No, I didn’t vote for Donald Trump, and like many other college students my age, I also can’t stand the “Cheeto-in-Chief.” That being said, I don’t blindly dislike everything that comes forward from his administration. To that end, while watching his address to Congress, I was undoubtedly dissatisfied with certain things that he proposed — for instance, his inane call for implementing a merit-based immigration policy — but I had to give him kudos for his desire to implement certain education policies; in particular, a school voucher program.

Betsy Devos, Trump’s secretary of education, catches a lot of flak, some of it perhaps deserved and some of it very uncalled for. One of biggest objectives that she — as well as President Trump — is pushing for is the aforementioned school voucher system.

In regards to this policy, Forbes published an article by Maureen Sullivan entitled “Betsy DeVos: 9 Things The Nominated Education Secretary Wants You To Know.” In it, Sullivan quotes DeVos as saying, “The dollars should follow every single child,” and then further explains what she is pushing to reform: “an antiquated government-down system that sends money to school buildings and districts and rejects the notion of choice for all students and parents.” As a future public school educator, I am in total agreement with DeVos on this sentiment.

Many dissidents would argue that public schools produce the same results as private schools when you account for differences in socioeconomic status. They would be correct — but only when it comes to achievement-test scores. As evidence to this fact, a 2007 Time magazine article entitled “Are Private Schools Really Better?” cited a study demonstrating the following: “While controlling for [socioeconomic status] eliminated most public school/private-school differences in achievement test scores, it did not eliminate differences in the most widely used test of developed abilities, the SAT.” And this is significant, because the SAT measures critical thinking skills — as opposed to achievement tests, which assess students’ ability to memorize and regurgitate.

And personally, I value critical thinking skills as one of the most valuable lifelong abilities that we could possibly impart to our children — skills which private schools (in light of the aforestated evidence) are more adept at inculcating.

Lastly, I understand that many individuals are worried about religious schools receiving public funding, as this would seemingly violate the separation between church and state; however, the state would not be directly funding these religious institutions. The same logic works for food stamps; the state gives to those in need without restricting which companies users can purchase from — and nobody accuses the government of supporting the companies that the consumer chooses. Likewise, subsidizing parents’ cost of education for their children is not synonymous with supporting the the institution that they choose for that education. Furthermore, the government should not presume that they are better equipped than a parent to choose which school is best for their children.

By Erik Squire
Beacon Section Editor, 2014-2015