The News-Observer of North Carolina, one of the state’s leading newspapers, published an excellent editorial decrying the state’s ill-conceived voucher program. The editorial board recognizes that the purpose of the voucher program is nothing more nor less than to cripple the state’s once-highly regarded public schools, which have done so much to build the state’s economy over the past century.
The voucher is worth all of $4,200, and it does not include the cost of items such as transportation or food. What kind of school can provide a good education on that small amount of money? Over the next decade, the costs of vouchers will increase every year, at the expense of the state’s public schools. A large part of the voucher funding will go to subsidize the tuition of students who are already enrolled in private schools. The newspaper predicts that none of the voucher students will enroll in the elite private schools where wealthy Republicans send their own children.
There’s a cynical side to this entire program as well. Yes, the $4,200 can cover a lot of expense at small church schools, for example, but wealthy Republicans aren’t going to see any of the Opportunity Scholarship recipients in the state’s most exclusive private schools, the ones that cater to wealthy families. Tuition in those schools is often $20,000 and above.
Parents with kids in public schools where arts and physical education programs are threatened, where the best teachers are leaving the profession to earn a better living, might point directly to Republicans in the General Assembly as the culprits. This voucher program was little more than a slap at public schools, which Republicans have targeted since taking control of the General Assembly in 2011.
Republicans in North Carolina should be ashamed of themselves for passing vouchers. The schools that accept voucher students are far inferior to the state’s public schools. Their curriculum, their programs, their teachers, their extracurricular activities, their provision for students with special needs–all are inferior to the state’s public schools.
Those who voted for this program and who vote to harm public schools should be voted out of office. Their goal is not to offer opportunity to students who are poor and struggling; their goal is privatization, regardless of the consequences for the children and the state.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article165488352.html#storylink=cpy
Diane Ravitch's blog 
They’ll up the subsidy amount every year. The initial funding amount is just to get it past the public.
Meanwhile, none of the public employees can be bothered with the public schools.
Incidentally, every critic who said charters would lead to vouchers was right.
Ed reform is pushing vouchers in every state. They go directly from charters to vouchers because once you’ve redefined “public” to mean “publicly funded” what’s the difference? Any contractor will do.
Ed reformers aren’t going to be remembered for pushing charter and vouchers. Their real legacy will be 20 years of ignoring public schools.
You can’t get them off charters and vouchers. It is literally the only thing they talk about.
The Ohio legislature spends whole sessions on 5% of schools. It’s not even “5% of low income schools” because there are plenty of low income public schools – they simply aren’t interested in the schools the vast majority of children attend.
Speaking of the arts and other subjects, Utah is no longer requiring health, arts, and PE in middle school. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686321/PE-health-arts-no-longer-middle-school-core-requirements.html
Q The schools that accept voucher students are far inferior to the state’s public schools. Their curriculum, their programs, their teachers, their extracurricular activities, their provision for students with special needs–all are inferior to the state’s public schools. END Q
How can you make this statement? Do you personally know that ALL of the (non-public) schools in North Carolina, are inferior to all of the publicly-operated schools in the state?
Do you have empirical data, to support this claim?
Charles, how can you ask this when you support your thinking by providing links to misleading, biased, opinionated conservative sources?
“Do you have empirical data, to support this claim?”
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.
Charles, what about facts? Why do we have to have scientists observing or experimenting while recording and analyzing the data they are collecting?
How about these sources? Gee, they even mention “empirical evidence”.
Vouchers Found to Lower Test Scores in Washington Schools
“The examination of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the only federally funded voucher program in the country, by the department’s Institute of Education Sciences, found that students who attended a private school through the program performed worse on standardized tests than their public school counterparts who did not use the vouchers.”
“Four recent rigorous studies—in the District of Columbia, Louisiana, Indiana, and Ohio—used different research designs and reached the same result: on average, students that use vouchers to attend private schools do less well on tests than similar students that do not attend private schools. The Louisiana and Indiana studies offer some hints that negative effects may diminish over time. Whether effects ever will become positive is unclear.”
Click to access ccf_20170713_mdynarski_evidence_speaks1.pdf
“Public school students consistently outperformed voucher students on statewide test scores from 2011 to 2014. The one study held up by choice advocates shows only limited instances in which voucher students performed better, and the study couldn’t determine whether the voucher schools themselves or other factors were the reason.”
“We rate her statement Mostly True.”
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/28/mary-burke/no-evidence-students-voucher-schools-perform-bette/
A flurry of new research on private school vouchers – one of the Trump administration’s major education priorities – does little to bolster arguments of advocates or their opponents, as the studies show little difference in the academic achievement between students enrolled in private schools through a voucher program and their public school counterparts.”
https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2017-06-26/on-private-school-vouchers-a-mixed-bag-of-research
I have as much contempt for the NYT, that you have for the National Review. It is really pointless, to get into a p****ng contest.
We should just agree, that the data currently available, and the studies on school choice/vouchers, lead different researchers to different conclusions.
Thank you, Charles. I expected you to attack the NYT and ignore all the quotes and links to the reputable sources/studies the NYT used in the piece, and then I followed that example with all of those other sources that were not the NYT.
I deliberately set you up by leading with the link to the NYT piece. I figured that once you saw it was from the NYT, you would ignore it and label it is false news in your head.
Then I added others from other sources that all linked to studies on this issue.
Do you know what tunnel vision is? You ignored the message (valid studies proving that vouchers don’t work) and shot the messenger (NYT), and then ignored all the other messages from the other messengers.
The NYT admits that it is biased and supports liberal issues, whatever that means, but that does not mean the NYT is equal to or even close to the manipulative bias from the sources you refer to support what you think.
Thank you again. You did not disappoint. Even if you don’t approve of Trump, I think that you are the exact type of person that the extreme, Alt-Right targets with its conspiracy theories and manipulating cherry-picked lies.
You have been well trained to ignore any sources that provide info that does not agree with what your puppet masters want you to think.
Nancy MacLean talks about this in her new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America. A great read and I highly recommend it.
North Carolina Private Schools
source: Private School Review.
Obviously, a voucher in the amount of $4,200, will not cover the average cost of a private school in North Carolina. Some parents may choose a private school, with a tuition lower than the average. Some families will augment the voucher, with their own funds. Some private schools may offer partial scholarships, or assist the families who wish to attend, in obtaining financial aid from other sources.
And when the voucher program is operational, some school operators may adjust their tuition rates to more closely meet the voucher amount.
The odds are against voting these minions out of office. Studies show that more than 80 percent of elections are won by the candidate with the most money, and the ALEC candidates are almost always going to have more money with support from the lying, conspiracy theory generating Alt-Right media that at least 32 percent of adults (those who support #FakePresident Trump) turn to for their (fake) news.
The proposal in NC offers a voucher in the amount of $4,200. This is approximately equivalent to the per-pupil expenditure, for a K-12 student in North Carolina. Obviously, a voucher in the amount of $4,200, is not adequate to meet the costs of a school which charges more.
In most states with choice programs, the voucher/ESA is generally in the range of the PPE for that state. (Arizona’s ESA program is for 90% of the PPE). Publicly-operated schools have an “economy of scale”, which enables (most) public-schools to offer educational services for a lesser amount than a small non-public school.
Voucher opponents point out (correctly) that a voucher in the amount of X dollars, is not going to pay the costs of an education which costs X+ dollars. These low-amount vouchers are not going to provide (adequate) funding to a low-income family to attend a school which charges more than the amount of the voucher.
But why do all vouchers have to be equivalent? I just read an article, where the author proposed setting up vouchers on a “sliding scale”. The amount of the voucher could be adjusted (up or down), based on the family income. If a family can already afford tuition at a toney prep school, why take tax money from others to subsidize the education of a rich child?
see for yourself:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/education/334608-school-choice-the-fastest-track-to-integration
Charles,
This is a blog for people who support public schools and teachers. We are trying together to stay informed about the attacks on public schools and how to stop privatization.
You really are not posting your comments in the right place. You are like a Boston Red Sox fanatic in the Yankee dugout. Or a Yankee fanatic in the Red Sox dugout.
I mean no disrespect, but you should consider the possibility that you are wasting your time.
I support public schools, and ALL teachers. Especially, the hard-working underpaid professionals in our toughest schools. These people are heroes.
It is no fun to be in an echo chamber, where everyone sees the problem the same.
Charles,
We see the problems from a common sense perspective, based on the many years of experience of the teachers and parents who read this blog.
We don’t take cues from CATO or the Heritage Foundation or the National Review, all of which are rightwing outlets that would privatize our public schools.
This is no echo chamber. It is a forum for discussion of how best to improve our public schools, not destroy or privatize them. You keep saying “privatize, privatize, privatize,” and that is not what this blog is about.
No one here thinks the public schools are just right as they are. We are engaged in a discussion about making them better, not getting rid of them or turning them over to entrepreneurs or religious groups, as you propose.
If you went to a blog for vegetarians and kept urging people to eat meat, you would get the same reception.
If you went to a pro-Trump blog and argued for the superiority of Hillary Clinton, you would get the same reception.
“If you went to a pro-Trump blog and argued for the superiority of Hillary Clinton, you would get the same reception.”
Ah, I suspect, if he did this one, the odds would be high that he’d end up with death threats, his computer would probably be hacked and taken over by ransomware or some other virus.
The trolls and bullies that belong to #FakePresident Donald Trump’s club of hate and racism would come out of the woodwork to attack Charles. And whoever hosted that pro-Trump site, would delete his comments and block him.
The banner on your site reads:
Q A site to discuss better education for all END Q (sic)
You also say:
Q This is a blog for people who support public schools and teachers END Q
Since I believe that both of these statements are true, then I am in the right place.
I support a better education for all, and I support public schools and teachers. And I believe that all means “all”.
I believe that all of America’s children are entitled to a solid, excellent education. Whether the education is obtained in a public school, a private school, a parochial school, a military school, or a home-school, does not matter to me.
The only place where any of us differ, is on how and where the education is obtained.
I believe sincerely, that most (NOT ALL) parents can be trusted to make the right choices for their children. Some parents are alcoholics and crack-addicts, and are not fit to be raising children.
Charles,
We disagree. The only nations that have followed your advice (same as Trump and DeVos) are Chile and Sweden. The results have been awful in both places. Free markets have winners and losers. The poor are the losers.
This site is committed to better public schools for all, not to private schools and for-profit schools and religious schools and home schooling supported by government funding. Did you get that, Charles? Better public schools.
You are not in the right place, but you can keep posting if you want to waste your time.
I get the fact that the posters here (generally) support keeping the “status quo”, and keeping children in publicly-operated schools, with no alternatives. This I understand.
I too, believe that if a publicly-operated schools is delivering a quality education, and that parents/children are satisfied, then this should continue. (If it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it).
There are many excellent public schools in the USA. Some of them are here in Fairfax County, VA. The techniques and programs of these schools, should be emulated nationwide.
Why is there virtually no discussion, on how to improve educational opportunities for the gifted/talented? I am of the opinion, that the nation’s public schools, are not meeting the needs of the gifted/talented, to assist these children in meeting their fullest potential.
Montgomery County Maryland (across the river from my home) is doing some terrific things in their public schools. See
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/montgomery-schools-chief-proposes-expansion-to-language-career-programs/2016/12/19/c560fb4e-c08c-11e6-b527-949c5893595e_story.html?spon_con=etspulseb&utm_term=.701e5042502b
I would love to see public schools, expanding foreign-language programs. Another area, I would like to see, is additional career preparation and resources devoted to the non-college bound, including apprenticeships, and co-operative learning with private industry.
One thing is for certain. I will never “bash” public schools. Nevertheless, the time is here for some “tough love”, and doing more to meet the needs of ALL students, to prepare them for careers in the 21st century.
Charles,
What you propose has already failed. Privatization does not make public services better. It undermines their quality.
No one on this blog supports the status quo. The status quo was established by federal law in January 2002. The law was called No Child Left Behind. It turned schools into testing factories. No one who writes on this blog supports this.
The status quo is defined by the powerful. The powerful are Trump and DeVos, and governors such as Scott Walker, Rick Scott, John Kasich, Rick Snyder, etc.
We oppose the status quo. The status quo is on the same side as you.
We are fighting it as hard as we can.
We fight for public schools under democratic control. We fight for better public schools.
Since you support public funding of private entrepreneurs and religious schools, you will always be in a very small minority on this blog. This is a blog that supports public schools and public school teachers. Can I say it any more clearly ?
You have stated: Q The only nations that have followed your advice (same as Trump and DeVos) are Chile and Sweden. END Q
Why do you say this?
You also say:
Q Or as Diane Ravitch pointed out in a 2001 article, “The proportion of students in government-funded private schools is sizable in countries such as Australia (25 percent), Belgium (58 percent), Denmark (11 percent), France (16.8 percent), South Korea (21 percent), the Netherlands (76 percent), Spain (24 percent), and the United Kingdom (30 percent).” END Q
source:
https://www.edchoice.org/school_choice_faqs/how-does-school-choice-work-in-other-countries/
also
Q the OECD’s reports show that, of the 53 participants, 25 countries’ governments (nine of which have top 20 PISA scores overall) provide vouchers and/or tuition tax credits for students to attend private schools (see accompanied table). END Q
School choice is operating in nations all over the world, including Pakistan and South Korea.
Why do you say only two nations have school choice?
Charles,
You quote an article I wrote when I was a rightwinger.
What has made the US distinctive in the past, among other things, is that we don’t have separate schools by religion and ethnicity as some other nations do. America should be America, a land where common schools welcome all and teach all who enter the basics of citizenship. We are not a nation where the government subsidizes religious and ethnic schools, not until now.
There are only two nations that swallowed the free market toxins: Chile and Sweden, and both regret it.
Q We are not a nation where the government subsidizes religious and ethnic schools, not until now. END Q
I disagree with this statement. When the USA began experiencing the great immigration from primarily Catholic nations like Ireland and Italy, the publicly operated schools started to indoctrinate the new children with the King James Bible, and attempted to “protestantize” them.
see
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/twelve-year-sentence-historical-origins-compulsory-schooling
When Catholic parents saw this occurring, this began the movement to establish Roman Catholic schools in this nation. Some states brought in amendments to their state constitutions to block public financial support to religiously-operated schools.
I remember going to public school in 1962, and being compelled to pray by the teacher. And I remember the school cafeteria always serving fish on Fridays, because of the Roman Catholic children could not eat meat. I even remember the prayers we had to say before lunch.
Our nation has abolished (public) school prayer, because of Abingdon v. Schempp. (1963)
Our nation now supports all types of non-religious enterprises, including homeless shelters, battered-women’s shelters, food pantries, drug-rehabilitation programs, etc. with tax dollars. All of this is perfectly legal, because it is not “establishing” religion.
The recent case of Trinity School District v. Pauley (2017), and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), permit the funding of school vouchers, and non-religious secular financial support to religiously-operated schools.
BTW- Interesting factoid. I used to work for the US Census Bureau. The Census Bureau used to classify Irish and Italian as separate races.
Charles,
When legislators offer a voucher equivalent to tuition in a school for the children of the elite, let me know. Then I will take them seriously. Until then, what they offer is simply a fraud. Poor kids need more services and better qualified teachers, not a school that has inexperienced, uncertified teachers, a curriculum that is anti-science, and no provision for children with disabilities.
I have not yet seen any state/municipality proffering vouchers equivalent to the cost of an elite prep school. Maybe it is about time.
I would like to see a voucher program, which was based on family income. Wealthy families who are already sending their children to a high-cost school, do not need a voucher, so why give them one?
Lower-income families, who do not have the resources to afford an expensive school, should be given more financial support.
Of course, children from poverty backgrounds, need more support, including logistical support. Additional nutritional support, computer/internet services, tutoring, etc. can all be assigned on a needs basis. What a concept!
With school choice, additional resources can be directed at the special-needs community. Smaller, specialty schools can be supported, to provide the learning-disabled with the additional resources that they need.
AND- School choice/vouchers can be a real boon to the gifted/talented children. Additional resources can be directed towards our brightest children to assist them in reaching their fullest potential.
This is an exciting time!
No, Charles. We have seen what vouchers did to Chile and Sweden: Lower scores and higher segregation.
We have seen study after study agreeing that students who get vouchers get lower test scores than their peers in public schools.
You are posting on the wrong blog. Stop.