should outweigh the rights of parents who are trapped in poverty, to have options to protect and care for their children.

A public school's funding is affected by its enrollment statistics. Vouchers do harm to public schools not just by abstractly diverting funds to private schools. Vouchers do actual harm to public schools by actually diverting funds to private schools. When a public school's students use a voucher to go elsewhere, that specific school loses funding. The result is that the school is made worse for those left behind. Who is left behind? The poorest students are left behind. The students whose families can't afford the private option, even with a voucher, are left behind. The students whose parent or parents work the swing shift or multiple jobs just to make ends meet, and don't have the option of delivering their child to the private school, are left behind. This is why people who care about public education object to vouchers. Vouchers allow those with plenty of means and those with just enough means to say "I got mine," and abandon social connections and responsibilities to their neighbors without means. So to say both "I object to vouchers" and "I got mine" is a hypocritical breach of the ethics implied in the first statement. Once again, the Ethicist seems to struggle to find ethics.

So, hypocrisy is ethical? Your answer re vouchers to the 1st parent seems so logical, but I would suggest that she is not so very against vouchers if she decides that she should use them. If she takes up the cause as you suggest is allowed, she is then protesting them so that other families cannot have the option she choses to use. It reminds me of women who have an abortion (ending their 'problem' pregnancy), but then work to keep other women from having that option. I am not in favor of vouchers for the reasons the writer mentions, but I find the notion that one can use them then protest their existence outrageous. Yes, she must do what is best for her son, but consistency then requires that she then accept that she actually thinks vouchers are a good thing.

Why is this column on even called The Ethicist if the answer is to do whatever you want as long as it’s legal? The point of this column should be to guide people through that grey area that exists between legality and one’s personal morality. The correct answer is no, this woman should send her child to public school if she really supports public education. If it’s good for others then it should be good for her.

At the very least, the parent who is considering taking vouchers is a hypocrite. Also, is she sure standardized tests won't be a part of the private school experience? In Indiana, voucher schools are required to administer standardized tests.

Us, of course. Ten same way a libertarian can go to state college.

I must not be understanding something correctly. If you really disapprove of something, and believe strongly that it runs against your moral code, then you would be a major hypocrite if you decided to take advantage of it. I understand the desire to enroll a child in a private school. But if you can't afford it (and I get that too), apply for scholarships. Or look into whether the school offers some form of financial aid that is unrelated to vouchers. But if you truly disapprove of something on principle, don't use it.

In my experience, libertarians are almost exclusively Males, with just enough social awareness to be embarrassed about claiming the Republican label. Also, Pot smoking. Not that there's anything wrong with THAT.

The gymnastics here to justify what used to be called 'limousine liberalism', but which has now clearly infected the entire socio-economic ladder, are hilarious. What you are asking is essentially, will you sanction my hypocrisy. Can I indulge what I view as a diversion of public funds for the benefit of my own child, while simultaneously asserting that those public funds should not be available to other children. "Rules for thee, but not for me" "Its good to be the king" - any way and from any position you slice it, this is simply law of the jungle morality. If principles don't pinch - they aren't principles.

You you are dead wrong about the school voucher issue. What kind of parent would this person be if s/he sold out core values in an effort to keep son in a private school using public dollars? An essential quality of good parenting is setting a good example - which in this case means living up to one’s stated ideals regarding supporting PUBLIC education. I believe one of the worst things a parent can do is give their child the message to “do as I say, not as I do”. Walk the walk, and show your child you’re doing so. This is how we build compassionate, responsible, mature children.

Nope. It's called being a hypocrite

Message to the first Name Withheld. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have taught in both a public and a private school. Both were educationally sound. The bottom line was the kid. Some kids thrived in the private school and were happy to have it as an alternative to the public school. Other private school kids preferred the public school and transferred to the public school in their community. What's "obviously better" from the Ethicist. The kid's "very happy" at the private school and mom likes the school. The answer is a no-brainer along the route the Ethicist takes until he gets off on all these senseless hedges.

Analogies are often emotionally loaded--"If you disapprove of slavery, but live where it's legal, can you still ethically use it?" So let's look instead at two ways to frame the ethical question: one is based on practicality (consequences), one is based on identity (duty). Practicality: if you do not use vouchers, is it more likely to go away (does the program fold if "under-utilized"), or does less money get taken from public schools? if either one is true, then you should not use them since your goal in opposing vouchers (I assume) is to end vouchers and have more money available for public schools. If neither is true, then you may use them WHILE continuing to work against them. Identity: as with slavery, a person might feel that vouchers are so morally wrong that they cannot be part of that system--period--just as an anti-slavery person would choose not to have a slave, even though she knew that choice would do nothing to bring down slavery and that the slave she did not buy would simply be bought by someone else.

Your objection to state funding of private schools is offset by a desire for quality (private) education for your own child. You'll take money from a system you support, and put it toward a system you despise. Do you see the contradictions? The Categorical Imperative says we should act in such a way, as if those actions become universal law. You want to deny state funding of private education to all but yourself. Also, act such that you treat humanity as not only a means, but also as an end. You are treating the public purse as a means to your goal, and those who pay in to that public purse as mere pawns. The ethic of Duty disregards consequences of actions. Your duty is to provide the best education for your child. The paradox: you achieve that end through something you are opposed to, indeed something you would end if your will became universal law. (For Me, but not for Thee.) Eventually, 9th Grade will come, and your child's school will not have the funds you removed from the system. Aside from being shortsighted, it is a self-fulfilling failure prophesy... one that you had a hand in bringing about. Finally, If your beliefs can be bought for such a paltry sum, then perhaps they aren't firmly held beliefs? True, you have your child’s best interests at heart, but what of your moral obligation to yourself? Don’t you have to look at yourself in the mirror at the end of the day, and reflect on whether you are being true to thine own self?

The first writer seems to have lot of ideas and theories about what works best in education. She should spend her time/energy monitoring her son's progress and making sure HIS behavior is appropriate rather than worrying about educational practices.

I vehemently disagree. If the best students, or even average ones, are taken out of public schools, what will they be left with ??? Free public schools are our Nations BEST idea. Send your child to the nearest public school, or wherever assigned. Then, work to improve that school. VOTE to improve ALL public schools. And no, I'm not a Teacher, but I had some great ones. Seriously.

The writer's son is happy and thriving in a. Montessori environment. She would keep him there in a heartbeat but worries about the cost. Don't. Just stop that. Your son is more important than one of many of your political opinions. Realize that you pay taxes that support schools. They support public schools but they also support supplements for parents to make other school choices for their children. Take advantage of one or the other: a public school or a public benefit so that your son can remain where he is happy.

NO. You're making the problem worse by using vouchers. This doesn't affect just you and your child but all the children in public schools. Vote for change, contact your elected representatives to voice objection to the unfairness of the voucher system.

The suggestion that Name Withheld has an obligation first to her child when she already recognizes the obligation we all have to the collective "us" is so unethical and smacks of Ayn Randian blood-and-claw selfishness, it's unbelievable.

Ayn Rand applied for and received Social Security despite being opposed to the system. It is perfectly ethical to receive any benefits you are legally entitled to while also working to change the system. Warren Buffet thinks that the wealthy should be higher taxes but he currently doesn't pay a cent more than he is legally required to and no one suggests he should.

"None of that is ethics, though." Sadly, that has become the norm for many of the questions appearing weekly in this column. While I respect the thoughtful approach Mr. Appiah takes it is apparently a stretch to find letters that actually pose ethical dilemmas.

There are many versions of the "voucher dilemma." Consider public university professors who exult when their own children are accepted (and go) to Harvard or another of the elite private institutions. They gladly accept public money to help make this happen. Vouchers, though, are a kind of Rubicon: if everyone accepts and uses them, public education might well be harmed. Whereas, since the Ivy League colleges and their ilk accept only the most academically qualified, the state institutions still have a mission and a constituency. So it does seem to me that a person shouldn't "waffle" on vouchers; either accept them personally and support them, or rail against them and refuse to accept them for one's children.

For a liberal parent I can see how the voucher system would be a dilemna. I can also sympathize with parents who want to follow the private school route. A private school does open doors more easily, and can be a factor in a child's future. I personally chose not to go to boarding school as a teen, and to be honest, at times, I regret it. I think Denmark, who has banned all private schools has the right idea, but culturally its a ideal far removed from North American culture. Perhaps its time to look at elitism, and the role it plays in our culture and the lives of our children, and begin to focus on decreasing the gap, quality of resources and opportunity between private and public education.

Some disapprove of paying income tax, but still have to pay it. Following the same reasoning, some may disapprove of school vouchers, but that does not disqualify them from applying.

You want private schools, pay for them or try for scholarships. Do not be surprised if scholarships are premised on taking advantage of other aid, such as vouchers, first. That said, I sent my child to Catholic school--admittedly lower in cost than other private schools. I was able to afford ituition with both spouses working. My state has no vouchers; they have occasionally been proposed. The parish school board, administration and other parents urged taking action in support of proposals. Imagine other parents' consternation when I objected and actually worked against proposals. Yet, I am uncertain what I would have done were voychers to have become available. I have learned frankly never to say never when it comes to any hypothetical choices. But at that point I was consistent with my belief that public schools are entitled to full support of every taxpayer, whether the taxpayer uses them or not (A disingenuous argument used for vouchers is that failure to use the public schools frees up resources for students using them.) Choice of a private school is just that--a choice. Too, a parent using Catholic school who finds the school not meeting the needs of the child may not hesitate to transfer the child to public schools. Yet public schools in my locale are among the best in the state; I may have felt differently had I resided in a community with lower-ranked schools. But at least in my situation I tried to live my values. PS my kid went to public high school.

It may be legal to take the new tax deductions and, in certain states, use a voucher program to pay for private school. That does not mean that it is ethical. If you are a strong supporter of public schools and a believer in their importance in a civilized society, then you are behaving in an unethical manner to take advantage of programs that have been designed to dismantle public education. Keep your child in private school if you feel that is best, but do it on your own dime - or seek scholarships from the school itself. Anything else is mental gymnastics to justify what you know to be wrong.

As a libertarian, I strongly do not approve of most tax deductions and credits. I also do not think too highly of people in this country without legal status. Yet, as a VITA volunteer, I made sure those same people got every possible credit and deduction plus excellent advice on how to lower next year’s taxes. If you sign up for the job, either as parent or volunteer, people will have to trust you will do right by them. Political agendas can always wait till another day. Politics is not nice and politicians are typically not nice people. If you let politics define the kind of person you are, you have serious problems.

A fourth option is missing from the want-to-be public-school ally: send the children to public school. That is an integral part of the "all I can do" option. Neither 1 or 2 actually have anything to do with public schools (or schools at all, besides the source of the deduction). If you want to go further into "all I can do", donate or otherwise use the private school tuition money to support public schools. If you "can" afford to pay it to a private school, you can afford to donate it to the public school, or at least the effective/marginal cost of tuition (bottom line comparison).

I'm not really sure about whether or not ethics require you to practice what you preach, but the pursuit of credibility aught to. Practice what you preach. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but at least I'll admit that I'm being selfish that's the shoe that fits.

Nicole Hannah-Jones, who writes for the New York Times Magazine about education policy, has thought much more deeply about the way that personal choice intersects with the public good when it comes to schools. "My child is not more special than other children," she said when addressing her decision to send her child to a public school. Agree or disagree, I highly recommend her work to anyone who wants to delve more deeply into this topic that this short, rather disappointing take.

Can we please admit that it's ridiculous to say that it's ethical to follow bad laws, because the appropriate citizen action is to work to change the laws themselves? Most of us don't have the time or money to effect real change in these laws, especially when it comes to tax or education policy. Voting or making donations even in the hundreds of dollars ultimately amounts to a very small impact. What if the greatest chance I have to make an impact on public education, for example, would be to not deprive the school of the funding that comes with enrolling my child? "Maximize your own advantage under the law and work to change policy for the good of others" is too easy-sounding for to convince me it's a guide to an ethical life.

As an educator that has to administer standardized tests kids as young as kindergarten, we either: 1) Do away with all punitive testing procedures and instead use the money to invest in students’ wellbeing. Why are some students so emotionally bankrupt that the only option is violence? We need more personnel to help with the social and behavioral needs, not just with learning disabilities. Or 2) Require EVERYONE that receives government vouchers to be held to the same standard of public school testing and teachers be state certified as ‘highly qualified’. If public school has to face regulation to get funding, I feel it should be extended to home and private school should they rely on government funding.

The conflict expressed by the writer of the letter results from fuzzy thinking. Whatever the path she chooses for her son, it will be an expression of her priorities. If she chooses private school, her action is a statement that shoring up public schools with voucher money is less of a priority than obtaining for her son what she perceives to be a better education. If she sends her son to public school, her action is a statement that shoring up public schools is a higher priority than obtaining what she perceives to be a better education for her son. When stated as a case of ranking priorities, it becomes clear that the writer of the letter wants to have her cake and eat it to. She wants to send her son to private school for the perceived better education yet not be seen as compromising her dedication to the public good. Well, actions speak louder than words: if you send your son to private school, you are admitting that supporting public schools is not as important as educating your son. (Which is a perfectly legitimate choice.) But realize that you cede any moral high ground you might attach to a commitment to shoring up public education.