Recently the issue of tax credits and voucher programs for parents of children attending private, or parochial, schools has been on the minds of many Iowans. The governor is pushing for a tax credit up to $200 in the name of subsidizing the cost of parochial, or private, education.

The position of many is that the subsidy of such education represents an erosion of the line between church and state. Some also assert that such subsidy removes money that would benefit the Des Moines public school system.

This reasoning is an echo of the same rhetoric that is being employed on a national level to prevent the issuing of credits to families that would like a better education for their children, but cannot otherwise afford it.

The reality is that such blockades are sad, and more importantly, detrimental to the small, effective efforts that are being made to address the very serious education problems in the United States. The Des Moines school system has clearly fallen into the same trapping the remainder of America has been battling for a long period of time.

Recently, newspapers have been full of articles describing the poverty troubles and literal erosion of facilities that students are facing. In addition to the physical manifestations of deterioration, there can be heard today large amounts of dissatisfaction with the level of education in the public school system. Coupled with all of these problems is the very real evidence of gang violence in Des Moines schools, and you have too many a Chicago school system in the making.

These symptoms draw a clear line of distinction between the public school system and the private institutions. The crumbling of buildings and gang violence are never seen or tolerated in parochial schools. The reasons are many, from the very real intimidation factors to the level of commitment of the faculty. But the underlying principle behind the success of private and parochial schools is economic.

The level of accountability for a public school system, as a whole, is far smaller than for any private institution. In the event that a student is performing poorly in school, is threatened by a classmate or any number of things, his or her parents always have the option of removing their child from the school. It is, after all, their money.

Public school officials enjoy a large buffer zone that ensures very little direct responsibility for any failings or shortcomings. There exists a large bureaucracy that ensures anonymity for most involved, primarily due to the large numbers involved in state and local government. Private schools are paid directly, all mistakes require an explanation, simply because there is money at stake.

The idea of such vouchers, or credits, is synonymous for some with reimbursement. However, it must be understood that the parents of private school students are paying for two educations; the one given at the school their child attends, and the one their children are entitled to under the law. Vouchers simply return a small portion of the tax payer’s money specifically because they are not using the service they are paying for. In no way does such a small refund constitute any drastic reduction in available moneys.

Finally, voucher programs have been mislabeled. In no way do they violate the separation of church and state. Such laws are in place to ensure that no individual is subjugated or oppressed by any state-sponsored dogmas as well as to eliminate the introduction of religious-based materials in a public forum, to a captive audience, which is not mature enough to filter the information being imparted. To invoke these principles so that a certain amount of money remains in the public till is irresponsible.

Determining the avenue down which the troubled schools of Iowa traveled is an important one. The volunteering of retired citizens in the schools is an excellent idea, as are many other efforts being made by officials to fix the problems students in today’s schools are forced to face.

Unfortunately, none of the proposed solutions, committees or ideas will work instantaneously. Anything decided will require time to implement. This type of delay is not something students can afford to accept.

The only immediate solution is the switching of schools. For some parents, economic realities prevent such change. At the very least, the government should make this easier. In light of their failings, it is the least they can do.

Zuri Jerdon is a senior in English from Cincinnati, Ohio.