Do we really need to stoop to calling voucher supporters racists? We have so many good arguments going for us right now on why vouchers are bad for Utah. Why poison the debate by resorting to this low blow?
I think that is the problem that NAACP has been talking about. Most low income and minorities won't be able to even use vouchers. The current program seems more like a subsidy for parents who can already afford to put their kids in private schools than anything that will benefit the poor.
Private schools are segregated, but public schools are not. That's the difference.
You can go to a school anywhere in Utah and see how integrated the schools are. There are no all-white or all-brown public schools in Utah and there is no economic segregation either. It's not like we have public schools for rich kids and public schools for poor kids.
The purpose of public education is to provide a quality education, paid for out of public funds, for all children, regardless of race, color, or creed.
It is not fundamentally about creating an education system as it is about providing education for all children.
The voucher program simply adds another element to the education arsenal of public education. It is a recognition of those with special needs, diverse talents, unique abilities, various learning modalities and individual circumstances. In reality, it helps the State truly meet their objectives of providing quality education for all children, by using public funding.
The argument that economical challenged families will not qualify for the voucher is to say that these families do not qualify for reduced lunch programs - which I do not believe is true. They do qualify and they can benefit from finding a school that meets their individual needs.
But none of this can become a reality if the School Board continues to consult their political preferences and not listen to the Legislature and the Attorney General. The time will come for them to listen to the people, when we vote in November. But for now, they should uphold the rule of law.
Fair enough Rob. I should have read the whole linked post before accusing you of calling PCE racists. Sorry about that. I need to implement a "don't comment for at least an hour after reading a post rule" on myself.
Thanks for joining the debate. I've checked out the UtahVouchers.com blog before and welcome your comments.
I've addressed the bogus "rule of law" argument before and won't hash that out again.
I completely agree, though, that our goal should not be to promote a system, per se, but rather to promote educational opportunities for all children. The word *all* is paramount to me. I am a big believer in decentralization, school choice, and healthy, fair competition. I am also a big believer in cooperation, equity, and in helping all people succeed.
True, private school entitlements would allow some families to walk away from their neighborhood schools, charter schools, magnet schools, assisted home schooling, online schools, and open enrollment options available to them at no cost. With voucher in hand, they are free to walk away from our open, accountable system into the hands of private business interests. Now these private business interests have some requirements. These families must meet these requirements, which usually entail that they must: a) meet the rules, religious or otherwise, of the private school; b) ensure that the private school has an open seat for them c) pay for the difference between the voucher and the private school's tuition; d) pay for uniforms, fees, and application costs imposed by the private school; e) provide transportation to and from the private school; f) pay for school lunch (and, in some cases, the breakfast they were provided at the public school). That gets them in the door. Staying there is a very different matter altogether. At the whims of the business owners, these children can be ousted - thrown out - without cause, and that decision is often final and non-refundable. They are the free-market rejects, abandoned because they didn't fit in to the private school's "mission and vision."
In New Zealand, where they have had a market-based system in place long enough to evaluate the results, some troubling unintended consequences have taken place.
First, the system has resulted in a much greater stratification along ethnic and socioeconomic lines, in complete violation of the principles of a strong and vibrant America.
Second, there has been a greater concentration of difficult-to-teach children within certain schools.
Third, those schools which were struggling before are in a much worse position now. Rather than the market "killing off" these schools allowing for new growth amidst the ashes, the schools remained but were crippled. The government, against Social Darwinist principles, had no choice but to intervene in these schools and provide needed remediation.
This is what I don't get and perhaps you have some insight. From my perspective, there is absolutely nothing from preventing a vibrant, flourishing private school industry. In Utah, we already have lax regulations on these schools. But for basic safety and public health requirements, these schools can pretty much teach what they want and charge whatever they like. This to me sounds like a system fertile for growth and opportunity.
Even in our robust free-market economy, 96% of the children attend public schools. Among wealthy families (those in the top 2% based on income) fully 85% of those children attend public schools. Why? Because we have GREAT public schools! If this were not the case, we'd have "rich-flight" away from public schools. This hasn't happened, even when many choices are available.
(And if we were really concerned about the lower income folks in this private school entitlement scheme, we wouldn't be offering $500 per child to millionaires.)
If this is the case, why do we need a private school entitlement program to unnaturally attempt to force the creation of our own "competition"? That's just weird and to me violates every free-market principle in the book.
Thanks for your comments and I look forward to a continued discussion.
Interesting to note that the "Utahns for Public Education" petitioned the court to allow Robert Chanin to be admitted to the Utah State Bar for the purpose of arguing the anti-voucher argument on Friday.
Who is Robert Chanin you ask? Only the general counsel for the NEA. So much for the argument that the NEA doesn't care or isn't involved.
Regardless of whether you say you are calling PCE racists or not, that is the clear implication of the picture and title of the post. That is misleading. If you are truly trying to be nuanced and make a valid point, don't stoop to sensationalism to get folks there. I for one didn't want to read the full post because of the way you portrayed it. I don't think Jeremy owes any apology for assuming.
You are welcome to interpet my post in anyway you choose, but please don't pretend that you are the expert on what I was thinking. Racism is just one of the many problems that vouchers will bring to Utah's education system.
SEGREGATION: The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.
As for the photo the mannequin children, my interpetation was again much broader than yours, but as I have said several times on this blog. "We see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear."
You are also correct that Jeremy need never apologize to me for anything he writes on this blog.
I'm the anon from this morning and I understand that racism was your point, and I don't think my post intimated that I knew what you were thinking. Clearly though, it should not have escaped your mind that a picture of white children (albeit mannequins) getting on a bus under a label of segregation was likely to evoke thoughts of past racial politics in the minds of a majority of those who saw the post. That's my beef; the use of loaded imagery, whether as a hook or otherwise. I think most folks are interested in the intricacies of voucher policy, as evidenced by the widespread interest and commenting on voucher-related blog posts. I don't think your choice of imagery served that well.
Rob, How can vouchers possibly make our schools anymore segregated than they already are?? Compare the East to the West.
Also, if vouchers are so racist, why does the idea poll the highest among minorities? Are they racist against themselves? Perhaps this is why the largest voucher programs are in urban cities with high percentages of minorities?
Or maybe it's because minorities are the ones who are often stuck in the failing public schools that you somehow think are an egalitarian utopia.
If you want to read the facts on vouchers and segregation (and how they actually help to desegregate urban schools), go to: http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/research/ShowResearchItem.do?id=10066
And yes Rob, it's by the Friedman Foundation, a pro-voucher group, but before you decide it can't be trusted because of it's source, at least examine the merits of its research methods.
I think it is instructive to note that Polly Williams, the African-American Wisconsin State Representative who co-sponsored the Milwaukee voucher experiment, later said:
"Too many people in the voucher crowd exploit low-income black children, saying we are creating vouchers for them when what they really have in mind is bringing in a Trojan Horse... They can say what they want, but I've never seen a situation where low-income people, when they have to compete in education with people with more resources, come out equal."
In fact, the source I cite has a wealth of information that may provide some research-based balance to the Freidman article you cite.
But do the low-income people come out with a better education because of vouchers?
The answer is a resounding YES.
No random assignment test has ever shown that vouchers hurt student performance.
Only one has shown vouchers to have no effect.
And seven have shown that vouchers help students perform better.
Not only that, but in every study done on vouchers, parents who use vouchers are more satisfied with their children's education. And shouldn't that be a big concern-- what parents think about the quality of their children's education?
After looking at the context of Rep. Williams comments, it's obvious that she is not arguing against vouchers, but simply, against voucher systems that don't give the biggest help to low-income families.
The Milwaukee voucher program only gives vouchers to low-income families (I think it's a $6,000 voucher or roughly half of what they spend per student in the public schools), and Utah's gives it's largest vouchers to the poorest families based on the federal government's own standards for free and reduced lunch.
Did you ever consider that voucher/tax credit programs instituted in large urban school systems are successful because those systems are actually broken in the first place?
PCE and their admirers in our legislature are instituting a program that isn't needed. Utah's schools are doing more good with less money than any other system in the nation. Parents (I'm including myself in this statement) have shown their pleasure with the current system by continuing to send their kids to public schools even though there currently are affordable private schools in Utah. There isn't any evidence that over the long term this program will be anything more than a subsidy for those already sending their kids to private schools…a complete waste of money for taxpayers. Vouchers aren't a bad idea in places with failing schools but they are a waste of resources in a place like Utah which has documented history of having an excellent public school system.
22 comments:
So? What is the problem? Seems alright to me.
Do we really need to stoop to calling voucher supporters racists? We have so many good arguments going for us right now on why vouchers are bad for Utah. Why poison the debate by resorting to this low blow?
I don't think PCE are racists. In fact, won't low income and minorities benefit from going to a private school?
Anonymous,
I think that is the problem that NAACP has been talking about. Most low income and minorities won't be able to even use vouchers. The current program seems more like a subsidy for parents who can already afford to put their kids in private schools than anything that will benefit the poor.
Calling PCE racists makes perfect sense. These are the types of arguments that win elections.
People aren't responding to our other arguments as well as we need them to.
Private schools are segregated, but public schools are not. That's the difference.
You can go to a school anywhere in Utah and see how integrated the schools are. There are no all-white or all-brown public schools in Utah and there is no economic segregation either. It's not like we have public schools for rich kids and public schools for poor kids.
The purpose of public education is to provide a quality education, paid for out of public funds, for all children, regardless of race, color, or creed.
It is not fundamentally about creating an education system as it is about providing education for all children.
The voucher program simply adds another element to the education arsenal of public education. It is a recognition of those with special needs, diverse talents, unique abilities, various learning modalities and individual circumstances. In reality, it helps the State truly meet their objectives of providing quality education for all children, by using public funding.
The argument that economical challenged families will not qualify for the voucher is to say that these families do not qualify for reduced lunch programs - which I do not believe is true. They do qualify and they can benefit from finding a school that meets their individual needs.
But none of this can become a reality if the School Board continues to consult their political preferences and not listen to the Legislature and the Attorney General. The time will come for them to listen to the people, when we vote in November. But for now, they should uphold the rule of law.
Jeremy. I'm not calling anyone racists. My statement is much broader than race.
Fair enough Rob. I should have read the whole linked post before accusing you of calling PCE racists. Sorry about that. I need to implement a "don't comment for at least an hour after reading a post rule" on myself.
Joshua,
Thanks for joining the debate. I've checked out the UtahVouchers.com blog before and welcome your comments.
I've addressed the bogus "rule of law" argument before and won't hash that out again.
I completely agree, though, that our goal should not be to promote a system, per se, but rather to promote educational opportunities for all children. The word *all* is paramount to me. I am a big believer in decentralization, school choice, and healthy, fair competition. I am also a big believer in cooperation, equity, and in helping all people succeed.
True, private school entitlements would allow some families to walk away from their neighborhood schools, charter schools, magnet schools, assisted home schooling, online schools, and open enrollment options available to them at no cost. With voucher in hand, they are free to walk away from our open, accountable system into the hands of private business interests. Now these private business interests have some requirements. These families must meet these requirements, which usually entail that they must: a) meet the rules, religious or otherwise, of the private school; b) ensure that the private school has an open seat for them c) pay for the difference between the voucher and the private school's tuition; d) pay for uniforms, fees, and application costs imposed by the private school; e) provide transportation to and from the private school; f) pay for school lunch (and, in some cases, the breakfast they were provided at the public school). That gets them in the door. Staying there is a very different matter altogether. At the whims of the business owners, these children can be ousted - thrown out - without cause, and that decision is often final and non-refundable. They are the free-market rejects, abandoned because they didn't fit in to the private school's "mission and vision."
In New Zealand, where they have had a market-based system in place long enough to evaluate the results, some troubling unintended consequences have taken place.
First, the system has resulted in a much greater stratification along ethnic and socioeconomic lines, in complete violation of the principles of a strong and vibrant America.
Second, there has been a greater concentration of difficult-to-teach children within certain schools.
Third, those schools which were struggling before are in a much worse position now. Rather than the market "killing off" these schools allowing for new growth amidst the ashes, the schools remained but were crippled. The government, against Social Darwinist principles, had no choice but to intervene in these schools and provide needed remediation.
This is what I don't get and perhaps you have some insight. From my perspective, there is absolutely nothing from preventing a vibrant, flourishing private school industry. In Utah, we already have lax regulations on these schools. But for basic safety and public health requirements, these schools can pretty much teach what they want and charge whatever they like. This to me sounds like a system fertile for growth and opportunity.
Even in our robust free-market economy, 96% of the children attend public schools. Among wealthy families (those in the top 2% based on income) fully 85% of those children attend public schools. Why? Because we have GREAT public schools! If this were not the case, we'd have "rich-flight" away from public schools. This hasn't happened, even when many choices are available.
(And if we were really concerned about the lower income folks in this private school entitlement scheme, we wouldn't be offering $500 per child to millionaires.)
If this is the case, why do we need a private school entitlement program to unnaturally attempt to force the creation of our own "competition"? That's just weird and to me violates every free-market principle in the book.
Thanks for your comments and I look forward to a continued discussion.
Interesting to note that the "Utahns for Public Education" petitioned the court to allow Robert Chanin to be admitted to the Utah State Bar for the purpose of arguing the anti-voucher argument on Friday.
Who is Robert Chanin you ask? Only the general counsel for the NEA. So much for the argument that the NEA doesn't care or isn't involved.
The NEA should get involved.
Regardless of whether you say you are calling PCE racists or not, that is the clear implication of the picture and title of the post. That is misleading. If you are truly trying to be nuanced and make a valid point, don't stoop to sensationalism to get folks there. I for one didn't want to read the full post because of the way you portrayed it. I don't think Jeremy owes any apology for assuming.
Anonymous, thank you for your comments.
You are welcome to interpet my post in anyway you choose, but please don't pretend that you are the expert on what I was thinking. Racism is just one of the many problems that vouchers will bring to Utah's education system.
SEGREGATION: The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.
As for the photo the mannequin children, my interpetation was again much broader than yours, but as I have said several times on this blog. "We see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear."
You are also correct that Jeremy need never apologize to me for anything he writes on this blog.
Thanks again for coming by.
Rob,
I'm the anon from this morning and I understand that racism was your point, and I don't think my post intimated that I knew what you were thinking. Clearly though, it should not have escaped your mind that a picture of white children (albeit mannequins) getting on a bus under a label of segregation was likely to evoke thoughts of past racial politics in the minds of a majority of those who saw the post. That's my beef; the use of loaded imagery, whether as a hook or otherwise. I think most folks are interested in the intricacies of voucher policy, as evidenced by the widespread interest and commenting on voucher-related blog posts. I don't think your choice of imagery served that well.
Oops, my first sentence should have been that I understand that racism was "NOT" the point of your post. My big bad.
Anonymous,
Thanks, and know that I respect your opinion.
Rob,
How can vouchers possibly make our schools anymore segregated than they already are?? Compare the East to the West.
Also, if vouchers are so racist, why does the idea poll the highest among minorities? Are they racist against themselves? Perhaps this is why the largest voucher programs are in urban cities with high percentages of minorities?
Or maybe it's because minorities are the ones who are often stuck in the failing public schools that you somehow think are an egalitarian utopia.
If you want to read the facts on vouchers and segregation (and how they actually help to desegregate urban schools), go to: http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/research/ShowResearchItem.do?id=10066
And yes Rob, it's by the Friedman Foundation, a pro-voucher group, but before you decide it can't be trusted because of it's source, at least examine the merits of its research methods.
Wasn't it Friedman who thought gays should have equal rights?
Dave,
Welcome to the Amicus! Great to have you.
I think it is instructive to note that Polly Williams, the African-American Wisconsin State Representative who co-sponsored the Milwaukee voucher experiment, later said:
"Too many people in the voucher crowd exploit low-income black children, saying we are creating vouchers for them when what they really have in mind is bringing in a Trojan Horse... They can say what they want, but I've never seen a situation where low-income people, when they have to compete in education with people with more resources, come out equal."
In fact, the source I cite has a wealth of information that may provide some research-based balance to the Freidman article you cite.
Thanks...Craig.
But do the low-income people come out with a better education because of vouchers?
The answer is a resounding YES.
No random assignment test has ever shown that vouchers hurt student performance.
Only one has shown vouchers to have no effect.
And seven have shown that vouchers help students perform better.
Not only that, but in every study done on vouchers, parents who use vouchers are more satisfied with their children's education. And shouldn't that be a big concern-- what parents think about the quality of their children's education?
After looking at the context of Rep. Williams comments, it's obvious that she is not arguing against vouchers, but simply, against voucher systems that don't give the biggest help to low-income families.
The Milwaukee voucher program only gives vouchers to low-income families (I think it's a $6,000 voucher or roughly half of what they spend per student in the public schools), and Utah's gives it's largest vouchers to the poorest families based on the federal government's own standards for free and reduced lunch.
Hey Dave,
Did you ever consider that voucher/tax credit programs instituted in large urban school systems are successful because those systems are actually broken in the first place?
PCE and their admirers in our legislature are instituting a program that isn't needed. Utah's schools are doing more good with less money than any other system in the nation. Parents (I'm including myself in this statement) have shown their pleasure with the current system by continuing to send their kids to public schools even though there currently are affordable private schools in Utah. There isn't any evidence that over the long term this program will be anything more than a subsidy for those already sending their kids to private schools…a complete waste of money for taxpayers. Vouchers aren't a bad idea in places with failing schools but they are a waste of resources in a place like Utah which has documented history of having an excellent public school system.
Post a Comment