Patricia McGhee
School Choice and Vouchers Position Paper # 1
March 10, 2009
Despite the fact that the topics of school choice and vouchers are not new, they remain controversial topics that provide a broad spectrum of opinion and very adamant view points. Lisa Snell in a Los Angeles Times article entitled, “Vouchers, alive, well and working”, describes vouchers as “bringing hope to thousands of students trapped in poorly performing schools. On the other hand, David Tokofsky, in a responding Los Angeles Times article entitled, “Vouchers don’t have a monopoly on choice”, contradicts the importance of voucher’s role in improving education by stating, “The irony is that while Bush’s Florida might have more voucher programs, more of its schools are under the federal “Performance Improvement” (failing schools) category than schools in most states. “ Vouchers are described by the leadership of the American Federation of teachers as “robbing the poor to help the rich.” This reflects one of my personal beliefs. In addition opponents of school choice state that public schools perform similarly to private schools when teaching similar groups of students, and that the conception of public schools as “failing” in comparison to private school is more due to the demographic differences between public and private schools than to actual differences in the quality of education the schools offer.
“School choice is everywhere in American education. It is manifest in the residential choices made by families [and] in the housing prices found in neighborhoods [and] when families, sometimes at great financial sacrifice, decide to send their children to private schools… In all instances, these choices… are strongly shaped by the wealth, ethnicity, and social status of parents and their neighborhoods.” (Richard Elmore and Bruce Fuller). For many years, parents have been choosing to send their children to religious based schools. In the article by Hannah Boyd, published at the website, education.com, entitled The School Voucher Debate, the author states that the vast majority of students in voucher programs attend religious schools rather than secular private schools. Many criticize the idea of diverting public money into religious institutions and they further state that this action violates the Constitutional principle of separation between church and state.
Our text Curriculum Foundations, Principles, and Issues states that Vermont has had a voucher program since 1869. Milwaukee in strong opposition to teacher unions has instituted a successful school choice and voucher program. One form of the voucher program is called comprehensive choice.” Joseph Bast and Herbert Walberg in our text state that “Comprehensive choice funds that now go to public schools go instead to parents, in the form of certificates or scholarships that are deposited into a type of educational savings account for parents to withdraw from this account and pay tuition at participating private and public schools. Other types of voucher programs include the Universal Voucher Program, the Means-Tested Voucher Program, Failing Schools, Failing Students Voucher Program, Special Needs Voucher Program, Pre-Kindergarten Voucher Program and Town Tuition Program. With the Universal Voucher Program all students are eligible; however the other voucher programs mentioned address specific groups of students. Proponents of school vouchers point out that poor and non-white students are the most likely to be stuck in a failing public school. Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman “argued that vouchers would diversify schools as children from low-income families would have money to attend private school. Many who support vouchers believe that more choice is better.
When considering school choice and vouchers opponents say that it is important to remember that public schools under No Child Left Behind are forced to participate in strict standardized testing requirements, but private schools are not required to demonstrate academic gains. In addition private school teachers are not required to be state-certified. Public schools and the private schools that parents choose are in fact playing by two different sets of rules. Opponents of school choice and vouchers for the school s chosen by parents further question the quality of education in private schools which are not regulated by the state. Opponents further predict that dwindling public school funds will be further eroded by implementing a school voucher system on an even larger scale.
Finally, as a public school teacher who sent her children to private school I am totally in favor of the school choice movement. School choice is about empowering parents and students. The federal No Child Left Behind Act provides parents of students in failing school with options to attend the school of their choice; however, these options are limited to public schools. I also believe that school choice does foster competition and that public schools should do more to compete for the students who live in their geographical areas and who are being siphoned off into area charter and other private schools. One of the problems for me with the school choice movement and voucher programs are the fact that my research indicates that in some instances the parents and students who need the school choice and vouchers the most are not receiving the benefits of these two programs. Several researchers pointed out that a part of the school choice movement is rooted in the concept of majority parents wanting to segregate their children from minority children. Should this kind of thinking be rewarded with vouchers, scholarships and tuition tax credits? I don’t believe so. Those parents who choose choice and can afford to pay should not benefit from any voucher program especially at the expense of the public school system or the limited tax dollars for education from the state and federal government. In my opinion choice is a right; vouchers are wrong. In conclusion, choice in American education is here to stay. School choice fosters a wide range of learning opportunities. State legislatures and voters continue to agree and disagree over voucher programs.
School Choice and Vouchers Position Paper # 1
March 10, 2009
Despite the fact that the topics of school choice and vouchers are not new, they remain controversial topics that provide a broad spectrum of opinion and very adamant view points. Lisa Snell in a Los Angeles Times article entitled, “Vouchers, alive, well and working”, describes vouchers as “bringing hope to thousands of students trapped in poorly performing schools. On the other hand, David Tokofsky, in a responding Los Angeles Times article entitled, “Vouchers don’t have a monopoly on choice”, contradicts the importance of voucher’s role in improving education by stating, “The irony is that while Bush’s Florida might have more voucher programs, more of its schools are under the federal “Performance Improvement” (failing schools) category than schools in most states. “ Vouchers are described by the leadership of the American Federation of teachers as “robbing the poor to help the rich.” This reflects one of my personal beliefs. In addition opponents of school choice state that public schools perform similarly to private schools when teaching similar groups of students, and that the conception of public schools as “failing” in comparison to private school is more due to the demographic differences between public and private schools than to actual differences in the quality of education the schools offer.
“School choice is everywhere in American education. It is manifest in the residential choices made by families [and] in the housing prices found in neighborhoods [and] when families, sometimes at great financial sacrifice, decide to send their children to private schools… In all instances, these choices… are strongly shaped by the wealth, ethnicity, and social status of parents and their neighborhoods.” (Richard Elmore and Bruce Fuller). For many years, parents have been choosing to send their children to religious based schools. In the article by Hannah Boyd, published at the website, education.com, entitled The School Voucher Debate, the author states that the vast majority of students in voucher programs attend religious schools rather than secular private schools. Many criticize the idea of diverting public money into religious institutions and they further state that this action violates the Constitutional principle of separation between church and state.
Our text Curriculum Foundations, Principles, and Issues states that Vermont has had a voucher program since 1869. Milwaukee in strong opposition to teacher unions has instituted a successful school choice and voucher program. One form of the voucher program is called comprehensive choice.” Joseph Bast and Herbert Walberg in our text state that “Comprehensive choice funds that now go to public schools go instead to parents, in the form of certificates or scholarships that are deposited into a type of educational savings account for parents to withdraw from this account and pay tuition at participating private and public schools. Other types of voucher programs include the Universal Voucher Program, the Means-Tested Voucher Program, Failing Schools, Failing Students Voucher Program, Special Needs Voucher Program, Pre-Kindergarten Voucher Program and Town Tuition Program. With the Universal Voucher Program all students are eligible; however the other voucher programs mentioned address specific groups of students. Proponents of school vouchers point out that poor and non-white students are the most likely to be stuck in a failing public school. Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman “argued that vouchers would diversify schools as children from low-income families would have money to attend private school. Many who support vouchers believe that more choice is better.
When considering school choice and vouchers opponents say that it is important to remember that public schools under No Child Left Behind are forced to participate in strict standardized testing requirements, but private schools are not required to demonstrate academic gains. In addition private school teachers are not required to be state-certified. Public schools and the private schools that parents choose are in fact playing by two different sets of rules. Opponents of school choice and vouchers for the school s chosen by parents further question the quality of education in private schools which are not regulated by the state. Opponents further predict that dwindling public school funds will be further eroded by implementing a school voucher system on an even larger scale.
Finally, as a public school teacher who sent her children to private school I am totally in favor of the school choice movement. School choice is about empowering parents and students. The federal No Child Left Behind Act provides parents of students in failing school with options to attend the school of their choice; however, these options are limited to public schools. I also believe that school choice does foster competition and that public schools should do more to compete for the students who live in their geographical areas and who are being siphoned off into area charter and other private schools. One of the problems for me with the school choice movement and voucher programs are the fact that my research indicates that in some instances the parents and students who need the school choice and vouchers the most are not receiving the benefits of these two programs. Several researchers pointed out that a part of the school choice movement is rooted in the concept of majority parents wanting to segregate their children from minority children. Should this kind of thinking be rewarded with vouchers, scholarships and tuition tax credits? I don’t believe so. Those parents who choose choice and can afford to pay should not benefit from any voucher program especially at the expense of the public school system or the limited tax dollars for education from the state and federal government. In my opinion choice is a right; vouchers are wrong. In conclusion, choice in American education is here to stay. School choice fosters a wide range of learning opportunities. State legislatures and voters continue to agree and disagree over voucher programs.
References
Bolick, Clint. Voucher wars: Waging the legal battle over school choice. (2003).
Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
Corwin, Ronald G. & Schneider, Joseph E. The school choice hoax: fixing america’s
schools. (2005). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Ealy, Lenore T. & Enlow, Robert C. editors. Liberty and learning: Milton friedman’s.
voucher idea at fifty. (September, 2006). Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
Henig, Jeffrey R. Rethinking school choice. (1994). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Lee, Jackson, F. & Rinehart, James R. American education and the dynamics of choice.
Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.
Walberg, Herbert J. Point of view: School choice evidence. (September 1, 2004).School Choice News.
No comments:
Post a Comment