Issue 11 titled, “Has the Supreme Court Reconfigured American Education?” presented two crucial viewpoints pertaining to the value of education:
“Professor of education Charles L. Glenn argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is an immediate antidote to the public school’s secularist philosophy.” (Noll, p. 182)
“Professor of government Paul E. Peterson contends that the barricades against widespread use of vouchers in religious schools will postpone any lasting effects.” (Noll, p. 182)
Who’s to say who’s right at this point without some background information. The Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris case focuses on whether the First Amendment prohibition against Congress establishing religion prevents a state from providing tuition aid as part of a general assistance program to low-income parents and authorizing them to use that aid to enroll their children in a private school of their own choosing, without regard to whether the school is religiously affiliated. Many critical Supreme Court decisions have recognized and supported state and federal programs that give public funds directly to individuals who then may choose from any number of programs—private or public—to meet child-care needs, social-service demands, even educational improvement.
Supporting the issue, Glenn goes on to state, “The case for charter schools, vouchers and other forms of ”marketized” education rest only on educational performance but also on the claims of freedom of conscience. Parents have a fundamental right –written into the various international covenants protecting human rights – to choose the schooling that will shape their children’s view of the world.” (Noll, p. 186)
In my opinion, I feel The Supreme Court is making it very difficult for parents to choose what is best for their child when it comes to education. After all, doesn’t the saying, “Momma knows best” have any effect anymore?
Throughout my reading, I began to see similarities in the overall issue this week that reminds us of our issue last week on segregation in the schools. Is it evident we see differences now that we are in a different century than when segregation evolved? We do see the differences but as Peterson stated, “Much of these practical differences may separate Zelman from Brown, one powerful similarity remains: like the Court’s framed ruling against segregation in the schools, the decision to allow vouchers means much more for black students and their families than for other Americans. (Noll, p. 195) I disagree that only black students are benefiting from vouchers because the school I work at has predominately white and Hispanic students. I support the use of vouchers and believe they are helping those students receive an education no matter where they live or the story behind where they come from. After all, parents and educators are always keeping in mind the best interest of child, I feel our education system could drastically improve if the Supreme Court would only have the same view point on education as we do.
Here’s the question I want to propose from this issue: Whose view point do you support when it comes to reconfiguring American Education and why? (Think about the overall issue, do you feel the restrictions the Supreme Court has set on education to be unconstitutional? Are vouchers helping students succeed or are they segregating students from the community?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems ironic that Glenn quotes John Stuart Mill in his argument. “All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education. A general state education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government…” (p186). It seems to me that the basic mission of a Catholic school is to perpetuate the Catholic faith. This type of education certainly does not celebrate individuality nor does it encourage thinking outside of the box. It seems as if much of Glenn’s argument is based on educational theory that is not practiced in American Schools. Constructivism for example, “There is to be no notion of correct solution, no external standard of right or wrong. As long as a student’s solution to a problem achieves a viable goal, it has to be credited. Nor can relevant educational goals be set externally; they are only to be encountered by the student… the constructivist teacher is to make do without any concept of objective truth or falsehood.” (p189) In the day of high stakes testing I do not believe that there are school districts that are using philosophical methodology to teach students.
ReplyDeletePeterson quotes Fredrick Douglass, and goes on to quote Justice Clarence Tomas “The failure to provide education to poor urban children perpetuates a vicious cycle of poverty, dependence, criminality, and alienation that continues for the remainder of their lives. If a society cannot end racial discrimination, at least it can arm minorities with the education to defend themselves from some of discriminations effects. I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment, but I would disagree just as strongly that a good alternative to ending segregation and the non-educating of minority and low SES students is to publically fund religious education. On page 196 Peterson states, African-Americans are often the losers in this arrangement. Holding less financial equity and still facing discrimination in the housing market they choose from a limited set of housing options, As a result, their children are more likely to attend the worst public schools. Richer, whiter districts rarely extend anything more than a few token slots to low income minority students outside their communities.
In answer to the question Who do I agree with, I don’t think I agree with either Peterson, I don’t believe that the Supreme Court’s ruling was in alignment with the Constitution. It seems to me that both parties agree with the decision, but Glenn thinks that it is the answer to some of the problems with the American Education system. Peterson agrees as well, but does not think that it will make a difference because of the wide spread barricades against vouchers (182)
If a student wants to leave his/her public school based on the poor quality of education they are receiving, a religious school might be their only option. What would happen if vouchers were only available to other public schools in the child's neighborhood? The student would go right from the "frying pan to the fire." If we allow a child the right to choose, why not let the government allow vouchers for both public and private (religious) schools. If a child wants a good education and the religious school has a better educational record than the other public schools, why denied that child that choice. The child is interested in a good education as a primary goal and not worried about God being shoved down their throat. Anyways, it would be one class for each four years of high school and we all know that through our educational careers we have taken courses because we had to (Stats), not because we wanted to. I would rather take four Theology classes then one Statistics class. It is all apart of life! Nothing is 100%, but our children deserve 95% or better, instead of 65% in a failing public school. If the public schools were doing their jobs in the first place, the topic of vouchers would not be an issue today.
ReplyDeleteI am a Catholic and I am an individual and I think out of the box.
Tom don't take offense, I did not say that you did not think outside of the box. I just don't believe that my tax dollars (yes, non-catholic tax dollars) should be used to support religious education, now I don't mind if my tax dollars are spent to shore up and correct the problems that are inner city schools, but I do not feel that fleeing the public schools is an answer that will help those children who will inevitably be left there.
ReplyDeleteJessica, no offense taken! We are all entitled to our opinions.
ReplyDeleteVouchers and school choice are a result of NCLB, in response to Tom's comment if public schools were doing their jobs vouchers would not be an issue, again I feel it goes back to the inherrent unfairness of NCLB. It is so biased against low income schools and studnets. As more students flee the problem grows exponentially.
ReplyDeleteAs Peterson put it, "Vouchers may be constitutional," "but that doesn't make them a good policy. " (Noll, 191) I can see the both sides of where vouchers can help in education and also hinder in education as Tom and Jessica both have made valid points. I feel in this case, taking away the religious aspects (as this topic is not focusing on Catholics and non-Catholics), think about what is in the best interest of the parents and the child in receiving an education. I believe vouchers will help a child who's in a poverty district who's willing to learn and work hard have a chance in receiving a better education.
ReplyDeleteAccording to rethinkingschoolsonline.org, an article stated, "In opposing vouchers, advocates of public school reform find themselves in a complicated position. On the one hand, we must continue to criticize public schools and demand that they provide a quality education to all children. Too often, public schools are willing partners in furthering the divisions in this country between the "haves" and "have-nots." So after reading that article, I can see where Jessica is thinking that vouchers and school choices are a result of NCLB.
However, the website went on to state, "Everyone would like to see "no child left behind." But NCLB is a "test and punish" law, not a school improvement plan. It uses achievement gaps to label schools as "failures" without providing the resources or strategies needed to eliminate them. Federal education policy should support public schools, not undermine them." (rethinkingschoolsonline.org) Because of NCLB being a "test and punish", in my opinion, I believe vouchers are the only alternative that can help put an end to NCLB and help education become stronger in educating the children.
The issue is religious education, the case was filed because the government was subsidizing religion through educational vouchers, I don't understand how you take religion out of it. I have less of a problem with vouchers to private schools, and attendance at community schools since religious education is not taught. If I am not mistaken and I could be NCLB brought us community schools.
ReplyDeleteMy general post was about vouchers, not about religion. I understand the article and the case was about religion, but I steered away from focusing on the religion because of everyone's difference in religion beliefs and views. The primary focus is on how you feel about vouchers in the public schools going towards choice schools, do you feel vouchers are helping students have an opportunity to an alternative learning environment instead of them being subjected to a school that does not fit them adequately.
ReplyDeleteI found the reading on this issue to be very confusing. I have reread it several times and still only bits and pieces of it seem to give me any solid information on where these two men stand. I googled Charles Glenn and vouchers and found an article entitled, “Why are Progressives so Hostile to School Choice Policies?” written by Charles Glenn. Here is a quotation from the text: “Abraham Lincoln pointed out that a nation could not survive half slave and half free. The truth applies to a nation's educational system as well. I am not for vouchers as a way for some lucky children to escape from a bankrupt public education system, but as a way to transform that system, to abolish its choking monopolies and reshape it in ways consistent with a free society.” After reading this text I agree with Glenn. In this article he also talks about the time (21 years) that he spent working in educational reform in Massachusetts. He says that he finally became convinced that the changes needed in public education were fundamental structural changes. Due to this decision he became a supporter of charter schools and of vouchers. Glenn says that if the public schools are as good as they claim they will not suffer enrollment and if they are not they will be forced to improve themselves or to close their doors. I feel based on my own experience in working at a charter school that school choice is an effective trend in education. I think that children who are taking advantage of school choice are flourishing as a result. The data seems to support this statement. (Noll, 196)
ReplyDeleteAs it relates to the Inner City and surrounding areas that might be left out of the choice debate on education, Peterson cites important statisitcs on page 197, "Perhaps more to the point blacks constituted nearly half of all applicants for 40,000 privately funded vouchers offered nationwide by the Children's Scholarship Fund in 1999, even though they comprised only about a quarter of the eligible population."
ReplyDeleteAlso, "72 percent of African-American parents supported vouchers, as opposed to just 59 percent
of white parents.
No matter how you slice it, the overall idea of choice in education has the ear of both black and white parents. The Teacher's Union can continue to fight this issue in all the courts across the country, but it is the power of the people that will either force public schools to get their act together, or the expansion of the voucher system will continue and will evolve to cover more students based on their parent's W2 Forms.
"Many battles will be fought and lost along the way. to be sure, but victories will accumulate, because choice, once won, is seldom conceded." Noll, {Peterson}, pg. 198
After reading the two articles, I can't say that I completely agree or disagree with either author. Both authors seem to be in agreement with the Supreme Court's decision, but Glenn finds it to be an immediate solution to the problems that he sees with public schools. He writes, "Parents have a fundamental right to choose the schooling that will shape their children's understanding of the world." (Noll, 186) For him, it's all about being allowed to make those choices and vouchers are a way of making this happen for families that may not be able to afford to send their child to a school that they think will help their child to succeed.
ReplyDeletePeterson looks at vouchers and agrees with the decision but does not think there will be long lasting effects from it. I thought it was interesting about his comment on how public schools are starting to shape up because of vouchers and school choice. "It is only in the wake of the voucher programs expansion that the public school system there began to adopt a series of apparently successful reforms." (Noll, 197) The reason that parents are sending their children to private schools is because they do not feel that their children are receiving a proper education in the public school system. It's interesting to see that because of the vouchers, public schools are trying to change the way there school systems work in order to keep students at the public schools.
When it comes to the students that are receiving vouchers, I think that it is in their best interest and that it is helping them to succeed. Students who may never have had an opportunity to go to a good school or succeed in school may now have one. Peterson staes, "[African Americans] holding less financial equity, and still facing discrimination in the housing market, they choose from a limited set of housing options. As a result their children are more likely to attend the worst public schools." (Noll, 196) Simply because of the location that they live in, which the child really has no control over, the student may not be reciving the education that they deserve. With a voucher though they have more of an opportunity to succeed and are given more chances.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the National Education Association: "About 85 percent of private schools are religious. Vouchers tend to be a means of circumventing the Constitutional prohibitions against subsidizing religious practice and instruction." I realize this is coming from the National Education Association so it is biased, but if this statistic is correct, then I think religion is a huge part of the issue.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting how both authors talk about vouchers making public schools better. Glenn mentions it in the article I discussed in my first post and Peterson on pg. 196. I think we talked about this before how until charters and vouchers came along public schools did not really have any competition. We have definately discussed the way we think education is very competitive in the US so this is just another form of competition. Vouchers are making schools compete for their enrollment. I like how Peterson closes his selection stating, "choice, once won, is seldom conceded"(198). If schools have to become more accountable, have to work harder to be effective, so be it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Peterson and Glenn and feeling pretty confused about the whole issue, I was wondering what other countries do in terms of school choice. After reading the article below, I do wonder why we insist on organizing public school by geographical area when it just doesn't seem to work. I mean it works for some, but not for most. I know everyone wants neighborhood schools, but there's got to be a better way to organize schools so that no matter where you live, you can get a high quality education.
ReplyDeleteFree the schools - how and why other countries encourage independent schools and offer parents school choice for their children - The Schools: Four Reports
National Review (Magazine written from Conservative perspective), Sept 20, 1993 by Alan Bonsteel
"The President of ECNAIS, Peter Mason, commented in Berlin about the unfortunate implications of American terminology regarding schools. Mason, a British intelligence officer during the Second World War, was for many years headmaster of the Manchester Grammar School.
"I don't like the term "Private school' at all," he said. "It implies exclusivity and elitism, and a school that accepts students from all walks of life who bring with them their fair share of educational tax dollars is anything but that. As well, the terminology in Great Britain is the reverse of yours: in the sixteenth century, when all schools were private, the better private schools that accepted students from all over England became known as |public' schools, and the name has stuck to this day. We prefer the terms |independent school' or |free school,' and I wish you in America would adopt the same terminology."
Nor does the word "public school" carry the same meaning in our country that it used to. America's public-school system is in fact extraordinarily heavily segregated in terms both of race and of economic class, a result of our insistence on assigning students to a particular school based on geographical residence."
I'm not sure if I really think that vouchers cause segregration from the community. Peterson says that "vouchers are a civil rights issue; they promise not to intensify religious strife, as the Court's dissenters would have it, but to help heal the country's most enduring social divide." (Noll, 194) While I think that many parents are choosing to send their kids to religious schools, I also see Peterson's point about how it's a civil rights issue. Vouchers are supposed to help students that come from low-income families and he looks at it from the point that vouchers can help minorities and start to create a solution to the social divide. It's not a cure-all solution, but it's giving people more opportunities.
ReplyDeleteHe also states that African-American students have definitely benefited from the use of voucehers. In evaluations of a few select cities he found that "African-American students, when given the chance to attend private schools, scored significantly higher on standardized tests than comparable students who remained in the public schools." (Noll, 197) These students are being given a chance to go to schools that they might not normally have a chance to attend due to income or geographical location and are succeeding in these classrooms.
Public education vs. private education has been the topic for years and then the choice of private schooling via vouchers entered into the equation for students and their families as a choice for a better education. Now we have the argument about the separation of Church and State. I know that I am going to get in trouble with this comment, but when I was growing up and even a generation before that we placed God first, our parents second and then maybe the government third in a so-called pyramid of strength, knowledge, and answers. Today, that has all change, the government is first, children are second, and the parents are a distant third. We are looking to our government for all our answers, to solve all our problems. In 2002, vouchers entered the conversation with education, thereby setting up a skeleton foundation or template for competition between public and private schooling of our students. This started a so-called competition to encourage public school officials to get their act together and improve their present educational standards within their districts to equal the product produced in private schools. The present public education system brought this problem upon themselves, the unions are too powerful, the teachers (the bad ones) take cover legally behind their tenure, collect a paycheck, and just wait for their retirement to kick in. This concern or argument over vouchers, the subject on the separation of Church and State would be null and void if public education did their jobs in the first place. If the public school system operated like a business in relation to the hiring and firing of teachers, those bad actors would not have a job under normal circumstances. They have no accountability; they don’t have to produce or show any results and at the same time they hide behind their union and tenure. What a sweet deal!
ReplyDeleteAre we all too concern about the subject of vouchers, or is the real issue the separation of Church and State. Somehow, we get all upset about God in our public schools, we get all upset about the American Flag in classrooms and a couple years ago a parent sued a San Francisco school district relating to the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. With all the problems that our children are going through today, and the crumbling of the American family why kick God out of the public schools or leave him out, no matter if you believe or not. If you don’t believe, then God will not affect your moral code, but if you have students that believe, what is the harm for a moment of silence.
On page 193, Justice Sandra Day O’Conner pointed out “that taxpayers dollars have long flowed to various religious institutions, by way of Pell Grants to denominational colleges, and universities; through child-care subsidies that can be used at churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions; through direct aid to parochial schools for transportation, textbooks, and other materials; and indirectly through the tax code, which gives special breaks to the faithful.” “If government aid to religious institutions were such a problem, wouldn’t American society be torn already by sectarian strife?” High school is only for four years, why such the angst over vouchers when you look and review the whole entire picture for the student that will be educated for at least a total of twelve years and hopefully an additional four more years.
It is very complicated to fully agree with either Glenn or Peterson on this issue of vouchers. They both seem to agree with the decision of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and the use of vouchers in American education. Glenn looks at the decision as “an immediate antidote to the public school’s secularist philosophy” (Noll, 182). Peterson “contends that the barricades against the widespread use of vouchers in religious schools will postpone any lasting effects” (Noll, 182). This does seem to be a religious issue as “parents use the vouchers overwhelmingly for religious schools” in Cleveland, Ohio. In recent years, religious schools “have enrolled over 90 percent of the program’s participants” (Noll, 192).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.au.org/resources/brochures/should-you-pay-taxes-to-support-religious-schools/
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Tom that if public schools did their job to the fullest this issue of vouchers would never arise. According to the data that many people before me listed, there is evidence that vouchers are helping students succeed. Milwaukee, Wisconsin noticed “strong advances in test scores since the voucher program was put into place there ten years ago” (Noll, 196). These advances took place in both the private and public schools, because public schools “began to adopt a series of apparently successful reforms” in order to compete” (Noll, 196). As Ali stated in her earlier post, “If schools have to become more accountable, have to work harder to be more effective, so be it”. I totally agree, and it is helping the students that take advantage of the vouchers.
ReplyDeleteMy concern, along with Jessica’s comments, is the students that are left behind in the failing schools. It is great that some students get to leave those failing schools for private or religious schools, and that they do very well with the change. However, what about their peers that don’t leave the failing school? This shows that vouchers cannot be the “immediate antidote”, as Glenn had stated. More needs to be done with the existing, failing schools to benefit the students that remain in them.
I'm still not sure how I feel about vouchers. I think they are basically a short-term fix for low income families who have failing, unsafe schools. These families deserve choice if they are not getting a high quality education through public education.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would like to see the urban districts somehow changed and fixed, rather than seeing our taxes go to private schools. Below is a part of a New York Times article about a ruling in New Jersey about heir failing urban schools. The part that got my attention was: "Vast changes in housing, employment, child care, taxation and welfare, all beyond the powers of school districts, might be the only answers, the opinion added." If we can somehow fix these other things, then vouchers might not be necessary.
"The court said that as judges, and not educators or social scientists, it could not assess the values of theories on educational reform. Nonetheless, the decision added:
''Experimentation is needed to reverse the staggering failure of our poorer urban districts. Conventional education is totally inadequate to address the special problems of the urban poor. Something quite different is needed, something that deals not only with reading, writing and arithmetic, but with the environment that shapes these students' lives and determines their educational needs.''
Without ordering specifics, the court said broader curriculums in the poorer districts were constitutionally mandated.
''The totality of the districts' educational offering must contain elements over and above those found in the affluent suburban district,'' the ruling said. ''If the educational fare of the seriously disadvantaged student is the same as the 'regular education' given to the advantaged student, those serious disadvantages will not be addressed. In poorer urban districts something more must be added to the regular education in order to achieve the command of the Constitution.''
'Money Will Help'
No amount of money might be able to erase the socioeconomic factors creating inner-city disadvantages, the court said. Vast changes in housing, employment, child care, taxation and welfare, all beyond the powers of school districts, might be the only answers, the opinion added.
''However,'' it said, ''even if not a cure, money will help and these students are constitutionally entitled to that help.''
Tom, I agree that many public school teachers need to go and administrators have a very difficult time getting them out. My principal says the only way you can really be fired in public education is to have some sort of inappropriate relationship with a student or break some other major law. She wonders why they even have to do evaluations when there really is no accountability after that.
ReplyDeleteIt seems my generation is much different than the "put god first" mentality you talked about. I was taught that we should learn all viewpoints and then make our own opinions/values/beliefs. Still spiritual, but not necessarily by "putting god first" or believing in one set of beliefs. Religion talk is dangerous!! :)
I tend to lean toward the opinion of Paul Peterson. He does not feel that supreme court has reconfigured education. I can see this. The comparison of the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris to the Brown v. Board of Education case I thought was good. George Bush mentioned how the Cleveland case was an example of how "our nation will not accept one education system for those who can afford to send their children to a school of their choice and one for those who can't"(Noll,p.191). I don't necessarily think this case was historic as Bush likes to think of it. To me, it is an issue that has come back to us in a different form. I applaud the courts for their consistency. There will be some individual who will choose a career in theology...... it would be nice to see our educational system help to assit people with accomplishing their goals in life.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with one point in Tom's post, people more and more do look to the government to solve their problems, government is way too big, over spends and tries to legislate things it should not.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the texts, I agree with Paul E. Petersen in his article “Victory for Vouchers?”. I vaguely remember about the Cleveland voucher program and the issues that coincided with it, however, after reading both views I agree with vouchers can be made a fair program. Some of the views that I agree with throughout his article are “families were in no way coerced to send their children to religious schools; they had a range of state-funded options including secular private schools, charter schools, magnet schools, and traditional public schools (Petersen, 192)”, even though “90% of the program’s participants enrolled in religious schools (Petersen, 192)”. I a statement also agree in the statement that “African-Americans are often the losers in this arrangement, holding loss financial equity, and still facing discrimination in the housing market, they choose from a limited set of housing options, and as a result their children are likely to attend the worst public schools, richer and whiter districts rarely extend anything more than a few token slots to low-income minority students outside their communities (Petersen, 196)." Even though, I feel that it is all races of families in poverty. I feel vouchers could be very beneficial in the school choice matter, that if we want American’s to succeed we want them to be in the best schools possible. Rather than staying in failing schools, and falling into generational poverty.
ReplyDeleteTom and Jessica I agree, the government has a lot to worry about and this almost shouldn't be one of them, they should worry about all the other issues regarding jobs and such that are out their today.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the supreme court has set restrictions on education that are unconstitutional. It appers, to me, that vouchers are helping students to become successful. One of the goals on the NCLB mandate is to close that gap between white students and minority students. There have been reports of the voucher program's ability to do just that. Cecilia Rouse has produce such information and so has Jeffrey Grogger and Derek Neal (Noll,p.196). The voucher program has also appeared to given opportunities to students who would have never been able to receive these oppotunities if it had not been for the voucher program. Providing oppotunity for individuals, I thought, was on of the fundamental assets of education. This whole issue just confirms to me that althought our country has come a long way in trying to see that every child has an oppotunity to receive a free and equitable, there is still work to be done.
ReplyDeleteI agree with tom's first comment when he stated that "If a child wants a good education and the religious school has a better educational record than the other public schools, why denied that child that choice?" I am not a religious person, and was brought up not attending church at all, yet I will gladly give my tax dollars if a child thought they they were able to receive a better education at a private, religious school over a public school. I am not opposed to students getting that religious education, because they were the one's that chose to go to that school, fully knowing how they educate students. I am all for students getting the best education they can, and if they think that could be somewhere outside the public schools, then I say go ahead and use those vouchers and get the best education you can, regardless. Peterson stated that "vouchers are a civil rights issue; they promise not to intensify religious strife, as the Court's dissenters would have it, but to help heal the country's most enduring social divide." (Noll, 194) I don't think that these vouchers are causing segregation, rather they are helping the lower-income class to achieve a better education, and better the citizens of our country. He also quoted Frederick Douglass who said that "If society cannot end racial discrimination, at least it can arm minorities with the education to defend themselves from some of discrimination's effects". This statement alone reinforces my opinion that vouchers and charter schools are only helping our country, not segregating or hurting it.
ReplyDeleteAs for religious education, we live in a democratic society---it should be able choices---therefore if someone wants to attend a private-religious school, or if someone wanted to attend a school held at McDonalds then they should have the right to do that, if it means that they recieve an education better than the one they would have recieved elsewhere. If a parent feels that a child will recieve a better education at a private religious school vs. a public school then let them do it, its our right to be educated as citizens of the United States.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Molly and Jessica J’s recent comments. It seems that vouchers are working for many students who are getting to choose a more successful school over the failing public school they were in.
ReplyDeleteThese comments brought up a couple questions in my mind: With vouchers available will schools just continue to go on as they are now, with some students leaving the failing public schools to succeed in private schools, while others remain in the failing schools? Or, will more and more private schools be formed and more and more students will use the vouchers to attend them and public schools as we know them will cease to exist? That is crazy to think about, but over many many years it almost seems possible. Schools would be competing for the vouchers to survive; it would be like a business. I don’t know, I just let my mind run…
In response to Katherine's pondering about the future of public schools and all this free choice, I think that this basic survival need will push all schools to be the best that they can be. There will be competition as Katherine said for those vouchers and hopefully the result will be that public schools will fix their internal problems and kids/parents will go back to them. Peterson reports favorable findings on the performance of public school children in Milwaukee after the voucher option was put into place. He says, "it was only in the wake of the voucher program's expansion that the public-school system there began to adopt a series of apparently successful reforms" (196).
ReplyDeleteI was one who did not have a problem with the voucher program because it actually helps students accomplish the goal of high school graduation. The families of these students still need to make sure their children can get back and forth to school, where ever they are choosing to attend. When I was reading about this voucher program it just reminded me of what the options are in our county (Lorain).The following situations I have been envovled with personally. We have what is called open enrollment, which allows students to attend a school in a district in which they do not live. However, there is a cut off date for students to be enrolled into their new school. This can also have an affect on a students athletic eligibility. I wonder what are class thinks about this form of school choice? There are also situations in addressing the needs of special education. If a distict cannot provide the service that a particular student may need, that district is still responsible for providing the education that students requires, which may result in sending that student to another school district and picking up the cost. To me, all of these situations are "school choice" examples.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think that vouchers are a good thing so that low-income families can get a better education, I also think that they are a short-term fix (like JenB) It might get the student a private, better education, but there is nothing being said to improve the school which they chose not to attend. We cannot just forget that schools that are run-down and deterring people away from it need help. At that point the government needs to step in and realize that they need the extra funding and help to improve these schools, so that maybe one day vouchers would be obsolete.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting blog. Alot of blogs I see these days don't really provide anything that I'm interested in, but I'm most definately interested in this one. Just thought that I would post and let you know.
ReplyDeletebest international school in gurgaon