Governor Haslam of Tennessee has been studying the voucher issue and intends to bring forward a proposal.
He doesn’t want to limit vouchers to any particular jurisdiction but to make them available statewide.
He is working closely with his state Commissioner of Education Kevin Huffman, TFA alum, to craft his voucher plan.
Vouchers will be called “opportunity scholarships,” because Republicans understand that the public doesn’t like the word “vouchers.”
“Opportunity scholarship” sounds so warm and fuzzy. That’s what vouchers in other places are called.
But a rose by any other name is still a rose.
And a voucher is a voucher.
And if Tennessee’s law looks anything like Louisiana’s, the legislature will have to come up with a funding mechanism that doesn’t take money away from public schools.
Haslam can put forward a voucher plan because in the recent election, Tennessee Republicans won a super-majority in the legislature. They were able to accomplish this with the generous support of campaign funding for Republican candidates supplied by StudentsFirst.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
At first, I would expect charter schools to do well. They don’t pay enough to attract the best teachers, so it will be a matter of school choice and throwing a book in a classroom with motivated students.
Charter schools will not be saddled with unfunded mandates like ESL, speech therapist, etc.
This will open the door to businessmen like the one describe on 60 Minutes. The pay scale looks good, but teachers must kick back 40% of their pay. The school cannot attract native born teachers. Therefore, the school gets work visas and can only get teachers from Turkey. The owner is Turkish. The Turkish English teacher was interviewed and I could not understand him. But, still, through magic, the school scores well on tests because the fox is watching the chickens.
To me, it seems that what is wanted is lower cost per graduate and not a graduate that can read. An ignorant population is easier to rule.
LikeLike
Hi Joe,
In another post, Dr, Ravitch quotes a Long Island superintendent: “true mission of public education—to imbue a clear and compelling sense of purpose for the ideals of our American democracy.”
If Nashville fails to pursue this goal, why not privatize? What is the legal rationale for compelling attendance at schools that have strayed from their (state) constitutional purposes?
Parents in Nashville indicated a preference for Great Hearts Academy. Wouldn’t serving those kids demonstrate a “clear and compelling sense of purpose for the ideals of our American democracy?”
I’m just pointing out that the case for public education is strengthened when educators demonstrate a clear commitment to the purposes of public education. Particularly to those purposes recognized by the courts.
LikeLike
Not ALL parents in Nashville. They were hoodwinked. How? Because the state is making it impossible for public schools to have manageable class sizes and cuts to the budget that effect the Arts, etc. so that Great Hearts could come in an offer more. And the have a council member in their pocket.
LikeLike
Joe, one point you made that I definitely agree with is the idea of controlling people’s knowledge (via narrowed curricula based on high stakes tests for example). But in my district, I think people want what they think will be a “private school quality” education for less than the tuition rates (as much as $24k here). However, I don’t like the idea of sending my tax money to Great Hearts.
(btw, just changed my name to distinguish between us…)
LikeLike
If everyone gets a voucher, er, excuse me, “opportunity scholarship” in order to afford private school, the private schools will just raise their tuition.
LikeLike
That’s a slippery slope argument. We can’t pretend to know what private schools will or will not due. Nothing against you, but it’s just not a logically valid argument. Even if they did raise tuition, what do we think they’ll do with all the money – line their pockets with gold? It’s like everyone is working from the premise that all private schools are run by evil, money-grubbing business men.
LikeLike
For me, this feels like critical mass. Watching the video of the closed door ALEC education committee really reminded me that this is not really about education. It’s about politics, money and power. That is the real motivation. Conservatives have seized ed reform because it is a hot topic with their voters and with their business lobby. These folks mean business and they have all the political levers in place and are making this happen. Charter Schools, Ed reform elected officials, the behind the door organized scripting of legislation. It is working and they have a killer combination in place: testing, policies to create engineered failure for public schools and teachers, and an attractive sounding alternative: choice and charters.
Unless we move to political action, the tide will not turn. Just being outraged changes nothing. Commit to one action a day: Email or call one public official a day with a simple clear message:Public ed is being destroyed before our eyes. We want to improve public ed, not destroy it. The choice movement is not trying to improve public ed, it is trying to end it and capitalize on the public tax money.
LikeLike
Like many of you, I’m opposed to vouchers in education. It seems to me that their primary agenda is to establish a means by which to funnel education dollars away from public schools and into private and/or charter schools.
Never-the-less, I am obliged to rethink that case by a recent article by George Will. He points out that the single most successful voucher program in American History was the GI Bill. I can’t fault that statement. It was definitely a voucher program, though they may not have used the term at the time, and it was amazingly successful.
LikeLike
How well does a point by point analogy hold up?
I am no expert on the GI bill, or the history of ED or exactly how vouchers work.
Perhaps some can weigh in here.
I do know that argument by analogy is generally a weak argument. At some point the analogy does not hold up. Argument by analogy is rarely as good as an argument by logic, evidence or facts. Clearly if the arguer had any logic, evidence or facts to support his case he would present them. That he resorts to argument by analogy shows his argument is probably devoid of logic, evidence or facts.
We frequently see argument by analogy from the anti evolution folks such as the ID creationists. Fellow science teachers will recognize the bogus Mt. Rushmore and or the watchmaker analogies.
LikeLike
Ken,
For me there is a huge difference between the GI bill’s purpose to support veterans in advancing their college education and the public’s constitutional commitment to provide equitable, meaningful basic education for all children. Parents, teachers and communities need to be crucial voices in the ongoing part of this work, not farm it out to corporations to offer consumer choices.
LikeLike
Do teacher preparation programs prepare future teachers to fulfill “public’s constitutional commitment to provide equitable, meaningful basic education for all children?”
LikeLike
Eric, you are kidding, right?
What you describe is the job of elected officials who control policy and budget, not Ed schools.
LikeLike
Yikes. I misread “public’s” to mean “public school’s” (as in shorthand for publics versus privates). Nonetheless, public school educators have responsibilities commensurate with the public’s interest in education.
LikeLike
The George Will argument is stronger if vouchers are limited to those schools that outperform publics on the “true mission of public education—to imbue a clear and compelling sense of purpose for the ideals of our American democracy” (see above reply)
LikeLike
As I said, argument by analogy is a weak argument .
If G. Will thinks vouchers are a good idea, don’t compare them to the GI Bill, just hit facts and logic to show how wonderful modern day, k-12 vouchers are.
LikeLike
Eric,
Can you please explain what you mean by imbuing “a clear and compelling sense of purpose for the ‘ideals’ of our American democracy”?
What exactly are those ideals? What exactly is “our American democracry”?
Thanks,
Duane
LikeLike
And as a follow up, how does one determine “those schools that outperform publics” on. . . ?
LikeLike
For 2 perspectives, see:
Bryk (article/review: Catholic schools offer model for public counterparts)
Rothstein: We Are Not Ready to Assess History Performance
Educators really need a response to that question and both perspectives. Or hide from the courts while trying to elect officeholders willing to not ask and not tell.
This is the best I can do at constructive criticism–please don’t feel picked on. But don’t go to court without a defense for the suspicion that public education has strayed from its core purpose.
LikeLike
RE: “true mission of public education—to imbue a clear and compelling sense of purpose for the ideals of our American democracy.”
Not my words; however, the educators who acknowledge that responsibility ought to be prepared to defend their commitment to the satisfaction of the courts.
How would a “bar exam for teachers” address this commitment? Here’s a thought:
Q: Which of the following might a court find an acceptable excuse for a school districts failure to fulfill the “true mission of public education–to imbue a clear and compelling sense of purpose for the ideals of our American democracy?”
A. That’s an unfunded mandate!
B. We’re too busy implementing teacher and principal evaluations
C. We don’t know what that means
D. Voucher schools aren’t that wonderful either
E. None of the above
I’m thinking the best answer is E. Other Thoughts?
LikeLike
You did not answer the question. If you use the words, be prepared to explain them or at least give a reference to the source document.
LikeLike
The words are me quoting Dr. Ravitch quoting Southold School District Superintendent Gamberg. Personally, I’d defer to court decisions. I’m reading Cremin’s short work on Mann; Dr. Ravitch is one of his students–she’s far better qualified to speak the core purposes of public education. No court cares what I think. (But I care what courts would rule on what Dr. Ravitch thinks!)
LikeLike
The fact is you haven’t answered the questions I asked as pointed out by KM. You gave a somewhat of answer by referencing the Byrk article but without a link. Please summarize. Thanks!
LikeLike
We have our own pseudonym for “vouchers” here in Texas. They are called “Taxpayer Savings Grants.” If Gov. Perry and Senate Education Committee Chair Dan Patrick have their way, Texas will be on it’s way to privatization in no time.
Check it out here: http://taxpayersavingsgrants.org/
I was especially disgusted with their FAQ’s #19 (try to ignore their misuse of affect/effect).
LikeLike
public’s constitutional commitment to provide equitable, meaningful basic education for all children … is the job of elected officials who control policy and budget
The first half of the above quote comes from Steve Cifka; the second half from Dr. Ravitch.
Southold School District Superintendent Gamberg notes the “true mission of public education—to imbue a clear and compelling sense of purpose for the ideals of our American democracy”
A problem arises when elected officials fail to exercise oversight of ed schools–one report (ACE, Touch the Future) suggested ed schools that fail to self-regulate be closed.
Ideally, model legislation would exist to address this lapse–all teachers need fluency in high school civics, since they influence policy makers, endorse candidates, and elect union officials.
Nonetheless, the consensus for civics education–dating from our Constitution’s bicentennial–remains unfulfilled. It’s not credible to blame underfunding or unfunded mandates. Does Sidwell Friends or the Chicago Lab School have a constitutionally adequate civics curricula?
I’ve never seen a cost-out that suggests a constitutionally adequate civics education costs more than what students currently receive.
LikeLike
This discussion has become so bizarre, I almost wish I’d never brought it up. Yet, it may still be worthwhile.
Aren’t Pell Grants essentially vouchers? Does the money go to the student and then to the institution of he/her choice? Or do the funds go directly to the institution?
LikeLike
The difference between the GI Bill and Pell Grants and public education is that those receiving the benefits of the GI Bill/Pell Grants are adults and public education is for minors who are mandated to be in school at least until age 17.
LikeLike
Duane: If the issue for you is the lack of majority of the recipient, I would suggest the education voucher is given to the parent (an adult) on behalf of the student. You are still dealing with an adult. I don’t see the age of the recipient as being a defining issue.
LikeLike
Ken,
Replying here so as to not “string bean” the conversation. My point was not the age of the recipient but the fact that minors are forced to attend whereas the GI Bill recipients are of legal/majority age. It is the concept of the force of government, even on the parents that requires the minor to attend.
And from what I’ve read of Eric’s comments I think he might be on to something in the sense of what is the ultimate purpose of public K-12 education and how that plays out with legal mandates. It needs to be explored more in depth.
LikeLike
Duane: Still don’t see a valid difference. Vouchers are a system of payment, independent of the service being bought.
LikeLike
The most salient portion of the article came at the end: “determine which schools can accept vouchers, decide how to hold participating schools accountable.”
Well-established, high-level private schools aren’t going to jump aboard the voucher bandwagon. They aren’t going to saddle themselves with the state’s “accountability measures” (see TEAM, NCLB waiver, etc.) in order to accept a few students. Some of those schools already offer scholarships for low-income students anyway.
Haslam’s plan simply opens the door for a spate of fly-by-night charters and private schools.
LikeLike
I don’t understand all the anger and resentment towards private schools and homeschooling – the very resentment that underlies anger towards vouchers. If the government requires that you educate your children and requires that you pay taxes to that end, then why wouldn’t you have a choice in where to send your child?
So what if it undermines teacher salaries and increases classroom sizes? I’m not willing to trample fellow citizens’ rights just so I can assure the survival of my job or make it a little less stressful on myself as an educator. Vouchers are not an academic problem, but a moral one. Is it morally right to require taxes of a citizen and then deny them a voice in how and where that money is used – especially in something so important as education? Doesn’t that sound a little familiar to “taxation without representation”? If we want to teach our students to uphold American ideals, then shouldn’t we espouse those ideals in the first place instead of trying to undermine them every time they have a chance of knocking a dollar off our paychecks? Surely, teachers are not such bigots.
Some may say that the Catholics have been doing fine with their privately funded schools, but not every religion has coffers so full. We gripe and complain out of one side of our mouths about the lack of quality in private schools, but then we scream against state funding that would improve them out of the other side. That’s called hypocrisy.
Furthermore, if I were Muslim or Jewish or Christian or any other religion, I would rightly have several issues with what my children were being taught. Yet, the government would effectively force my hand because I wouldn’t have the money for a private religious school. Likewise, many teachers are forced to go against religious convictions because the state monopolizes curriculum choices and educational funding.
We say that we want to uphold American ideals, but the reality is that we want to run children through government-mandated cattle gates that teach a muddy, humanistic world-view often contrary to the parents religious convictions and intentions.
In a world without vouchers, teachers are the only clear winners – at the expense of students, parents, and society.
Now, I’m not going to pretend that this issue isn’t complex or that I have all answers, but for there to be real freedom in the realm of education for teachers, students, and parents, then ideas like vouchers need to at least be tried. Even if they fail, we will learn something from the process and proceed with better ideas next time. This is progress.
At the end of the day, we can’t really say that we have the students’ best interest in mind when we rail against vouchers. Vouchers protect private religious and other schools that protect the unique worldviews of individual families. What we really have in mind is the propagation of our narrow world-views and the protection of our precious dollars no matter whose religion, convictions, or rights get trampled.
LikeLike
What about rights and choice and freedom for the massive amount of poverty stricken children? You know, the ones who can’t afford a private school even with a voucher? Or the ones who aren’t selected in the “lottery” to attend the shiny charter school? Or the ones with special needs who are kicked out of the charter/private schools? Or the ones with discipline problems who are thrown out? Or the ones who can’t afford transportation to a different school? Where are their rights to a Free and Appropriate Education when their neighborhood public school has been clised down or stripped of funding and high performing students? Why not make all of our public schools stellar instead of throwing away BILLIONS of dollars on standardized testing and campaigning for privatization?
LikeLike
Thank you for your reply, TexasTeacher.
I don’t mean to stir up controversy, and I certainly don’t want to harm children in poverty. While I understand your point, it’s just too large of a stretch to say that the support of vouchers will spell the doom of public education. All I’m saying is that experiments like vouchers must be tried. Mistakes may be made and dangers revealed, but vouchers take a step in the direction of greater choice and freedom on the part of parents and students – especially religiously.
What is happening now is that a certain demographic, mostly religious, are being forgotten, even maligned, in our current system. None of us want the pendulum to swing the complete opposite direction, harming another demographic of people. What I think everyone does want, however, is for the pendulum to swing to the middle – a place where good private and public options exist for both minorities and majorities that would cater to their unique religions/world-views.
A Christian, Muslim, or other religiously affiliated child is guaranteed to receive teaching that is offensive to themselves and/or their parents. Yet, these parents have no other choice than to send their children to public schools because they do not have the money to send them to private religious schools. They’re simply pigeon-holed.
Some may say that isn’t true, but schools, by definition, present students with what is considered fact. 35 hours a week, a child is presented with a world-view that must derive itself from the topics being taught. The elephant in the room is evolution, and the inevitable world-views that result are atheism and humanism.
I understand that vouchers can go awry – that there are ditches on both sides that could be fallen into – but the way it stands now, we’re lying in one of those ditches. The answer isn’t to fear vouchers, but to make sure legislators know the dangers so they can curtail them when implementing these progressive ideas.
LikeLike
Sam: “A Christian, Muslim, or other religiously affiliated child is guaranteed to receive teaching that is offensive to themselves and/or their parents.”
As a retired teacher and a 37 year veteran of teaching in suburban Washington state, I take particular offense at this statement. For twenty years I taught units on the Middle East, including lessons on Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I prided myself on the objectivity and sensitivity of those lessons. I find you comment insulting!
LikeLike
Haven’t vouchers already been tried? Or are we supposed to ignore the fact that they have been tried and failed in other states/countries? Perhaps it will be different here. I am not arguing your point that the present state of public schools needs changing. I am not advocating for a prolongation of the status quo by any means. I just don’t believe vouchers are the answer. Vouchers might help SOME students, but I would like to find something to help ALL students. I don’t understand why we don’t focus on improving the public schools with REAL reform rather than crippling our schools with standardized testing and budget cuts.
As for vouchers being the “doom” of public education, I suppose it depends on your definition of “doom.” I believe it will be doom for many schools, and those schools will primarily be in the poorer districts. The very children who need the most assistance will get the short end of the stick. I believe that public education is a basic right and that all students should be given equal opportunities through public schools. Affluent areas may always have more money and parental involvement, but there is no excuse for the imbalance of basic school provisions like libraries, fine arts programs, air conditioning, etc.
I agree and disagree with you on the “pigeon-holing” of religious students. Poor students are also “pigeon-holed” though for different reasons. I agree that some curriculum is biased, and may be offensive to some students. I agree that needs to change. I can name a number of people on the SBOE that continue to push their religious ideal upon the curriculum. But I digress…I think that schools should teach all sides, and teach also that some people regard one side as fact while others regard it as theory, and that is their right.
Schools should teach tolerance, but parents are responsible for instilling a certain amount of judgement, and traditional moral values that they believe are important to their individual family. Students should come out of school with an ability to think for themselves, ask intelligent, creative questions, and have a sense of individuality and purpose. Too many students wander aimlessly through their lives not knowing what to do with themselves because they were never taught to think for themselves!
The thing that bothers me the most about charters/private schools is their discrimination against students with special needs, discipline issues, parents who are unable to volunteer hours, transportation issues. I fear we are headed for a new era of segregation in the schools. These schools will say they are “open to the public” but they don’t play by the same rules as public schools, and no one holds them accountable. Public schools are required to deal with ALL students while private/charter schools can pick and choose. I don’t believe all charters/private schools are bad. Some of them are quite good, but not enough of them are good to make a difference. Lucky are the chosen students. Too bad for the rest.
LikeLike
Sam,
I’ll respond to your post in a new post as I can’t stand these “string bean” or “Chilean” posts.
LikeLike
the reality is that we want to run children through government-mandated cattle gates that teach a muddy, humanistic world-view often contrary to the parents religious convictions and intentions.
Reality might be more nuanced–perhaps ed schools merely groom candidates to model knowledge, skills and dispositions that represent an enlightened world view rather than respect for American pluralism.
Horace Mann saved public education from “violent attack” His opponents claimed “public schools are Godless schools” that “counterpoise to religious instruction at home and in Sabbath schools.”
Mann reported in 1848, “If parents find that their children are indoctrinated into what they call political heresies, will they not withdraw them from the school? and, if they withdraw them from the school, will they not resist all appropriations to support a school from which they derive no benefit?”
In contrast, are today’s teachers trained to “protect the unique worldviews of individual families?” Sam says, “No.” If he is right, the public education doomsday clock advances toward midnight.
Ed school deans might want to avoid any role in destroying the future employers of their students!
LikeLike
Do NEA Members Want David Gelernter’s Support for Public Education?
David Gelernter is very smart, technologically savvy, and politically conservative. Past NEA counsel Bob Chanin probably considers Dr. Gelernter a “right wing bastard:”
“Why are conservative and right wing bastards picking on NEA and its affiliates? It is the price we pay for success. NEA and its affiliates have been singled out because they are the most effective unions in the United States and they are the nation’s leading advocates for public education and for the type of liberal social and economic agenda and social agenda that these (conservative) groups find unacceptable. NEA will continue to be attacked as long as we continue to be effective advocates for public education for education employees and for human and civil rights.”
Here is Gelernter’s response to the question, “What would happen if academics ran America?”
“Look around you. You would have people graduating from high school and from college who know no American history, who have no concept of what this nation is for and what it achieved, who have no concept of what the nation stands for, why it should inspire them, why they should take care of it, why it’s any different from Denmark or Norway or Portugal. You’d have students graduating with no grasp of literature, having barely glanced at any of the great and deep artistic and spiritual traditions of the West. You’d have students graduating in this country that emerged from the Bible, this biblical republic, who’ve never opened the Bible in their lives and who’ve been taught that it is toxic. You’d have students emerging from colleges like Yale with ideas that families as traditionally constituted are the problem and that the sooner we can do away with them the better, and that heterosexuality is one random choice on a very long and growing list. Look around you and you can see exactly what would happen. It has happened and it’s a tragedy.”
Compare his response to court-approved goals for public education:
– Sufficient oral and written communication skills to function socially and economically …
– Sufficient knowledge of economic, social and political systems, generally, and of the history, policies, and social structure of Ohio and the nation and enable the student to make informed decisions;
– Sufficient understanding of governmental processes and of basic civic institutions to enable the student to understand and contribute to the issues that affect his or her community, state, and nation;
– Sufficient understanding of the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or her cultural heritage and the cultural heritages of others;
– Sufficient monitoring by the General Assembly to assure that this State’s common schools are being operated without there being mismanagement, waste or misuse of funds;
What are the consequences for public education if educators follow Bob Chanin’s lead and dismiss the concerns of Dr. Gelernter?
Hint (Horace Mann, 1848): “If parents find that their children are indoctrinated into what they call political heresies, will they not withdraw them from the school? and, if they withdraw them from the school, will they not resist all appropriations to support a school from which they derive no benefit?”
Note: I’m not discussing Dr. Gelernter’s views on gay rights. But it is fair to acknowledge that many teacher prep programs operate on campuses where political correctness dwarfs the role of Ye Olde Deluder Satan in American public education. For one example, see: Christian librarian loses suit vs. OSU (The press coverage does not discuss errors of judgment OSU admitted.)
LikeLike
The broken link above is:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2010/06/09/christian-librarian-loses-suit-vs-osu.html
LikeLike
And from what I’ve read of Eric’s comments I think he might be on to something in the sense of what is the ultimate purpose of public K-12 education and how that plays out with legal mandates. It needs to be explored more in depth.
I’m game, but lets move to a new post:
Please reply there with comments regarding questions that ought to be asked of US Department of Education nominees. What should their priorities be?
– public’s constitutional commitment to provide equitable, meaningful basic education for all children … is the job of elected officials who control policy and budget
– true mission of public education—to imbue a clear and compelling sense of purpose for the ideals of our American democracy
LikeLike
I don’t mean to stir up controversy, and I certainly don’t want to harm children in poverty. While I understand your point, it’s just too large of a stretch to say that the support of vouchers will spell the doom of public education. All I’m saying is that experiments like vouchers must be tried. Mistakes may be made and dangers revealed, but vouchers take a step in the direction of greater choice and freedom on the part of parents and students – especially religiously.
What is happening now is that a certain demographic, mostly religious, are being forgotten, even maligned, in our current system. None of us want the pendulum to swing the complete opposite direction, harming another demographic of people. What I think everyone does want, however, is for the pendulum to swing to the middle – a place where good private and public options exist for both minorities and majorities that would cater to their unique religions/world-views.
A Christian, Muslim, or other religiously affiliated child is guaranteed to receive teaching that is offensive to themselves and/or their parents. Yet, these parents have no other choice than to send their children to public schools because they do not have the money to send them to private religious schools. They’re simply pigeon-holed.
Some may say that isn’t true, but schools, by definition, present students with what is considered fact. 35 hours a week, a child is presented with a world-view that must derive itself from the topics being taught. The elephant in the room is evolution, and the inevitable world-views that result are atheism and humanism.
I understand that vouchers can go awry – that there are ditches on both sides that could be fallen into – but the way it stands now, we’re lying in one of those ditches. The answer isn’t to fear vouchers, but to make sure legislators know the dangers so they can curtail them when implementing these progressive ideas.
Sam,
No, the religious aren’t being forgotten. They were never meant to be a part of the public education system in this country. Many states (since it is a state function to provide public education) have very strict separation clauses in their constitutions. The pendulum was never meant to swing towards the religious, ever. And no a xtian or muslim or hindi or wiccan or jew (except in NY where there are jewish public schools for the jews only-an abomination) has a claim on public funds for their schools.
And no the elephant in the room isn’t evolution, atheism and humanism, the elephant that is trying to get into the room is fundamental evangelical xtianism. Keep your religion to yourself. And no, this country was not founded on xtian principles. See Susan Jacoby for a complete take down of that idea.
Keep your xtianity to yourself, thank you. Teach it in your churches and at home but not in the public education sphere.
LikeLike
Damn forgot to put Sam’s post in quotes.
LikeLike
“… religious aren’t being forgotten. They were never meant to be a part of the public education system in this country.”
I don’t see a fair reading of Horace Mann supporting that.
Nor would I want to see a mass exodus from public schools leading to demand for vouchers.
LikeLike