When I first became chancellor of D.C. Public Schools in 2007, I was skeptical about the city's parental choice scholarship, or "voucher" program. I'm a lifelong, card-carrying Democrat. In my mind, private school funding for low-income kids took money from traditional school systems.
But as I got to know D.C. families, a number of mothers approached me and asked what they should do. They had checked out their neighborhood schools, and what they discovered was startling. In some cases, a mere 10 percent of kids were working at or above their grade level. That wasn't encouraging. So, they tried to win spots in better schools across town or in high-performing public charter schools. But, more often than not, there were no spaces, and it was then these mothers would come to me and say, "Now what?"
After facing this question a few too many times, I concluded that if I couldn't offer them a spot at a public school where I would send my own kids, I also couldn't possibly tell them to pass up a voucher for a good private school. Simply put, I was no longer willing to look these parents in the eye and say, "You know what? Give me five more years to make your school better." I wasn't willing to ask families to accept anything less than I'd want for my kids.
I know some advocates of private school scholarships hope for a system where eventually all public financing for schools would follow children to the school their parents choose. I take an approach that puts more faith in the public school system. I believe we can improve our public schools. But as many traditional districts around the country are seeing, giving parents choice in the form of charter schools and private scholarships forces districts to improve to keep their students. I'm not for school choice for its own sake. I am for choice because it can, directly and indirectly, provide better opportunities for low-income children -- not simply more opportunities.
I also believe schools that receive public funding to educate poor kids ought to be held accountable for student progress. That means, like public schools, they should have to measure academic growth in objective ways, such as on standardized tests.
I don't believe in silver bullets. I don't think there is any one answer to fixing this country's educational shortcomings, and I don't believe private scholarships alone are the answer. Rather, I think in the long run, our school system should include a mix of high-quality traditional public schools, successful public charter schools and private schools attended by some low-income children who receive publicly funded scholarships. I believe that kind of mix will create the right opportunities and choices to serve our kids well and push our educational system toward becoming what we want and need it to be.
Why low-income children? I know that most American families would struggle to cover the costs of private K-12 education, particularly when they are trying to save for college. But I go back to the mothers in my school system in D.C. The parents who have no means to move to a better school district should be first in line for a scholarship.
I know there are many who hold the view, like I did, that there is just something wrong with supporting private school scholarships. But I ask you to think about what's worse: supporting public funding for private schools, or allowing poor children to stay in chronically failing schools? The research is clear -- a couple of years in a row in an ineffective classroom can change a child's entire life trajectory. We can't and shouldn't take that gamble.
Follow Michelle Rhee on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@m_rhee
School Vouchers: The Wrong Choice for Public Education
The 5 Biggest Myths About School Vouchers - TIME
School Voucher Debate Heats Back Up : NPR
Across the nation voucher and corporate tax credit programs are diverting tax dollars to private schools which have no accountability to anyone. A significant percentage of these schools are teaching from fundamentalist curriculum series, which teach new earth creationism, revisionist histories and hostility toward Roman Catholicism and non-Christian religions. http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/5/25/84149/9275
Failure should not be rewarded and success should not be punished, especially in education.
The public schools are not "failing" because of the teachers. It is rather the low quality of learners, children who are neglected by parents, children with special needs. If Rhee wants to shield her daughters from such a population therefore she is UNFIT to lead or have a voice on PUBLIC EDUCATION.
What counts in the education is the outcome. If some children are successful in public school why Rhee would encourage them to go to private school? What is the purpose of her action?
Does she want to seperate and divide our school children and communities? In my opinion she expresses mildly speaking the disrespect and impertinence toward the poor children in public schools.
Poverty is the single biggest factor in school achievement. Wages have been stagnant for 30-40 years. Big business is thriving, but more people are impoverished every year.
Johnson's War On Poverty was superseded by his War in Vietnam and we have suffered tremendously for it.
Oh, how I miss Robert F. Kennedy and his commitment to eradicating poverty. Our politics have moved Right since then, and look at how much worse off we are. What a terrible shame.
Health care must be profit based.
Education must be profit based.
in order to push this philosophy, its proponents must convince the people that everything involving "government" or "public" is necessarily failed, and worthy of scorn and ridicule.
it has been known for years that student outcome is most correlated with two factors- educational level of the parents and the amount of reading material in the home.
And of course these factors are related to poverty and other social issues.
But pure, small government capitalism has no time or concern for anything other than profit motive.
In doing so they have reduced the success rate of the public sector, and now want the public to fund their private desires!
What's wrong with public education is not some "liberal" notion that everyone will achieve valedictorian status, but that the ELITIST right wing is so frightened that their little darlings will have to try to learn in an environment that is more reflective of our societal divergence!
Abolish licensure of private educational institutes and level the playing field again.
So, let's dismantle one of the most successful public school systems in the country, to fund a program where students can't even outscore our worst public district. Brilliant Governor Walker, absolutely brilliant.
How can it hurt to allow parents the freedom of choice? If particular schools, whether public or private are failing, then parents should be allowed to leave and to choose whatever school is best for their child. It shouldn't be up to government to choose for us. If parents are smart enough to choose cars, computers, and cells phones, then they are smart enough to choose the right schools for their children.
If you think that some students will be left out, then you are misinformed. Many of the high cost students with disabilities are already being educated privately. The school district I work for already contracts with PRIVATE providers because it doesn't have the ability to provide the mandated care or simply doesn't want to hire the specialists needed. My school district has about 130,000 and still cannot provide all necessary services.
As for second language students, if they will bring an average $10,000 check with them I am sure that schools will open that want to educate them. The private market is very resourceful.
No one is saying that public schools will be closed down. There will always be public schools for those who don't fit into private schools or don't want to go and vice versa. Let the private market open up and over time it will adjust. It is impossible to predict the future and to have it all laid out before it arrives.
Walker's plan -- voucher plans -- is not about 'freedom of choice'. It's about getting the public school system off the state's books. In Wisconsin, you:
a) subsidize private schools with taxpayer-funded vouchers;
b) lift income and locality limits for voucher recipients, so that wealthy and/or well-located families pay for their children's private education with tax dollars.
c) allow 'choice' schools to charge tuition in addition to the voucher. In this manner, schools receive extra funding: first, from the voucher and second, the added tuition.
d) slash public education by almost a billion dollars: educator take-home pay by as much as 10%; 750 mil. cut from general public school aid; eliminate services and programs such as nursing; transportation; AP classes; math and science enrichment; reading specialists; and so on.
e) flood the system with charter schools, with no requirements regarding teaching certification, nurse licensing, transportation services, and so forth.
Which families do you suppose will benefit from this 'choice' system? Who can afford to opt out of their decimated local public school, subsidize the cost with a voucher, cough up a few extra bucks for tuition, and drive their kids to school?
Welcome to Fitzwalkerstan.
Neither are allowed to go out of existence as a result of their failure.
Instead, they continually whine for ever more of other people’s money, when all of the money in all of the world wouldn’t help.
Quite simply, teachers, administrators, schools, and entire school systems none have any right to exist and until they are allowed to fail and go out of existence as a result, we will all pay for their failure. Worse, our children will.
Vouchers only serve to widen the possibilities for success, which may be why the rent seekers in government so vehemently oppose them and why parents so strongly support them.