A Second Chance for School Choice, by Dan Lips
I found this on Foxnews this morning, and I only have one thing to say…yippee!!
Times have changed since 1981, as the public schools have declined and more and more parents have opted to either home school or send their children to private schools. Support for school choice has grown and continues to do so. So, Tennesseans, we’ve only got 5 1/2 years until my first child must begin compulsory education…give me the chance to spend my tax dollars on educating my own children, rather than contributing to the inefficient bureaucracy that is public education!
-J
A Second Chance for School Choice
A quarter-century ago, Washington D.C. voters considered a ballot initiative to bring widespread school choice to the District.
When the initiative went down by a margin of 9-to-1, then-Mayor Marion Barry crowed that its defeat sent the message that “nobody ought to mess with our public schools.”
Since 1981, not messing with the District public schools has resulted in hundreds of thousands of largely low-income and minority children passing through a school system that left them with some of the lowest achievement rates and highest dropout rates in the nation.
In the 25 years since that vote, as many as 50,000 students have dropped out of D.C. high schools — almost enough to fill RFK Stadium.
Twenty-five years later, D.C. parents are giving school choice a second look, and they like what they see. The result: sweeping education reforms that affect all District schools.
Today, the city’s 65 public charter schools enroll 20,000 children — more than a quarter of the District’s total student body. These students learn in schools that are free from many regulations that govern traditional public schools but, in turn, must meet performance standards.
Charter schools have embraced this flexibility, adopting innovative education models.
For example, a KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) Academy in the southeast neighborhood has dramatically increased the tests scores of its largely low-income student population. The KIPP school was the highest performing middle school in the District last year. The Thurgood Marshall Public Charter High School in Anacostia, created by Georgetown Law graduates, focuses on college preparation and a career in law.
All 18 of the school’s first graduating class were admitted to college in 2005.
In addition, 1,700 children attend private schools using vouchers through the federally funded D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. Research shows that opportunity scholarships have improved parents’ satisfaction with their children’s school. The Washington Scholarship Fund, which manages the voucher program, received nearly two applications for every available scholarship.
The school system has begun to respond to the competition. D.C. Schools Superintendent Clifford B. Janey recently announced plans to replace the current, top-down administration of the system with one designed to give public school leaders more autonomy. Principals would control as much as 90 percent of the money budgeted to their schools, as opposed to the current 60 percent, precisely so they could innovate and compete with charter schools.
The School Board is now moving to identify schools to be closed or consolidated. Thanks to all those students in charter or private schools, 147 D.C. school buildings are now underused, according to a recent report from the 21st Century School Fund. Meanwhile, seven new charter schools are scheduled to open in 2007. Those of us who support school choice welcome the fact that the D.C. public school system is taking these steps to innovate and improve in response to competition. We’re happy that the wheels of change seem poised to turn much faster in the next 25 years than they have since 1981.
Dan Lips is an education policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based public policy research institute.
Jama,
It seems that school choice drives much of what you believe in. (No I didn’t ignore your e-mail). I believe in alternative forms of education, none of which would be under federal jurisdiction, except for the option of vouchers. I say option, because I do not want the federal government involved in education in any way. Do you have any reservations about vouchers? I have seen where you implied that you were a member of the Constitution Party on the blog. They do not seem to agree with vouchers, perhaps for some of the same reservations that keep me from fully supporting their usage now. I just wanted to know your thoughts.
Actually, school choice is merely a part of a vast web of beliefs I have about government (it should be small, limited, and stay out of my business!)…it merely seems that its the big one on which you and I disagree.
I do agree, however, that I don’t want the Federal Government involved in education in any way. I would prefer that no government be involved in education, but I understand how terribly unrealistic that is in today’s world (a girl can dream, can’t she?) Look, ideally parents would be in complete control of their children’s education, with no tax dollars being taken from the parents to fund education. Since that is clearly not an option, those of us who choose not to use the public schools should be allowed to get a “refund” on our investment…why am I paying double simply because I want better for my children than government education (i.e., a superior, Christ-centered education that is not an available option in today’s government school system)?
While the Constitution Party may have reservations about vouchers from the Federal Government, they also say “We support equitable tax relief for families whose children do not attend government schools” (Constitution Party Platform – Education). I’m not saying I want vouchers from the Feds – I want the Feds out of education altogether. What I want is tax relief of some sort from whoever is taxing me for education.
And I have supported the Constitution Party. With the current divisions, however, I am not sure how much longer the party will stand, nor how much longer I will be supporting them.
I’m also glad you received my email…I was beginning to think I had mis-typed the address.
-J
Joshua Arrowood
July 11, 2006 at 10:56 am
One of my biggest reservations has been that the government would authorize vouchers, only to decide that they have a right to put more regulations in private schools. If I had the ability to put my children in private schools, I would want a private education in its purest form. I would not want a school where the government has decided that since public dollars are spent in the form of vouchers, then prayer and religion are unconstitutional there. I want a reversal of the current trend. Our government is not merely neutral with respect to religion. The government has crossed the line into a territory where it is religious. Its religion? Secular Humanism. We have an anti-Judeo-Christian movement within Secular Humanism. My reservations are that I do not want this to creep into private education, or even the home. I want to contain the movement, and then roll back the gains the ideology has made. If I have fallacies in this, please point them out. Sorry about not being Conservative. (ahem!)
I completely understand your reservations…they are more than valid.
However, “school choice” does not necessarily refer to “vouchers.” There are many options when instituting “school choice,” and I think I’ll do a post on those options when I get home today. However, your concern about vouchers in particular I can address here. Courts, including the Supreme Court (I have the cases on my home computer, so I’ll track them down ASAP), have ruled that vouchers and similar programs are 1.) Constitutional, and 2.) do not allow the government to interfere in private education because the money is given to parents, not to schools (although there are some voucher programs that have been suggested that would involve giving money directly to schools. This would pose more of a problem.) One Supreme Court decision of which I am thinking involves government “vouchers” that were given to parents to pay for transportation to schools – public and private. The Court ruled that the government had no say-so in those private schools, despite the fact that they were indirectly paying for children’s transportation to those institutions, because the money was given to the parents rather than the school itself.
Voucher programs in which parents are given the money directly are no different than other “voucher” programs, such as Food Stamps, the GI Bill, and the like. The government gives or returns tax dollars to the individual to spend as they wish; whether that money goes to a religious, secular, public, or private institution is no business of the government. So any concern about government interference in the private sector would be left up to the precedent set forth thus far.
An example: the church for which I work accepts Food Stamps for a food-buying co-op they host. Because the government gives the Food Stamps to individuals, the government has no say-so in the organization where the individual decides to “spend” those Food Stamps – even if the individual decides to buy food from a church. The same is true of Educational Voucher programs in which the voucher is given to the individual rather than the organization.
So, while I completely understand your concern, Court precedent indicates that government interference in this way is now (and will not be) an issue. As with any government action, however, we must be vigilant to make sure that we keep it that way, but we, at this point, have a leg up.
-J
Josh
July 11, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Jama,
If you don’t want the federal government involved in education in any way, then you better not support vouchers. When you buy goods and services on the plantation with plantation script, then the owners of the plantation have jurisdiction over you. The same will happen with using vouchers (script) to pay for private schools. If you want the government involved in private schools, then keep doing what you are doing. That is supportying vouchers.
When, exactly did I say I supported vouchers? I have said that I support “School Choice,” which, as I have been saying in my most recent School Choice posts, does not mean “vouchers.” I haven’t said one way or the other whether I support vouchers or not. The article written by Dan Lips is merely a viewpoint on one of many School Choice options and, if D.C. wants to go for it, then I say “go for it!!”
The D.C. program, by the way, is a local voucher program, which does not involve the Federal Government.
-J
Gary Melvin
July 14, 2006 at 7:33 am