CNN's Roland Martin, a progressive Democrat and strong supporter of President Obama, argues that it is hypocritical for our Democratic politicians to send their children to private schools while killing a DC voucher program for poor children.
Martin writes:
When President Obama signs the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, there will be shouts of joy from both sides as Republicans and Democrats get their cherished earmarks.
Yet tucked into that bill is an amendment pushed by the president's former colleague in the Senate, Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin, who used his influence to essentially kill the District of Columbia school vouchers program.
Oh sure, it will be portrayed that the Democrats aren't killing the program, but the initiative calls for no new students to be allowed entry, unless approved by Congress and the District of Columbia City Council.
And considering that the teachers union has such a death grip on both Democratic-controlled institutions, you can forget about that happening.
Democrats say they believe in school choice, but they don't fully accept the gamut of choices. They will happily tout charter schools, also opposed by the national teachers unions, but stop at vouchers.
Why? Because Republicans have consistently advocated for vouchers, and Democrats have convinced themselves that vouchers will somehow destroy the public school infrastructure.
Now, some believe the Obama administration is sending mixed signals because Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said he doesn't want to see kids thrown out of Washington schools who are already in the existing voucher program. Fine. But the reality is that after this year, no new kids will be allowed to enroll in the program, and that folks, is killing the program.
Obama and his party have never been fans of vouchers. Why? They contend that vouchers would hurt the public school system. Vouchers allow parents who can't afford private school to remove their children from public schools in order to get a better education. Well, isn't that what the president and those in his party do themselves by sending their children to private school? Only they don't need the government's help.
The standard fallback position of Democrats and the Obama administration is that the Washington program only helps 1,700 children a year, and those who don't qualify are stuck in a sorry system, and they are largely poor and minority. They contend that since every student can't be helped by vouchers, none should be helped.
So parents and children are supposed to sit tight and wait on the promised reform to trickle down from Washington to the local school systems, and then all will be well?
To me, that's sort of like saying that historically African-Americans are likely to have high rates of diabetes and hypertension, so instead of launching a program to save some from developing the disease, let's wait for a comprehensive plan where all can be saved at one time.
Sorry, folks. I believe you save as many as you can now, and continue to save the rest later. This shouldn't be an either/or proposition, but an and/both situation.
The other fundamental problem here is that we have a bunch of politicians deciding what's best for education over the objections of actual educators!
For instance, Democrats have had high praise for the superintendent of schools in Washington, Michelle Rhee.
Just one problem: she supports vouchers.
"I don't think vouchers are going to solve all the ills of public education, but parents who are zoned to schools that are failing kids should have options to do better by their kids," she told The New York Times.
So if Rhee backs them, why not give her the vote of confidence to continue the program while she tries to fix the ailing school system?
The education reform outlined by President Obama on Tuesday is necessary. But we are a long way from seeing the kind of systemic changes that will fix our public schools. His plan goes far on personal and parental responsibility, yet relies on states to enact their own measures of change, and with 50 different state school plans, we know that is a disaster waiting to happen.
I would have more confidence if President Obama and members of Congress truly walked the walk and sent their kids to public schools. If they have so much faith in them turning around with reform, entrust their own children to public education. That's the kind of confidence our system needs. If it's good enough for yours, then surely it's good enough for mine.
But preaching to the rest of us about the virtues of a public education, then sending your own children to private school and denying the use of vouchers so others can do the same, is frankly hypocritical.
I know the value of a public education, and went to such institutions for elementary, middle, high school and college. Yet looking at the sorry state public schools are in now, maybe seeing kids leave in droves via vouchers will force school administrators and teachers to stop thinking they have all the answers and allow for innovation and full accountability, from the classroom to the boardroom.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/11/martin.vouchers/index.html
In a Detroit News op-ed piece, Ken Erickson presents plan to expand school choice and benefit unions.
Erickson writes:
Amid the sharp economic retreat of our state and now the nation, there is growing consensus that we must raise our level of education achievement if we are to be competitive in a global economy. Stronger graduation requirements are now in place for Michigan high school students and, while these are absolutely necessary, we do not know yet how they will affect dropout rates.
Additionally, with less state income and hefty spending cuts projected for the next several years, how can all of us -- parents, students, educators and taxpayers -- make progress toward opportunities for educational excellence for all Michigan's students? It will take wisdom, courageous goodwill, and a more nimble fight plan.
My humble suggestion is that together we look again at school choice being extended beyond neighboring public school districts and state-funded charter schools to also include high-achieving private schools that not only meet teacher certification standards but that also have long-standing levels of measurable academic excellence.
For such schools, I recommend we craft a LEAN school of choice subsidy from the state targeted at a portion of those students and families who are currently choosing to transfer out of their public school district or charter school. LEAN stands for Learning and Excellence in America Now.
No start-up time or development or reform period is needed to lift such a school to an acceptable level. The school record is already established and open to public review. Parents electing this option with their child can immediately enroll him or her in a serious school environment of proven educational excellence. This is exactly what President and Mrs. Obama have done for their own two daughters at great personal expense. The LEAN state subsidies I propose would create the same opportunities for parents with fewer resources, but at much lower cost.
Each LEAN subsidy would have a value of $5,600, which more than covers the cost of many excellent secular and religious-affiliated private schools in Michigan.
The state's basic grant for public school students last year began at $7,204. The overall average state expenditure per student last year, however, reached $7,708. A transferring student takes the original school district's basic grant for him or her to the new public school district.
If a parent chose a LEAN subsidy, however, the difference of the public school district's basic grant minus the $5,600 stipend would be returned to the state's educational fund. For example, the difference between a district at the state average expenditure per student of $7,708 and the LEAN subsidy would be a return to the state educational coffers of $2,108 for one student. For 10,000 such students whose parents chose the LEAN option, more than $21 million would be sent back to the state.
Unions everywhere need to grow or they will wither. This is true of the two teachers unions in our state. A genuine need exists for unions in many private schools in which excellent teachers consistently shepherd their students to ranges of high achievement. A number of these teachers, without question, are underpaid. But when teachers at Brother Rice High School in Birmingham sought out the MEA to represent them, the Catholic Diocese reportedly took them to court and won a decision against the teachers' efforts. This is the response from the church that tells me as a Catholic and a voter to support policies that "ensure a just wage, the right of workers to unionize and collectively bargain ..." (New Earth, October 2008, Page 15). This same article reminded me that our Catholic Church supports efforts to enable "... parents to choose the best educational setting for their children."
If a partial state subsidy of $5,600 is to be made available as an additional choice for parents and their children, then it's reasonable in Michigan that those schools desiring this option for students transferring in from public and charter schools should allow a secret ballot to determine the question of union representation if its teachers request this vote.
In the final presidential debate of 2008, the CBS moderator pointed out that our nation already spends more money per capita on education than any other developed country. Some of our top global competitors provide genuine school choice for all parents. Is America's only answer to our educational shortfall increased spending on more of the same limited strategy?
No one should claim true school choice is the answer to all or most of our educational troubles. It is not. But a large number of serious observers, including many parents whose children's achievement shall rise or fall on this question, have concluded that we will never reach a steady, sure competitiveness with other select global powers until full school choice becomes a standard part of our educational mix.
If we in Michigan dare to pioneer LEAN schools of choice, with willing support from our nonpublic schools and the teachers unions, we can provide a broader excellence in education for our youths while helping to contain cost increases associated with our educational mission.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090309/OPINION02/903090306
0 comments:
Post a Comment