The answer to increased school choice is NOT voucher schools.
The answer is CHARTER SCHOOLS.
Remember - A voucher school which honors its stewardship of the public trust is known as a CHARTER SCHOOL!
100 Unintended Consequences of House Bill 148 – “Education Vouchers”
The answer – operate as a CHARTER SCHOOL.
The answer is CHARTER SCHOOLS.
Remember - A voucher school which honors its stewardship of the public trust is known as a CHARTER SCHOOL!
100 Unintended Consequences of House Bill 148 – “Education Vouchers”
The answer – operate as a CHARTER SCHOOL.
1. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could grant enrollment preference to a student based on socioeconomic status.
2. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could expel a student if they do not achieve a certain minimum score on a standardized test.
3. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could reject a student if the student does not achieve a minimum score on a pre-assessment as determined or created by the school’s owners.
4. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could reject a student if they have a specific medical condition, such as ADHD or childhood depression.
5. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could reject a student based on their height, weight, or physical ability.
6. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could deny a student enrollment if the student has a learning disability.
7. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could remove a student the owners or an influential donor do not like.
8. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could expel a student to make room for another student whose parents make a large donation to the school.
9. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could grant enrollment preference to a student based on proximity to the school.
10. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could immediately expel a student with or without cause without specifying the reason and without due process of any kind.
11. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require family-funded extracurricular activities or out-of-state school trips as a requirement for enrollment.
12. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require that parents earn a minimum income, such as $100,000 per year, prior to accepting their children.
13. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require that parents submit to a credit check and require parents to pay for it.
14. With your tax dollars, a voucher school which becomes dependent on voucher funds and then receives a reduction in funds due to legislative action in an economic downturn can require the difference to be paid for by the parents, placing a significant unforeseen burden on families with tight budgets.
15. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could auction or sell open seats to the highest bidder.
16. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hire unlicensed or unqualified teachers.
17. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require teachers to sign a loyalty oath, forbidding them from discussing school operations or face financial penalties and/or termination.
18. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could remove a teacher without notice and for absolutely no reason.
19. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could force teachers to sign non-compete agreements, banning them from teaching at another school in the area should they choose to leave.
20. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could teach students specific religious philosophies.
21. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could teach that members of other races or religions are inferior.
22. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could sell religious books, videos, or software directly to students at significant markup, with the inventory of such materials to be paid for by voucher funds.
23. With your tax dollars, voucher schools could require students to make denominational pledges of allegiance (e.g., “I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag”) and expel students who refuse.
24. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could expel a child for refusing to pray.
25. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could advocate specific ideologies such as socialism or communism.
26. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could leave your children unattended without supervision.
27. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could operate in a building that is unsafe in an earthquake.
28. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hire convicted felons.
29. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could be operated by convicted felons.
30. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could allow teachers to keep alcoholic beverages on campus.
31. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could allow children to browse the web without an Internet filter.
32. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could deny parents the ability to conference with teachers or the principal.
33. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hold every single board meeting closed to the public.
34. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could deny access to all visitors, including district and state officials as well as the parents themselves.
35. With your tax dollars, a voucher school’s parents could be banned from meeting the owners of the school or even knowing who the owners are.
36. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could mandate that all disputes be resolved with binding arbitration.
37. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could deny all GRAMA requests made by parents or state officials as they are not subject to Utah sunshine laws.
38. With your tax dollars, voucher schools will force legislators to appropriate additional money not covered by this bill to provide for oversight costs already being encountered in other voucher implementations such as Florida or Milwaukee.
39. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could change its mission or focus with absolutely no input or discussion from parents or teachers. If the parents don’t like it their only recourse is to “vote with their feet” and leave.
40. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could open next door to a traditional or public charter school without informing the school or sharing enrollment information of any kind.
41. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could open next door to a traditional or public charter school, starving it of students and forcing changes to boundaries or causing the school to close.
42. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hold classes for significantly fewer days per year (60 days/year, for example) and still receive full voucher funding.
43. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could spend your money to defend itself against a lawsuit brought upon it by the state that provided the money in the first place.
44. With your tax dollars, voucher schools will grow, not shrink, the size of government as families with students currently in private schools inevitably lobby to obtain voucher funds.
45. With your tax dollars, voucher schools who become dependent on voucher funds will exercise enormous political pressure to maintain a steady stream of funds, even in times of economic downturn.
46. With your tax dollars, voucher schools place a significantly greater burden on small school districts whose economies of scale cannot match those of larger districts.
47. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could bribe parents by offering them a partial refund of their voucher as a “signing bonus.”
48. With your tax dollars, voucher schools will be able to issue an annual norm-referenced test that cannot be accurately compared to public school norm-referenced tests, thus making claims of voucher performance gains difficult or impossible to substantiate.
49. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require a severely strict uniform and could demand that families purchase uniforms from specific suppliers, including the owners themselves, at any price.
50. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could use spanking to discipline children.
51. With your tax dollars, a voucher school with multiple campuses could require students to move from one campus to another, without regard to the burden on the families affected.
52. With your tax dollars, a voucher school is not required to teach civic and character education deemed essential by the legislature as “fundamental elements of the constitutional responsibility of public education.”
53. With your tax dollars, a political party could operate and maintain a voucher school.
54. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could endorse specific political candidates.
55. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require that parents are members of a specific political party or contribute to a particular political action committee prior to enrolling their children.
56. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could allow political candidates to pass out literature paid for by the school on campus.
57. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could pay for and/or post political lawn signs on school property.
58. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could ask for donations for political candidates.
59. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could host a political rally for a political candidate during regular school hours.
60. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could donate to political action committees.
61. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could pay for robocalls or television ads for a political candidate.
62. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hire lobbyists to advocate for specific legislation.
63. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could close without notice, leaving local districts to reabsorb the students without reimbursement.
64. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could be mismanaged, go bankrupt and close its doors with the state never getting the voucher funds back.
65. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could relocate, perhaps multiple times per year, without any input whatsoever from parents or staff.
66. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could operate for one year in a low-income area, obtain voucher funds, purchase curriculum materials, desks, and computers, then close its doors and relocate to an affluent area the next year with new students.
67. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could obtain scholarship payments, close the business without notice at the end of a quarter and liquidate the company with absolutely no legal recourse.
68. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could hold large fundraisers and then close their doors immediately after the fundraiser with absolutely no recourse or notice.
69. With your tax dollars, a voucher school that becomes dependent on voucher funds to subsidize their operation will go out of business if future regulations invalidate the school from receiving vouchers.
70. With your tax dollars, a voucher school in financial distress could cut back on the number of students attending the school, “laying off” large numbers of students and/or cutting staff and raising classroom size to make ends meet.
71. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could spend public money at the owner’s sole discretion with absolutely no transparency and without being subject to an audit.
72. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could charge students any fee it likes for lunch.
73. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could have vending machines full of pop and junk food, with all of the proceeds going to the owners.
74. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require all supplies, books, and materials to be fees that fall outside of the normal tuition subsidized by the voucher.
75. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could raise its rates at any time for any reason and require the difference to be paid for by the parents or face expulsion.
76. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could charge more for voucher students than it would for students who do not have a voucher.
77. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could increase tuition until only those who could have afforded the school without the voucher could attend.
78. With your tax dollars, a voucher could be applied to a program in which the students meet at a facility and interact with a single teacher for only a few hours each week.
79. With your tax dollars, a voucher school’s owners could appeal to parents to donate to pay off the building (in the name of helping the kids), then close its doors and sell the building without notice and with no recourse.
80. With your tax dollars, a voucher school as a for-profit enterprise could retain significant revenue obtained by voucher funds to enrich themselves rather than directing the funds to the students.
81. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could enter into vendor relationships with friends or relatives for any amount and with absolutely no transparency to the public.
82. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could require a parent to sign up for a multiple-year contract in exchange for a tuition reduction, with significant early-exit penalties.
83. With your tax dollars, a voucher school’s owners could pay themselves or a relative, such as a son or daughter, far more for the same job than they would other employees, with absolutely no transparency to the public.
84. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could set classroom size to be as high as the owners could get away with.
85. With your tax dollars, a voucher school can ask teachers who already receive free enrollment for their children to redeem their vouchers anyway, thus creating an additional cost to the public.
86. With your tax dollars, a voucher school can ask teachers who already receive free enrollment for their children to redeem their vouchers and then give it back to them as a free perk on the public’s nickel.
87. With your tax dollars, a home-school network with as few as 41 students could rent a small location, meet there once/week, and obtain full voucher funding.
88. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could sell merchandise to children on campus.
89. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could invite vendors to sell merchandise on campus and retain a kickback in exchange.
90. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could force children to participate in fundraising activities during school time and on school property.
91. With your tax dollars, a voucher high school could invite selected private higher education institutions to recruit the high school students, receiving a kickback for each student enrolled.
92. With your tax dollars, a voucher network could hold a portion of the student’s voucher in an account to be paid back as a scholarship to the student only if they attend a higher education institution owned by the voucher network.
93. With your tax dollars, a voucher school could sell curriculum materials to students at a significant markup to enrich the owners.
94. With your tax dollars, a charter school could close and convert to a voucher school, expelling all students and re-admitting only those students the owners decide to retain.
95. With your tax dollars, a charter school in trouble with the state could close its doors and convert to a voucher school, leaving concerns and pending investigations completely unresolved.
96. With your tax dollars, a charter elementary school’s owners could expand its campus to include a for-profit middle school and grant enrollment preference to elementary students of the public charter.
97. With your tax dollars, voucher schools can place private schools that refuse the conditions of the voucher at an insurmountable economic and competitive disadvantage.
98. With your tax dollars, voucher schools will encourage homeschoolers and existing private school families to exercise significant political pressure to obtain voucher funds for themselves.
99. With your tax dollars, unqualified owners or opportunistic entrepreneurs can create situations demanding further regulation. These regulations may unwittingly invalidate above-board private schools from obtaining voucher funds, thus placing them at a significant economic disadvantage and possibly putting them out of business.
100. With your tax dollars, a voucher school’s owners will be faced every day with a continual dilemma – is the first priority of a for-profit enterprise that is given public funds to promote one’s self-interest or to further the public good?
Submitted by Craig Johnson
20 comments:
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
The US House of Representatives, September 30, 2003
Mr. Speaker, many of those who share my belief that the most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a means to that end. I certainly sympathize with the goals of voucher proponents and I believe that States and local governments have the right, protected by the Tenth Amendment, to adopt any sort of voucher program they believe meets the needs of their communities. However, I have a number of concerns regarding proposals to implement a voucher plan on the Federal level.
The basic reason supporters of parental control of education should view Federal voucher programs with a high degree of skepticism is that vouchers are a creation of the government, not the market. Vouchers are a taxpayer-funded program benefiting a particular group of children selected by politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, the Federal voucher program supported by many conservatives is little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education. Vouchers thus raise the same constitutional and moral questions as other transfer programs. Yet, voucher supporters wonder why middle-class taxpayers, who have to sacrifice to provide a private school education to their children, balk at being forced to pay more taxes to provide a free private education for another child.
It may be argued that vouchers are at least a more efficient welfare program than continuing to throw taxpayer money at public schools. However, the likely effect of a voucher program is to increase spending on new programs for private schools while continuing to increase spending on programs for public schools. For example, Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the DC voucher program, voucher proponents vehemently denied that any public schools would lose any Federal funding. Some even promised to support increased Federal spending on DC's public and charter schools. Instead of reducing funding for failed programs, Congress simply added another 10 million dollars (from taxes or debt) to the bill to pay for the vouchers without making any offsetting cuts. In a true free market, failing competitors are not guaranteed a continued revenue stream.
Many supporters of vouchers couch their support in rhetoric about a child's right to a quality education and the need for equal educational opportunities for all. However, accepting the premise that people have a "right'' to a good of a certain quality logically means accepting government's role in establishing standards to ensure that providers are giving their consumers a "quality'' product. Thus, in order to ensure that vouchers are being used to fulfilling students' "right'' to a "quality'' education (as defined by the government) private schools will be forced to comply with the same rules and regulations as the public schools.
Even some supporters of vouchers recognize the threat that vouchers may lead to increased Federal regulation of private schools. These voucher supporters often point to the fact that, with vouchers, parents will choose which schools receive public funding to assuage the concerns of their critics. However, even if a voucher program is free of State controls at its inception, it will not remain so for long. Inevitably, some parents will choose a school whose curriculum is objectionable to many taxpayers; say an academy run by believers in the philosophy of the Nation of Islam. This will lead to calls to control the schools for which a voucher can be used. More likely, parents will be given a list of approved schools where they can use their voucher at the inception of the program. Government bureaucrats will have compiled the list to "help'' parents choose a quality school for their children.
The fears of these voucher critics was confirmed on the floor of the House of Representatives when the lead sponsor of the DC voucher amendment admitted that under his plan the Department of Education would have to begin accrediting religious schools to ensure that only qualified schools participate in the voucher program because religious schools currently do not need to receive government accreditation. Government accreditation is the first step toward government control.
Several private, Christian schools in my district have expressed concerns that vouchers would lead to increased government control of private education. This concern is not just limited to Christian conservatives; the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation league opposed the recent DC voucher bill because he feared it would lead to "...an unacceptable effort by the government to monitor and control religious activities.''
Voucher supporters will fall back on the argument that no school is forced to accept vouchers. However, those schools that accept vouchers will have a competitive advantage over those that do not because they will be perceived as being superior since they have the "government's seal of approval.'' Thus, those private schools that retain their independence will likely be forced out of business by schools that go on the government dole.
We have already seen how a Federal education program resembling a voucher program can lead to Federal control of education. Currently, Federal aid to college students is dispersed in the form of loans or grants to individual students who then transfer these funds to the college of their choice. However the government has used its support of student loans to impose a wide variety of policies dealing with everything from the makeup of student bodies to campus safety policies. There are even proposals for Federal regulation of the composition of college faculties and course content! I would remind my colleagues that only two colleges refuse to accept Federal funds (and thus Federal control) today. It would not be a victory for either liberty or quality education if the experience of higher education was replicated in private K–12 education. Yet, that is the likely result if the supporters of vouchers have their way.
Some supporters of centralized education have recognized how vouchers can help them advance their statist agenda. For example, Sibhon Gorman, writing in the September 2003 issue of the Washington Monthly, suggests that, "The way to insure that vouchers really work, then is to make them agents of accountability for the private schools that accept them. And the way to do that is to marry the voucher concept with the testing regime mandated by Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. Allow children to go to the private school of their choosing, but only so long as that school participates in the same testing requirements mandates for public schools.'' In other words, parents can choose any school they want as long as the school teaches the government approved curriculum so the students can pass the government approved test.
Instead of expanding the Federal control over education in the name of parental control, Congress should embrace a true agenda of parental control by passing generous education tax credits. Education tax credits empower parents to spend their own money on their children's education. Since the parents control the education dollar, the parents control their children's education. In order to provide parents with control of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612) that provides all parents with a tax credit of up to $3,000. The credit is available to parents who choose to send their children to public, private, or home school. Education tax credits are particularly valuable to lower income parents.
The Family Education Freedom Act restores true accountability to education by putting parents in control of the education dollar. If a child is not being educated to the parents' satisfaction, the parent will withdraw that student from the school and spend their education dollars someplace else.
I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 611) that provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for in-kind or cash donation to public, private, or home schools. The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act relies on the greatest charitable force in history to improve the education of children from low-income families: the generosity of the American people. As with parental tax credits, the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act brings true accountability to education since taxpayers will only donate to schools that provide a quality education.
Mr. Speaker, proponents of vouchers promise these programs advance true market principles and thus improve education. However, there is a real danger that Federal voucher programs will expand the welfare state and impose government "standards'' on private schools, turning them into "privatized'' versions of public schools. A superior way of improving education is to return control of the education dollar directly to the American people through tax cuts and tax credits. I therefore hope all supporters of parental control of education will support my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Education Vouchers and Charter Schools
Live Internet Chat with Tom Loveless
February 24, 2000
Tom Loveless, Senior Fellow in Governmental Studies and Director of the Brown Center on Education Policy, answers your questions about charter schools and the advantages and disadvantages of education vouchers.
That's all we have time for. Thanks to everyone who submitted excellent questions, and thanks to Tom Loveless for his thought-provoking answers, as well as staying over the hour. More resources on this topic can be accessed via the Brown Center on Education Policy pages on this website. Thanks!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#23 Would you suggest that there might need to be some type of regulation, and at what level of government, to address concerns regarding the make-up of charter or private schools? That is to say if it is suggested that the public school education experience has an integrative component which enhances the "learning experience" should the government step-in to insure "equal access" to a quality based education or a more equally diverse student body and learning environment (given recent court cases imposing guidelines for better schools, i.e. class size) and create some guidelines for the possibly growing charter school systems?
Michelle
Many urban Catholic schools are more racially integrated than public schools in the same city. And the characteristic of students attending charter schools are representative of students nationwide.
I doubt that states or the federal government will be too eager to impose quotas or other formulas to achieve racial balance on charter schools. It is happening less and less with regular public schools. And they are far from integrated. But you raise an important point. Government will continue to regulate schools, even if charters and vouchers become the norm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#22 How do we overcome the obstructions presented by teacher's unions?
Tim
I think the unions have employed a terrible political strategy on choice. They've chained themselves so fervently to the opposition that if the political landscape changes--if African-American support for vouchers continues to grow, for example--they will pay a price for it. My guess is you'll start seeing them modify their position, at least local union chapters will. It's already happened with charter schools.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#21 Do you have a response to those people who are concerned that charter schools reward students who have sophisticated/agressive/savvy parents, but leave the most vulnerable families behind? What will charter schools do for students whose parents are unable--for any number of reasons---to push their child into a charter school? Won't charter schools bleed away the motivated/involved parents, just as the movements opponents maintain?
Storey
I taught in a public school for nine years. Aggressive, pushy parents get their way now, and they'll continue to get it with or without charter schools. But that's from observation and my own experience, not from research.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#20 I have a question about so-called "creaming" of students--the idea that the best students will "escape" the schools, leaving the most disadvantaged students behind. In all seriousness, what is wrong with that? In other words, students who want to leave the system are expected to remain in it until others are similarly motivated to learn.
Ralph
There is nothing wrong with it if the "non-cream" aren't adversely affected. Those who raise the argument are concerned about vouchers leading to a more highly stratified society than we have now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#19 Convert school from "entitlement thinking" to "entrepreneurial thinking." Operate a school using a business incubator model. Allow students and school employees to create real businesses with the idea that some would become very successful and generate future revenues. The idea being that the school and teachers would be financially rewarded for the long term success of students. As the story was told to us, Bill Gates second grade teacher did quite well because she believed in Bill, kept up with him and made a modest investment in the little startup company of Microsoft.
This would then set the stage for teachers to make lots of money and schools to reduce their dependance on taxpayer handouts for funding. Assume that a school voluntarily forfeits $1 of taxpayer funding for each $3 of revenue received from a business incubator. Such a strategy would allow an orderly transition from "entitlement thinking" to "entrepreneurial thinking."
There is no question that great teachers can make great money. The only question is, do we continue to force them out of our schools to do it?
Thanks for your comments, Scott
James Coleman presented a radical proposal calling for "bounties" attached to children in an address to the American Sociological Association several years ago. He said the short term value of children to adults (and society) has been falling for several centuries. In an agricultural society, kids provide an almost immediate benefit to a family's well-being. But that has eroded, and along with the extension of childhood into the late teen years, children are more of a financial burden than in past years.
Coleman proposed that a fund be set aside (tax supported) for every child that would mature into a fairly substantial pot of money. As an adult, each person would then divide up the money among those adults who shaped his/her life. This would create incentives for adults to help children realize their full potential, whether the helping adult is a neighbor, teacher, or parent. I've given you a ridiculously brief sketch of the idea, but it's fascinating. Look into it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#18 One aspect of the school choice/market for education debate that I think is often neglected is the demand or consumer side of the model. I agree that there are many potential benefits of introducing competition among education providers; however, it is also critical to recognize that families vary greatly in the value they place on education. This is not the result of a lack of concern for their children's well-being but often a reflection of the necessity for many families to focus on their immediate needs rather than the future rewards of investing in education.
The economic model hinges on the assumption that consumers will make decisions to maximize their utility, i.e. choosing a school that will serve their needs the best. If families do not factor in such payoffs as college access and higher salaries, because they do not see a link between these and their child's school location, then they will be inclined to weigh other less compelling benefits.
What do you think?
Audra
I agree. I published an article called "The Parent Trap" in the Fall 1999 issue of Wilson Quarterly that discusses that idea in relation to the standards movement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#17 Even if there is a legitimate role for government in education, is it necessary for the government to be responsible for the production of that education? Why couldn't the government regulate private schools as the FDA regulates medicine, but isn't responsible for the production of medicine? Many of the problems (not all, of course) in education would go away because the government conflict between its role as both producer and regulator of education would be lessened if not eliminated. What I find ironic about opponents of vouchers and charter schools is that they hold those policies to much higher standard than the public schools.
Ralph
Good point. Seems to me that the choice and standards movements might produce the environment you're talking about. One where public, private, choice, charter, religious, and non-religious schools exist side-by-side, with the government regulating on the basis of results. Shutting down schools that fail to teach children anything, and supporting those that provide a sound education to its students.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#16 Personally, I am against using public tax dollars to fund a failing, broken system that graduates students without basic skills. Competition and choice are a better use of public funds.
Mike
But I would also shut down a choice school that graduates students without basic skills. Even if it were filled to the rafters with students and their parents were completely satisfied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#15 George Bernard Shaw once noted that if all economists in the world were laid end to end that they would never reach a conclusion. Looking at the endless squabbles over class size, phonics, the best way to teach teachers, school choice, charter schools, or even what we mean by the word "education" (has anyone defined it recently?), it seems just as likely that education researchers will never reach a conclusion on some important issues. That debate is healthy, including even the name calling in education journals, in a society where experimentation is the norm. But we know that for every study issued showing that vouchers/charters are failing there will be an equally persuasive study showing that vouchers/charters are educating children. My question is, considering that researchers are unlikely to reach a conclusion on many of the issues being hotly debated, and also considering that most educators now disavow the "one-best-system" model, why should we wait until education researchers have discussed issues for the umpteenth time before we test out more fully vouchers, charter schools and other policies that allow us the freedom to try out other ideas?
Casey J. Lartigue Jr. Cato Institute
I agree completely that the ideas should be tested. But we should also collect enough information to find out whether reforms work. The fact that educational questions are frustrating and often difficult to answer does not justify staying in the dark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#14 Opting out of the religious classes does not change the fact that public tax dollars are being used to support a religious institution. You can't say put the money in this pot and use other monies for religious education. It actually is all one pot.
Thanks, Neil Rotter
Following your logic, the federal government would have to halt its Pell Grants, the GI Bill, and student loan program tomorrow. Students attending Notre Dame, Georgetown, and other religious institutions of higher learning are allowed to use federal revenues for their education.
My own view is that I'm interested in whether kids go to good schools. I don't care whether the schools are religiously affiliated are not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#13 How would vouchers help the schools preserve a shared national culture?
Thomas
A few studies show that kids attending private schools exhibit more "civic-mindedness" than kids in public schools. But it's not a very strong argument. Vouchers could easily lead to a more fragmented culture as each family finds the school that best matches its tastes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#12 I understand that vouchers would help parents remove their children from schools that are failing to educate them. But how will the United States improve the schools from which students are fleeing? There will still be students who, for whatever reason, remain at the failing schools. What about their education?
Melody
A couple of possibilities. The district could close the school and move the children to another one (hopefully more successful). Or pour resources into the struggling school to see if it can be improved.
The Florida voucher program is based on the idea that no child should be forced to attend a failing school. Children attending schools with low test scores in two out of four years are vouchered out. It's a powerful idea. I share your concern about the kids left behind, but that's not a compelling reason to deny some children--those whose parents seize the initiative--the opportunity to improve their situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#11 One issue that has never been addressed to my satisfaction with regard to vouchers is where all the students who transfer out of failing schools will go.
Most public schools are already overcrowded; the high regard given many private schools is often founded on their small class size and exclusivity (it seems unlikely these schools would want to give that up); children reared in failing schools would likely not be able to keep up with their peers at elite private schools and would likely be denied admittance as these schools don't typically have the support staff for students with special needs or those who are performing below grade level; and parochial schools don't have the resources to take in large numbers of students.
Where, I ask, will the children go?
Large-scale reform of the public education system is, indeed, critical, but we need realistic, long-term remedies that truly address the problems of teacher quality, authentic assessment, the digital divide, class size, and school readiness.
Isabel
Excellent question. I know that in California a few years ago the estimate was that private schools had about 5% unused capacity. Voucher advocates argue that vouchers would stimulate a new supply of schools. But you're right. We don't know how successful franchising a school is. Can you take a wildly successful school and duplicate it across town?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#10 Is there, in your opinion, a "critical mass" or percentage (or range of percentages notwithstanding other factors) of children in an urban public school system whose movement to private schools would generate a ground swell of support and demand for public vouchers? What is your estimate of that percentage if any?
Thank you.
Bill Heinrichs, Executive Director Children's Educational Opportunity Foundation of Connecticut
don't know what the critical mass would be, but I bet there is one. The percent in private schools now can run 20-30 percent in some urban districts. Nationally, it's about 10 percent, a figure that has remained basically unchanged for several years. Private school enrollment peaked in 1959 at about 12 percent.
Another key factor might be how many open seats the private schools have in any given city.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#9 All the data seem to agree: the government should get out of the education business. About the only constitutionally-based education function for the government I can fathom is assuring equal access and opportunity for all to for a good education, and assuring our primary and secondary educational systems support the needs of our nation. Because of this, I support all initiatives to privatize education.
My question: how can our liberal politicians so adamantly call for dumping more money into a system that is broke?
Michael
Well, you are looking at different data than I am if "all the data agree" that governments can't run schools. There are many excellent schools in the country, and many of them are run by a government--usually by a local school district, supplemented by state and federal revenue. Your statement goes too far. I might agree if you changed your argument to: we need to continuously ask whether government is the right agent to achieve particular educational objectives, which levels of government should be involved, and whether some educational pursuits are better served by the private sector.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#8 If these education reforms are enacted throughout America, will they succeed if the Federal Government still has it's hands in education?
In a lot of discussions on this topic (Education Reform), this always seems to be brought up.
Good question. Local systems can't release school systems from federal regulation. And the federal government is getting involved in more and more aspects of schooling--class size, student discipline, teacher training. So the constraints on local choice programs are probably increasing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#7 The Context: Publicly-held firms and privately-held firms often have different growth-orientations and "profit pressures." As you know, Edison Schools is publicly-held; Advantage Schools and National Heritage Academies are privately-held with plans to go public in the near future.
The $64,000 Questions: (1) When charter school firms (for-profit, publicly-held) do not meet Wall Street earnings expectations and are forced to "downsize," what impact will the downsizing have on the credibility of the for-profit model?
2) Which is a better management model of for-profit charter schools...privately-held or publicly-held?
Thanks. Randy Piper, Ph.D., M.B.A.
1. Any company in any new industry that does not meet earnings expectations casts doubt on the firm's business model.
2. I have no idea. We don't have enough data to tell us which model is creating the most successful schools. But we should know more as new state test data come online in the next couple of years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#6 Greetings. I work in Chicago for a foundation that over the years has provided a great deal of support for reform of the public school system. In Chicago, the citywide committment is to provide an excellent education for every child in every school, and systemwide, enormous progress is being made. Schools throughout the city are improving. Individual schools have remarkable power to chart their own course. There are, of course, schools that are doing badly. But there are many private scholarship programs and almost 350 choice options within the public school system. What would be the benefit of using public money for vouchers in a system that has already gotten the message about the need to dramatically improve schools?
Ray Boyer
I personally think Chicago is doing some very promising things. However, choice advocates would argue that allowing for a hybrid system--of charters, vouchers, and traditional public schools--would spur it on to greater improvement. No one has asked me about the evidence supporting vouchers yet, so let me interject a point here: whether such a hybrid system would, in fact, improve the Chicago schools is unknown. We haven't had enough experiments to answer that key question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#5 One frequently asked question is whether charter schools spend more or less per pupil than traditional schools, but another question is whether charter schools allocate money differently; prioritizing new expenditures over old.
Is there a noticeable difference in the way that charter schools spend their money?
Heath Brown The George Washington University
Excellent question. I haven't seen any systematic study of that, but my guess would be that they direct a larger proportion of money to instructional personnel. And less to administrators and support staff. But they charter schools are significantly smaller than public schools--they serve, on average, 140-150 kids--so the leaner administrative staff may be due to the charters' size.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4 Wouldn't public schools be able to do some of the same things charter schools are able to do (innovative learning, etc) if there were fewer government regulations on public education?
Why are we trying to recreate the wheel? Why not use the same principles of charter schools on the current public school system?
Sandi Cox Marshall, MO
Less regulation is part of the rationale for choice, but not all. Choice advocates also believe that by competing for students schools would improve. So less regulation may benefit public schools, but they still wouldn't have the incentive to satisfy their customers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3 It is difficult to talk about vouchers in Wisconsin without sounding anti-Catholic.
The Catholic-based Bradley Foundation, out of Milwaukee, along with other religion-based organizations, such as the Council for National Policy, are the main characters behind the voucher/school choice movement locally--which should say a great deal about the motives at work here. Those motives have consistently been to tear down public education and weaken teachers unions because they are seen as a threat to sectarian Christian education.
Another part of voucher proponents' agenda is to use minorities to advance their agenda. "We only want to give poor blacks the same opportunities rich white kids have," we hear on a regular basis around here. And yet the NAACP has long been sternly against voucher programs.
The charter school movement is just a sham to grease the skids for full-blown vouchers. They're intended to divert public attention and dollars to "education alternatives" and make vouchers for religious schools that much more palatable.
The implications are astronomic. Will you please comment on this view? Dennis
Well, I'll comment on one part of it. The most striking development in the recent politics of vouchers is the growing popularity of the idea among African-Americans. You're right. The leadership of black organizations continues to oppose vouchers, but a solid majority of African-American now favor them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2 I am personally against the idea of Public tax dollars being used for any type of voucher system. The idea that because you do not wish to partake of the local public school you should receive a refund on your school taxes to be used to send the child to a private/parochial school is anathema. If you want to send a child to a parochial school, go right ahead. Just don't make me help you pay for it.
I was ambivalent about charter schools until I heard the story of a charter in upstate New York that wanted to teach creationism as a fact based theory equivalent to evolution. Public monies should not be used to teach creationism, which is strictly faith driven without any empirical evidence to support it.
Please comment.
Neil
You've touched upon the key constitutional question regarding vouchers. A middle ground would allow voucher students to opt out of religious instruction at schools that accept the vouchers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Please present a compelling argument for why vouchers or even charter schools are better systemic reform approaches than efforts to inform and involve ALL parents, through 'report cards' on schools as well as parental involvement in school-level decisionmaking, etc.
Caroline
The most compelling argument for choice schools is that everyone who sends their children to them signs on to the school's mission. Informing and involving all parents in decisionmaking is a good idea, but every decision will leave some disgruntled parties. When this applies to the mission of a school--what its core purpose is--the mission may be watered down.
With your tax dollars, some one could make up a list of 100 hundred things that probably won't occur in a million years.
The bottom line with vouchers is that society has the opportunity to break the monopoly of education; putting power into the people’s hands.
For so long, we’ve assumed that education is right for all.
Now, we can say that education is privilege for those who deserve it – the way it should be.
I think you mean those who can afford it.
All children deserve it.
No Rob, I mean those who deserve it.
No necessarily all children are deserving of an education.
Certainly, those who are here illegally don’t deserve an education.
What about those that fail to meet standards and recycled thru the system.
What about those who are passed just to feel good.
In our society education has become a mutli-billion dollar monopoly on the part of government because the people like the NEA believe that education is a right of all.
This could hardly be the case; read the constitution, is education mentioned in it…no.
At the time of our founding fathers schools were private and parochial, it wasn’t until much later in the 19th century that a tragedy called public education evolved.
Let us go back to a time that is simpler and takes education out of the hand of government and back into the hands of parents and children.
Pray that vouchers pass on Friday.
I'm curious, please tell us who deserves it and who does not?
EVERY CHILD DESERVES THE RIGHT TO AN EDUCATION OF EQUAL HIGH QUALITY
By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., for Chicago Teacher Magazine
September, 2003
“Put your money where your mouth is.” You’d be hard-pressed to find an American older than 21 who has not heard that expression. Too bad many of those leading our nation don’t live by it, especially when it comes to education.
President Bush championed the “No Child Left Behind Act,” but when the measure became law and needed a financial champion, it was left underfunded by $9 billion. Political leaders, Democrats as well as Republicans, found $1.7 trillion in tax cuts for the rich, $40 billion to bail out the airlines, $1 billion a month for Afghanistan and $4 billion a month for Iraq. But, increasingly, children in the United States are being left behind.
Providing for the “common defense” is a constitutional mandate, but so is promoting “the general welfare.” Nothing secures both better than a quality education. Unfortunately, the word “education” never appears in our Constitution. Consequently, education is a state right. I hope to change that.
I believe education is a HUMAN right, and in order to provide and promote it in a way befitting our great nation, that right should be codified in our Constitution. Every student—regardless of race, religion, socio-economic status, or residence—deserves the right to an education of equal high quality.
Under the current states’ rights system, education is “separate and UNequal.” Millions of students in 50 states, 3,067 counties, 15,000 school districts, attend 86,000 public schools—each with varying degrees of opportunity, quality, and funding. While the average per pupil expenditure nationwide is $6,915, expenditures vary widely from state-to-state, and within states from district-to-district. Illinois offers a perfect example. According to a Chicago Public Schools Office of Management and Budget's 2000 Public School Report (the latest available), the Rondout District #720 in Lake County had an average per pupil expenditure of $17,989. Meanwhile Pleasant Hill, in District #690 in Peoria, had an average per pupil expenditure of $2,114. That’s a gap of $15,875.
The U.S. Department of Education estimated in 1999 that we will need to spend $127 billion to simply repair our school buildings. The National Education Association reported that the need was more than twice that. Either investment would not only significantly enhance education, but create construction and other jobs. Cleaner, safer, more modern facilities attract families, businesses, and other professionals who are the bedrock of strong communities. These communities, breeding grounds of well-educated, productive citizens, are in turn the cornerstone of a prosperous nation—a prosperity that can enhance the lives of more than a select few.
Conservative Democrats and Republicans often cannot move beyond their tried and true catchphrases such as “fiscal responsibility” and “economic austerity” to embrace a new vision for education. They claim there is a greater need to “balance the budget” or “eliminate the debt.” But too often, these conservative economic priorities are enforced when it comes to domestic programs.
An education amendment will be a challenge not only for conservatives, but for many of us. It concerns the well-being of our children and our finances. It calls upon us to see ourselves as an integral part of a national system. It also appears to ask us to relinquish some control of our local government, but that is not the case. I believe communities should continue to administer and operate local public schools, but they should do so within the framework of a high minimum standard that a constitutional amendment would provide. The amendment, however, should be accompanied by a new federal commitment to provide every child a public education of equal high quality.
Undoubtedly, a federal commitment to a public education of equal high quality could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court for interpretation. However, any Court’s reasoning would still have to come to grips with each of these concepts: “all citizens”, “shall enjoy”, “a right” “to an equal” “high quality” “public education.” Just as a conservative Court rendered a narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, fifty-eight years later the Court in Brown brought forth a broader interpretation. The more liberal interpretation of Brown however, would not have been possible without the Fourteenth Amendment. So just as a conservative Supreme Court might render a conservative interpretation of this amendment today, a liberal Court might later interpret it more broadly. The key is the central point remains the same: every parent and child would have greater federal legal protection and, therefore, a better chance for a good education with an amendment than without it.
It’s time to go on the offensive, and democratically plan and pay for the finest public school system the world has ever known. We not only have the money, but also the organizational skill, the technology, and the knowledge to create such a system. An education amendment would require us to frame the issue and set the standard. As I see it, the only missing element is the political will.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently said at the March on Washington, “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.” It is long past time for us to claim our inheritance, and create a legacy of our own. Together, we can lead a movement guaranteeing the right to a public education of equal high quality. Why? Because, again, as Dr. King said on that historic day in 1963, “We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.”
How do vouchers help those who deserve it?
I can't afford private school so I guess that means I don't deserve it.
"Certainly, those who are here illegally don’t deserve an education."
Hmmmm, I see so many children chosing to be here illegally.
You should be ashamed!
There should be a difference between those who come to the United States legally, through the proper procedures, and those who ignore U.S. immigration laws and are here illegally.
First, it is misguided to suggest illegal immigrants have a right to an education, when it is not even a right for all American citizens. Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to pursue an education because they aren't even authorized to be here. Allowing illegal immigrants to pursue an education would only serve to create another incentive for more illegal immigration.
The point isn't immigrant-bashing, but to emphasize there already exist procedures for immigration, legally.
To the anonymous who said:
"With your tax dollars, some one could make up a list of 100 hundred things that probably won't occur in a million years."
Give Google a try and see just how "improbable" this list really is. Try things like "florida voucher fraud", etc.
To the anonymous who said:
"The bottom line with vouchers is that society has the opportunity to break the monopoly of education; putting power into the people’s hands."
This is already accomplished with charter schools. I invite you to join me in supporting our Utah charter schools, a non-partisan school choice alternative that honors the public trust.
Craig Johnson
Please enighten us, what American citizen does not have the right for a free public education? This should be entertaining.
I'm sick of petty attacks toward people who are here illegally. If you have a problem with our immigration system (and I don't blame you if you do- it's messed up), pressure your congressmen and senators to do something about immigration.
Hurting one child at a time, or one family at a time has not proven to be an effective method of immigration reform.
All children deserve an education, and it is in your best interest that all children receive one. What do you think would happen to society if we only educated the best and brightest (and wealthiest). I hope you're vision includes lots of prisons.
“Everyone has the right to education.”
— Universal Declaration of Human Rights
I have a question for the voucher people who want a ferral system for our kids. I want to opt out of our failing IRS monopoly. I think we can collect taxes in a much more effecient manner. I want my taxes back to to form a competing agency to collect taxes from myself to the public treasury. It will be free market!
Also, I am not feeling safe in the war on terror. Bush has failed all over the place. I want a , security tax credit to form a militia because in my judgment a stockpile of personal anthrax makes me feel safer than Bush and his monopoly on the military. We need several free market competing militias to protect our homeland from the war on terror.
I have another proposal. Lets form a sovereign land and opt out of the Social Contract. Locke is way over-rated. No one wants that land out west near energy solutions, we could form a real anarchist commune free of education monoplies and full of free market and not have any rules or government. Then my kids will finally get the education they deserve!
I say we let in all the illegals and let them use vouchers! It is free market! Less government regulation, more free flow of labor, no government monopoly on education. Cheap labor for business!
This is a great post. Thsoe who support vouchers only care about themselves and not every child. Instead of NO Child Left Behind as bad as it is, we will have some rich children getting their private school paid for with public funds and the rest are hung out to dry.
Lost in this it seems are things like personal responsibility. My parents taught us WE were responsible for our own learning. How hard we tried in a class determined what we got out of it. We were expected to learn something no matter what the class or teacher. And we were expected to respect the teacher and not blame others for our problems. If things came up, we were taught how to deal with them. If our supposed precious "needs" weren't meant, all 8 of us knew how to meet our own. My siblings and cousins teach their kids the same thing. It's a heritage passed down from our grandparents.
It makes me wonder what people did when there was no "choice."
The fact is we have CHOICE now, we have the choice to live as we want, choose what we want to do with our lives, what we learn and how we apply it, and so on.
WE definitely have more choice than those with children who have terminal illnesses or who haven't been able to have children. We shold be thankful sometimes for the many things we have already.
I wonder what people in Afghanistan villages would say who have to mobilize every day to protect their schools from being burned and sacked by the Taliban (incidents are down) would say to those here who think they are victims without real choice.
People debate back and forth about "choice." Maybe what we need are less politics, less blaming, a change in attitude, and more working together.
Vouchers promote more passing the buck and less parental accountability as well.
Thank you Craig this is straight-forward approach to the issue that I was mentioning. Thank you for this great legal analysis of HB148, for a second I thought I might have been wrong about you -- but then I started reading.
You are a talented an imaginative, and talented author
Post a Comment