Evidently, some democrats in congress are trying to kill the Washington, DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. It serves about 2,000 low-income (average family income: $23,000) kids, allowing their parents to send them to religious or other private schools. More than 90% of these parents express high satisfaction with the program, calling it a “Godsend” or a “lifeline”.
So, why is the DC Congressional delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, trying to kill the program? Well, there is the argument that every dollar going into voucher programs is a dollar denied for the improvement of public schools, right? Except this money doesn’t come from the district’s budget. The money is extra money Congress approves for these specific vouchers.
As I surmise, and this article suggests, can it be that she and other democrats—not to mention the teachers’ unions—are afraid it might actually succeed: the kids will actually get a good education, threatening the monopoly the unions have in educating our children?
If not, what are the other possible explanations. Why isn’t it viewed as an extra $18 million going toward the furtherance of educating DC’s underserved minority populations. Money that allows the district to not have to worry about educating 2,000 kids, allowing resources to be more focused and classes to be a little smaller?
Yes, in theory, although I doubt that if the program is killed that the federal government will give DC schools that same amount of money.
Furthermore, you presume that the money, if spent on public schools, would improve education in DC. Since DC has incredibly high per-pupil spending rates, that assumption is pretty flawed.
The fact is that liberals like Norton are reflexively opposed to vouchers. They really have no good reason to dislike them. Vouchers are helping a small number of DC kids move to better schools. Ending the program would force these kids back into DC’s horrible public school system. That is a ridiculous thing to do. If anything should be done to the DC voucher program it would be to expand it, not kill it.
What about the $13,500/pupil that the school system now spends per year? Seems like throwing good money after bad.
Face it-the public “education” monopoly wants no challenges-subsidizing a competitor (that might actually provide a better product?) NO WAY! :o
It could. and monkeys could fly out of my butt wearing mortar boards and tassels. Do you have any evidence that the amount of money being spent wold be directed to DC’s public schools if the program is killed? Can you point to any similar arrangement happening elsewhere? I strongly doubt it. But by all means, I’d love to see what makes you think that this might actually happen. Don’t you think that it is more likely that I and the other initial posters are right?
Since the money goes to parents and these parents decide where to spend it, the Supreme Court has (correctly, IMHO) ruled that voucher programs aren’t a violation of the First Amendment. Just as federal student loan money can be spent at religious higher education establishments and people on welfare can give some of that money as an offering to churches, there is no constitutional problem with vouchers.
I understand that idea. But, but if an area’s schools are failing the kids, and they will get a good education at a religious school, you’d rather deny the funds to the religious school than have the kids get a good education?
Also, not all the schools are religious schools. They are private, but not religious. Does that change your stance? Would you then advocate continuing the program?
On preview, Renob makes an excellent point, too. But please do address my questions.
That editorial was a little sparse. I’d really like to see more info on why some members of Congress oppose this bill. Do they oppose all of it or only some of it? Does anyone know what their reasons were. I have a hard time picturing Eleanor Holmes-Norton as some sort of child hating monster.
We studied school vouchers in my mathematics of economics class in college. There are good arguments for both but I really think that any voucher undermines the public school system and is inherently unfair. We require children to go to school, so we owe them at least a minimal standard of education. I know how bad some schools can be (I’m a teacher with LAUSD) and I know that in many cases it is not a $ issue (I could tell you stories of MILLIONS of dollars wasted at my school alone) BUT I have also seen the dangers in addressing the problem by letting the students choose what schools they get to go to. The good schools get better and the bad schools get worse. Vouchers for private schools can only make things worse since they get to filter those who get admitted. What about special education or second-language learners? Vouchers are a cop-out for educational agencies so that they do not have to do their job and make public education work. It’s not about money, it’s about not having 8th graders get out of middle school at a 4th grade reading level and 3rd grade math level.
Vouchers to the lowest income families. Wait a minute! I am middle-class trying to support my family. I’m not poor, but I will never make enough money to move to a nice section of Southern California so my child gets screwed by not being rich enough to move to the better schools and not poor enough to be subsidised. How is that fair?
Vouchers for everyone. I studied this in detail in my math of econ class and what research shows is that the families that would use vouchers tend to be the ones who already are working to get their child a better education, either by moving to a better district, paying for private school, getting their child into the gifted or magnet program (this is the road I took and my son just got accepted ), etc. In other words, voucher-usage is not based on socio-economic level (e.g. poor people would use vouchers if available) but those families who actively pursue educational opportunities already.
I don’t care what the Supreme Court says. School vouchers are a scam to funnel public money to religious schools and everybody knows it. It’s inappropriate and socially destructive (and I say that as someone who sends my kids to a Catholic school).
There are schools that specialize in offering services to these folks, you know. In fact, since the inception of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is has been legal for a judge to order schools to pay for the placement of a child with a disability in a private school if the public school can’t offer a proper education. That is essentially a voucher.
That’s the great thing about the market – people are willing to offer you services tailored to meet your needs. The usual way to get that in a public school is to take them to court.
And how, exactly, do you make failing schools “work”? They have been trying to fix DC’s schools since the 1950s and they are worse than ever. To think that there is some magical thing that can easily be done to “fix” public schools is ridiculous. To hold the children of these schools hostage while administrators try some new things that, given the history of school reform, won’t work is pretty cruel to these kids. Why not let them escape these failing schools?
But, how about if there was a stipulation that it go to private, non-religious scholos? Is your only argument against vouchers due to the religious school aspect?
If non-religious private schools were more ubiquitous, maybe, but right now, religious schools are the only private schools available in many communities. What do you do if you’re Jewish and your only choices are a terrible public school or a Southern Baptist school?
Or (and I realize this is not a likely scenario in the US, but just as a hypothetical), what if your only choices are a terrible public school or a Madrassa?
Until secular private schools are a more ubiquitous and accessible alternative, voucher plans only work to funnel money and students away from public schools to religious schools and let the public schools crumble.
Nice notion. But what do we do when schools repeatedly fail the students? Work harder? And then harder still? Meanwhile how many years do we allow to go by with kids getting robbed of an education that they will never make up for?
It’s not. But neither is sending a bunch of poor kids to a school where you know ahead of time that they won’t get anything resembling an education. But the latter creates a larger problem that affects all of us.
I’m not sure of your point as I think you left a word or two out of the final sentence. But this would apply if vouchers were universal, correct? That is not the case here. But if universal, the people who would benefit the most would be those whose parents make the most effort, right? Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.
Well, I guess I don’t share your basic premise. But I know many non-catholics—jes even—who have sent their kids to catholic schools. I also have very good friends (catholic) who send their kid to a Jewish school. And even in the case of the Madrassa, what’s wrong with giving people the option of sending their kid there?
The problem with the idea of vouchers is that it portends a possible future where most education will be private and the public schools will languish or be abolished entirely – and then we would have an educational system resembling our current health-care system, with what you get being based on your ability to pay and the poorest getting nothing or next to nothing. Public schools might remain open but so far reduced (even from their current state) that attending one would be the functional equivalent of going to the ER for your medical needs. I hope nobody seriously wants that!
If the public schools can’t offer a good education, whey should they remain open? And if kids were getting vouchers to attend the school of their choice, I can’t see how your dystopian future could happen. The kids (poor, rich, middle class) would attend private schools that cater to their needs or desires. Yes, the rich would be better off, but they are better off now. How would the poor get “next to nothing” if they have a voucher to spend at a private school?
And to be pedantic, it wasn’t IDEA that started this. It was PL 93-142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act) that started special education as we know it today. IDEA was PL 101-476 which was the re-authorization of EAHCA and renamed it to make it person-first instead of disability-first language and to change “handicap” to “disability”
And it is not a private school that the students go to, it is a non-public school that works with students with disabilities exclusively. I guaranty that if a special education student goes to a regular private school and is successful, the district would be back in court and the judge would excuse them from having to pay tuition. And if you care to dicuss it, in many cases the level of education at these NPS schools is typically below that of public school with the teachers often inexperienced and uncertified.
Before we can answer that, we should try to answer the following questions:
Why is it that private schools are successful and public schools are not?
Why can’t public schools do the exact same things the private schools do?
If they can’t, why not?
There are many solutions but here is one to get us started.
Starting in first grade and every grade thereafter, students are tested on the standards that they are expected to master. A minimal passing score is required to advance to the next grade and cannot be failure cannot be overruled by teacher or principal. Students have multiple opportunities to take the test and some allowances are made for special education students and second-language learners. Appeals are allowed, but must be based on student competency in the standard (e.g. student had “test anxiety” but has work during the school year showing their knowledge would be a basis for an appeal).
Here’s another one:
Modularize elementary school in the two hardest areas. Rather than assuming that all 20-30 students are at similar levels in all subjects, break up the schedule like in high-school so that students can move through the English/language arts & mathematics at their own pace. Of course each year they would have to meet a minimal standard (see above). Social studies and science would still be grade-based and music/art/PE/etc. would be as it normally is (butpreferably a significant part of the students’ education). This could be done using the pull-out method (see NMAP recommendations for the mathematics side).
), etc. In other words, voucher-usage is not based on socio-economic level (e.g. poor people would use vouchers if available) but those families who actively pursue educational opportunities already.