Actually at her confirmation hearing, the new SecEd was specifically asked (multiple times, to get past her dissembling) if she supported equal accountability for all schools funded with federal dollars and she specifically said that she did not.
That’s the line from the WSJ editorial page, but YMMV.
There seems to be much less noise about them here in DC. We have them. I don’t hear complaints or cries for more, but admittedly I haven’t been paying much attention.
“Why is that” indeed? First, because you’re completely confused, inasmuch as vouchers and charter schools are totally separate proposals. Second, if you actually wonder why Democrats oppose charter schools, there are plenty of reasons in this thread that have nothing to do with the terrifying murderous gang of Cthulhoid monstrosities from beyong the stars knows as the Nyarolathotepian Elder Abominations, or NEA for short. Read the thread if you’re curious.
Can anyone else do better? Shouldn’t be hard.
Can anyone explain better to you why people object to charter schools? Many people have explained better in posts in this thread. Which ones have you read?
It’s not hard - first step is to read the thread. At a minimum to make reasoned arguments it’s critically important to understand the position that you are arguing against. I’m in favor of charters in general, as well as vouchers in general, but at least I understand the arguments against them. Had you read the thread, you’d been able to see some of the objections as follows:
Some charters could:
[ul]
[li]Take away resources from public schools[/li][li]Not be subject to same standards over curriculum, reporting, funding levels, transparency[/li][li]Not provide same level of service for academic and non-academic offerings[/li][li]Not provide same level of service for special education, transportation, free and reduced meal plans, etc.[/li][li]Not have same requirements for teaching staff[/li][li]Not accept all students[/li][li]Divert resources to profit components of an enterprise rather than redirecting funds towards education[/li][/ul]
Vouchers haven’t been discussed as much in the thread, but some voucher programs could:
[ul]
[li]Go towards non-secular education[/li][li]Siphon funds away from public education[/li][li]Cause an imbalance of funding if the funding models don’t decrement funds ratably[/li][li]offer only a semblance of choice in an asymmetrical informational scenario[/li][li]Not properly account for the externalities of education[/li][/ul]
There’s probably more, and all of these can be legitimate reasons to oppose charters and/or vouchers. I’m still in favor of both, provided they be set up in a way to safeguard the public assets. I think it’s silly to say that students aren’t the primary beneficiaries of education. But if you’re going to argue against something, at least understand what it is you are arguing against - or offer a better attempt at the socratic method.
Well, there are a couple of reasons.
For one, about three-quarters of private schools (the ones that benefit from vouchers) have an explicit religious affiliation; there is concern that vouchers are really an end-run around church-state separation, by trying to divert public tax money to support religious indoctrination programs. (And while not every religiously-affiliated school qualifies as an indoctrination program, there are certainly plenty enough that boast of “Christ-centered” and “biblically-sound” instruction, etc.) The Democrats, as a party, have generally been more suspicious of attempts to pierce the wall of separation.
Two: Voucher programs, as presently conceived and implemented, frequently don’t benefit their alleged target audience, because they have tended not to cover all of the expenses of sending your kid to the school. Getting free tuition is great, but if the voucher doesn’t cover transportation, the poorest kids often can’t take advantage of it anyway, so it becomes a way to subsidize private schools for the middle class while diverting funds from the public school systems that the economically-disadvantaged attend.
A third point is the fact that private schools accepting vouchers generally have been allowed to continue their selective admissions policies. The best and brightest from the public school system get to go allegedly-better schools, but the kids with problems (learning disabilities, behavioral issues, language barriers, etc.) don’t have those same opportunities because the private schools won’t accept them. That leads to a two-tiered education system, and the schools with disadvantaged students are in the lower tier. Their schools have more funding issues (because it costs more to teach kids with problems), more staffing issues (because fewer people want to teach in a school mostly populated by kids with problems), lack of good role models, etc. Given the socioeconomic and racial patterns of many parts of America, that two-tiered system can equate to a higher tier of mostly white kids and a lower tier of mostly minority kids. The Democrats, as a party, are more concerned with racial and segregation issues than the GOP.
Fourth: the evidence that voucher systems really do lead to better instruction is decidedly mixed. See, for example, a meta-review by the Center on Education Policy (warning: PDF), which found “no clear advantage in academic achievement for students
attending private schools with vouchers.” While some studies show improvements, others show losses: for example, a National Bureau of Economic Research study of the Louisiana Scholarship Program (summary only, unless you subscribe) found disadvantaged students participating had substantially reduced academic achievement. If the vouchers don’t actually work, why bother?
Let’s say that I make widgets, and everyone needs them. The widgets are currently being sold for $X. The government, wanting to give people more choice, decides to give everyone vouchers worth $X. Knowing that my current customers have $X more in their pocket, guess what I’m going to do with my price?
What’s to keep the private school industry from doing the same?
Nothing, unless you restrict their use to schools that don’t charge above and beyond the voucher level. I don’t hear much about specifics.
Depending on the barrier to entry in the private school “market”, you may see more schools open and compete on price. But suddenly offer vouchers to everyone? There’s no sudden increase in supply for the increase in demand.
Those that understand reality also understand that when you fund religious schools, you need to fund all religious schools under the First Amendment. We really don’t want to listen to the wailing when the local Pagan group opens Hogwarts with their tax dollars (of course, it won’t really be Hogwarts - transfiguration doesn’t really work, but they will teach kids Pagan principals and rituals.) Or the local Mosque uses tax dollars to open up a Madrasa. Christians tend to be blind on the subject of vouchers - they see their kids getting a Christ centered education subsidized by the government, but I don’t think they’d be thrilled with the reality.
The other part is the vouchers seldom cover the entire cost of a private school - not a good one. Tuition for a good private secular high school around here is $25k. Our per capita student spend in Minnesota - which includes those special ed and JROTC dollars as well as free and reduced lunch dollars - is about $13k per student. Since most lower middle class (much less poor) people can’t come up with the extra $12k (and that’s just tuition, if you go to these schools you are expected to do fundraising), what you do is subsidize the upper middle class. Alternatively, you can find a school with a lower tuition, but in order to provide a quality education with a low tuition - its usually subsidized by a church.
Democrats like to indoctrinate children with their liberalism. It’s like listening to Hillary Clinton for six hours a day. Children can’t leave. It’s a form of child abuse.
If you want to know what liberals think, ask a conservative!
Not because you’ll get an answer from reality, of course not. No, because it’ll be hilarious.
Edit: I realize this is completely unfair to Bone, who, while conservative, has taken the time to understand the actual reasons for his opponents’ position. I do appreciate that, Bone, even if I think you’re wrong :).
No, Wisconsin didn’t end collective bargaining.
Do you have any arguments that are based on true statements?
Regards,
Shodan
I assume a tongue in cheek answer, however an element of truth to that statement.
I will say this in favor of charter schools: Most of them are better than the Cleveland Metropolitan School District.
This is what we call “damning with faint praise”.
I wasn’t arguing against anything, buddy. Just asking a frizzing question about vouchers! Nothing more complicated than that!
I’m not sure what it is you want me to provide a cite for. Perhaps you could clarify?
I’m arguing against the claim that a for-profit school can’t possibly be better than a non-profit one because the for profit one will simply have fewer resources due to having to make a profit.
I pointed out that that logic doesn’t seem to hold very well for things that aren’t schools, so I’m not convinced that it holds for schools, either.
Do you want cites that there are profit-driven institutions that are more effective than non-profit ones?
I don’t know much about Wisconsin. Are you suggesting that the situation in Wisconsin disproves something I said? Given your tone I’m guessing it doesn’t support it.
I don’t think teachers unions are boogeymen or the cause of all problems in our educational system, but I gave one example of a case where their influence doesn’t seem to be helping. Why do we pay math teachers less than English teachers? Well, that’s how the union seniority rules work.
FWIW, I don’t think that unions help in every single granular instance, either. I’d go so far as to say that if you can pay math teachers more without having other deleterious effects, it should probably happen.
I do know that in NC, the lack of unions has not been a great thing for public education. The legislature tends to run roughshod over schools, engaging in programs that sound good (reduce class size!) and publicizing what they do, without any strong force to point out the problems (the unfunded mandate to reduce class size means that schools are having to think about dropping art and music specials for kids). Teachers from states with unions tell me about their experiences, and they’re not fairyland experiences, but they’re a damn sight better than what we’ve got here, where there’s no strong organized voice for educators.
I believe (although I am not sure) that this wouldn’t really be possible without a major overhaul of union structure (and maybe not even then). I’m not particularly familiar with teachers unions, but like most political systems, unions generally prioritize the needs of more senior members.
A change to pay math teachers more (and not just a token amount more. A lot more if you’re going to bring their wages closer to the market rate for their skills) wouldn’t just be orthogonal to that, it would be directly opposed. Because there aren’t lots of senior math teachers. As Manda JO pointed out, they have to keep hiring new math teachers.
And even if you could manage to convince the union to drastically change its payscale rules, I have a feeling it wouldn’t accomplish what we’d hope (which is to have more and better math teachers). Because most of the more senior teachers are probably qualified on paper to teach math (or could become so with a relatively small amount of extra school), and, having seniority, they’d get first crack at those juicy new math teacher jobs. Would they, in aggregate, be better at teaching math than what we have now? Not sure.