Kudos Daily Southtown; Now, How About School Choice?
The Daily Southtown, with its usual good sense, gives Governor Blagojevich's Education gamble a nice squirt in the puss of wake-up juice.
This morning's editorial calls into question the many 'what ifs' that the Guv boldly side steps.
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsedit/x31-ed1.htm
The ugly step-child at the table - school choice - is once again consigned to the gang-way. Parental choice of school is the only real bold choice equation in education reform. Competition sparks quality.
21 comments:
Parents should have options, liberal like Waldorf, smaller schools, values based, Montessori,
and in the inner city schools that are closing like Lutheran or inner city Catholic should be kept open as good options and to stop overcrowding. School choice is a necessity, it is fair in terms of funding and stopping religious discrimination AND it will practically help.
Last time I checked, parents have a choice. They can send their kids to any private school they want.
As for where public tax dollars should go, I don't have a particular problem with funding worthwhile programs for private school children, after our public schools are fully funded.
But this notion that individuals should have a line-item veto over how public tax dollars are spent is bunk. Do I get to choose which wars my tax dollars fund? Of course not. I get to elect a new President. Don't like your current school system? Stop electing the same folks to the school board, legislature, governor, and in Chicago, for alderman or mayor.
More bunk is your blanket argument that "competition sparks quality." Walk up and down the cereal aisle, the most competitive sector of the food market, and tell me about quality. Competition doesn't spark quality, it sparks marketing -- just look at politics. You want your kids brains to be stuffed with Fruity Pebbles, keep pushing that "competition sparks quality" argument.
Yellow-Dog,
Great passion; bad logic. Your cereal selection makes as much sense as the IHSA's defintion of a 'level playing field.'
There is no choice; parents can pay twice or be damned to them. However, your progressive sentiments are historically consistent. Inner city schools, public and private, are closing or being closed though a flood of dollars has channeled through the collander called education reform.
School choice, call it vouchers or Bucks for Boys'nGirls, has never been acted upon, but it will be. This is a bipartisan issue and it is a diversity issue. Quality schools beget greater competition from their weaker neighbors. Sink or swim and let the market dictate success.
YDD
You said "after our schools are fully funded."
Please tell me when a school is fully funded. No matter how much money is thrown at the current public school system, they always want more.
The state's Venice Financial Oversight Panel spent over $28,000 per student! If that is not fully funded, what level would be fully funded? At the February 16, 2006 Special Meeting of the Venice Financial Oversight Panel, Chairman Rudy Wilson "pointed out that, despite the costs, he did not believe
that the educational program was adequate." (quote from ISBE.net)
Vern,
Nice pick-up on that grounder. My old eyes ain't what they was and my waistline is more than I expected it to be.
School Choice is a scary issue for public officials. If I were a Catholic bishop, there would not be a Catholic school open in my diocese come September. Until a serious consideration of parental choice in the matter of schools were on the table, I'd rent the joints to Shriners and Steppers to pay the taxes and lights and allow my flock to join their fellow tax-payers at publicly funded schools.
Pat, I went to a Catholic school (I actually had to use my summer job money to help pay tuition) and see many problems with what you're saying. First, ask the Bishop if he'll take vouchers on the condition that EVERY child have an opportuinty to attend that school and that if space runs out, a Catholic child would be turned away in favor of a non-Catholic one. I don't know a Catholic alive who would agree to that. It's not why they started the schools.
Catholic schools exist now due to those teachers whose faith life takes precedence over their paycheck. Many of the teachers have spouses with good jobs. Other teachers in some Catholic schools didn't get hired by local public schools or those teachers aren't certified. A recent U of I study shows that private school students don't outperform public school students from similar backgrounds. Cathols schools succeed because of the student base. Many of those kids would still have good test scores at a "failing" public school.
You only have to take a look at the failing Edison schools to see that it is practically impossible to run for-profit schools. Religious groups have their own special interst and aren't looking to educate every child. I'm not sure where the "competition" will come from and I'd be wary of some of the other providers that would pop up. (I'm thinking of a downstate charter school that was in a pole barn)
Those who benefit most from vouchers are wealthy families who can already afford a private education.
Pat,
Glad you are not a Bishop.
The Catholic Schools are the only hope for eduction in many areas. Ransoming education is not a real alternative.
As to the Cereal Aisle argument, there are a wide variety of cereals, some are very healthy, tasty, attractively packaged, bargain priced. The key to the market is that the consumer decides what he wants rather than the Governor. We don't need to have elected officials decide (much) about cereal choice, and we don't need elected officials to decide (much) about education.
The consumer is perfectly capable of making up his own mind about education.
JBP
'Those who benefit most from vouchers are wealthy families who can already afford a private education.'
Who says? There ain't one (1) rich kid attending Leo - 'wish there were.
YDD, for the sake of your argument, let’s look at some raw numbers. Because offering low income families school choice (not to be confused with straight-up "vouchers") will actually INCREASE the amount per pupil that public schools have to spend. Observe:
Tuition at the Catholic High School that I attended was about $5k at the time. Chicago Public Schools were funded at about $7.5k per pupil then. If you offered even a 50% voucher, that’s $2.5k, but also one whole student, not in the public system anymore. Extrapolate that to a larger group:
1,000 public school students, funded at $7.5k = $7.5 million dollars. If ½ those students take the 50% voucher to attend private schools, that’s 500 students left, funded at $7.5k + the $5k per student remaining from the 500 students who are gone, which = $6.25 million to spend on 500 students. Meaning, those 500 students left at the public school are now being funded at $12,000 each, and increase of 60%. Not bad, right?
Of course, this model assumes that the students already in private schools are not going to receive vouchers. That is the concept of school choice - which is a good compromise for liberals to make with those who support straight-up vouchers. Parent with the means and desire to send their kid to a private school from the start would continue to pay, just they way they do now, just the way my parents did. But, unlike now, students who’s parents don’t have the means to send them to private schools will get a chance to escape public schools that fail them. And those students who choice to stay, or still cannot afford private schools even with the 50% voucher, will be left in schools that are funded to a greater level per pupil than before.
What’s wrong with that?
Also, briefly, as far as the argument goes that this will lead to government subsidizing of religion, I’d like to know when liberals are going to start policing churches in low-income areas to make sure that no one who is on any form of welfare is providing tithing or making financial offerings. Maybe then, you’ll have a valid – by virtue of consistent – position on how dangerously unconstitutional school choice would be.
College students are able to pick which colleges that my taxes fund. College students receive Pell Grants (tax money vouchers) to spend at any accredited private, public or religious institution of their choice. If college students can spend tax money at Notre Dame, why can't our k-12 students have similar options?
If the local public school is doing the job they are supposed to be doing, they have very little to fear from competition.
Sarduchi,
actually Catholic schools EXACTLY outperform public schools with worse students or the same pool
It is in the poor and working class areas where their formula works
It is in rich areas that it doesn't really matter
like Loyola Academy v. New Trier
or St. Francis vs. Glenbard
Read the liberal think tank BROOKINGS INSTITUTE report
or the reports from VERMONT, Milwaukee WI, etc.
Vern, et al;
I reiterate my long and strongly held belief that school choice with tax dollars following the kid just ain't gonna happen in Illinois in the foreseeable future. I could be wrong (I certainly have been plenty of times), but I look at the players and I just don't see it.
A few years ago, Governor Ryan was unable to get additional financial support for Catholic schools in Illinois, even though the Cardinal was asking for it, Speaker Madigan supported it, and Catholic schools were closing.
I'm afraid you are investing your energy in cultivating a vine that isn't going to bare fruit. That doesn't mean you should stop trying, I guess, but don't act shocked if I'm right. There just isn't sufficient public support for it, and there is plenty of public opposition.
Pat and Vern -
Don't like the cereal analogy? Here's some further evidence for you that the mantra "competition sparks quality" is bunk:
Baseball -- competition sparks steroids.
Film -- competition sparks sex and violence.
Textiles -- competition sparks lower quality, cheaper goods.
Wal-Mart -- competition sparks economic collapse of our manufacturing base.
Sometimes....sometimes, competition sparks quality, as in the space race. But before we throw the baby out with the bath water, let's remember competition doesn't always spark quality. Why, here in Chicago recently, competition from charter schools sparked the falsification of reports by one of the cherters. Not exactly an encouraging sign.
I'll tell you what though, I'm happy to offer a compromise....what about a model that puts public school districts in competition with one another? Tell the folks in Wheaton that pretty soon parents from the south and west side of Chicago will be able to send their kids to public school in Wheaton, and we'll see education funding reform before you can say "white flight".
P.S. 75% of Illinoisans support increased taxpayer funding for public schools. Read 'em and weep.
GOP - there's a much more straight forward way to increase the amount that schools have to spend per pupil: it's called raising the foundation level.
And, I think there would be something inherently unconstitutional about offering vouchers only to students who are currently attending public schools and not offering it to students who are currently attending private schools. It certainly seems unfair and politically untenable to tell parents "sorry, you don't qualify for the tax break, you sent your kids to private school to soon."
And I don't really worry too much about the whole government subsidizing religion argument. What I guess I don't understand is, if school choice is such a great idea, and the Catholic schools are so wonderful, why isn't the Catholic Church funding it? I mean, is educating the poor not part of their ministry? Why are they looking for government hand-outs?
Let's look at some numbers. If the Catholic schools in chicago wanted to, they could announce tomorrow that they are providing scholarships for 50,000 chicago kids who choos to go to a charter school. That's only $125 million a year. I bet the Chicago Archdiocese earns that in interest every year. If not, I bet if they started a special annuity fund, they'd have no problem raising all the money the needed from good Catholics who believe in school choice. I know Pat Hickey and Vern would give every penny they could, right guys? After all, school choice is the answer, right?
BTW, the irony is of course that the low-income families who would qualify for your voucher program pay no where near $2500 a year in state taxes toward education (you have to make over $85K a year before you pay $2500 total, and much of that money goes elsewhere).
But, I guys none of this pesky logic bothers you guys. Next you'll be arguing that people who drive to work everyday shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund mass transit, and couch potatoes shouldn't have to fund the park district.
Steve
I am aware of your views, and I respect your opinion. I do not disagree with you. School choice is probably not a viable option at the current time, but I don't see any other options that will work to improve our schools?
"The April 2001 OECD report stated "60% of Americans aged 16-25 are 'functionally illiterate', meaning that when it came to, say, filling in a form they were stumped - - and that on the simple numerical (reading a timetable, etc.) test they scored at the bottom of all industrial nations." - The Economist, 14 July 2001, pg. 84 "
If competition is not the answer, please enlighten me on what will work.
YDD
We already spend more per student than every nation except Switzerland. So why are our students so far behing the rest of the world?
The 75% of the people that wish to spend more on schools are also the people that believe teachers are underpaid. Even though teachers earn more per hour than engineers. The teachers' unions have done a wonderful job perpetuating the myth that teachers are underpaid -- 20 years ago that may have been true, but not now.
YDD
Last time I looked, the bulk of education funding came from property taxes and not state income taxes. I guess that none of those pesky facts bother you though.
YDD,
Committed to your cause - admirable.
The long and the short of it is, parents of prvate school children bear twice the load and the load gets heavier as public schools continue to fail - the tax burden increases.
"Competition begets steroids?//"
I thought Cheating begets steroid use and not competetion. Apples and Oldsmobiles again, YDD, but always a pleasure.
Vern, if I knew the answer to your question, or where to find the answer, I would share it in a second. But I don't
Post a Comment