Thomas Toch and Phyllis W. Jordan write here about the failure of the D.C. voucher program, which has been hailed by the Trump administration as a great success. As they explain, it is not.
Mike Pence called it “a case study in school choice success.”
Far from it.
As the authors point out, significant numbers of families have turned down vouchers or abandoned their voucher school. Many students struggle academically.
“The theory behind the initiative is to give D.C.’s low-income families more and better educational opportunities by supplying them with tax dollars to send their children to private schools. Fine. But voucher enrollment in the nation’s capital dropped for four straight years, from 1,638 in the 2013-2014 school year to 1,154 in the 2016-2017 year. More striking, greater than half the new students offered vouchers last year didn’t use them…
“Low-income parents unfamiliar with the private school landscape must navigate each school’s admissions system separately. Students are awarded vouchers after many private schools have finished their admissions processes. And voucher winners must meet the admissions standards of the schools to which they apply. In this sense, the 47 schools participating in the program are choosing students, rather than the other way around…
“While federal law lacks accountability for schools, it calls for independent assessments of student progress. Between 2012 and 2014, federal researchers tested three sample cohorts of D.C. students in the year after receiving vouchers. Those who won vouchers did worse in math in their first year than students who competed in the voucher lottery but did not receive them.
“Perhaps that’s not surprising, given that nearly half the students in the program attend private schools that sprung up to serve voucher students, sometimes in storefronts, according to a 2013 report by the federal government. About 3 percent were enrolled in independent schools such as Sidwell Friends and Georgetown Day. Most of the rest attended Catholic schools, though few went to the most competitive Catholic schools, such as St. Anselm’s Abbey School.”
Toch and Jordan support charter schools, so believe that the voucher program pales in comparison to the charter and public sectors.
Some of us don’t believe that school choice is the solution to the problems of urban districts. It may in reality be a false solution, since both charters and vouchers choose their students and operate under laxer supervision than the public schools.
Nonetheless it is good to be reminded that the Trump administration’s education agenda of choice-choice-choice is a shell game.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
When there are ONLY BAD choices, there really ARE NO Choices at ALL.
Much said in few words.
Two more points.
First, as a rule rheephorm choices [often sooner, sometimes later] are made by the few for the many. The choices reflect what the few beneficiaries of corporate education reform consider important for themselves; the rest of us aka the vast majority are an after thought—except for the handing over the money part. And always keeping in mind that they avoid “burdensome” “over-regulation” truth-in-packaging because they employ Trump’s “truthful hyperbole” in order to sell their eduproducts as good for everyone else aka “It’s all for the kids!”
😝
Second, for these self-proclaimed mavens of business-minded data-driven decision-making [3DM] they have no trouble tossing numbers around and massaging & torturing the stats—except when their choices like vouchers are chosen by a shrinking consumer base. Indicating, you would think, that rheephorm choices need to be replaced by something more popular and effective and of higher quality that more and more, not less and less, people choose.
🙁
Thanks for keeping it real, not rheeal.
😎
“Reform” is mostly an exercise in following the money from the testing companies, corporations and Silicon Valley. Communities should be skeptical of the “reformer” pitch and ask themselves, “Who benefits from this?”
The co-opted and corrupt pro-charter advocates believe choice IS accountability. It gives them license to look the other way at any wrong-doing by schools. No need to have rules or regulations. No need to worry if the school is targeting gay children, or children with disabilities, or children who are the wrong race, religion or for whatever reason are not longer profitable or desirable for the school to teach.
Because after all, if a taxpayer funded school is doing terrible things, the parents can leave! They can choose another school. There is no need to have any regulations at all. Because choice. Schools should be free to discriminate and humiliate. Because choice.
When you have choice, according to the pro-charter right wing funded “educational” think tanks that are really PR firms for the right wing privatization movement, you have all the oversight you need.
Choice = “we have no need to do any oversight because the parents chose the school”.
And there is no greater example of it than the SUNY Charter Institute which does its’ oversight in exactly this way. Parent complaints? “But look, there are parents there and a demand, so why would we do any oversight?” School “model” teacher who trains other teacher targeting a struggling at-risk student and punishing her? “But look there are long wait lists so why would we do any oversight?”
Choice gives license to the most co-opted and corrupt elements justify their total and complete abandonment of oversight because “the parent can just pull their kid out if their child is being mistreated and choose another school”! Choice uber alles. No oversight necessary.
After all, that oversight is expensive and a total waste of money. Choice. Why spend the money on oversight when it go into the pockets of charter operators?
What is exactly why corporate education reform is, in practice, the antithesis of responsibility.
And the poster child for hypocrisy. In order to scoop up as much loot aka $tudent $ucce$$ as possible, self-proclaimed rheephormers will pick up on every complaint, rumor or whiff of negative “fake news” regarding public schools. Ah, but when it comes to the deeply troubling and endemic problems with their charters and vouchers and such—
Nothing to see here. Move along. Go somewhere else and quit yapping if you don’t like this or that educational franchise/gimmick/panacea.
And, of course, they cheerfully peddle their insincerity because the first people they fool are themselves. As a very dead and very old and very Greek guy reminds us, the type was known long ago:
“A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true.” [Demosthenes]
😎
P.S. The only exemptions for the heavyweights and chief beneficiaries of rheephorm? Ponder this: why do they send THEIR OWN CHILDREN to schools like Lakeside [Bill Gates and children] when what’s good for the Golden Geese should be good for peon ganders?
There is an awful lot of “market based magical thinking” going on in “reform.” It is irresponsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money and the well being of our children. Children do not belong in an unstable market. All children belong in a stable, well resourced school with trained professionals. This is a civic duty which too many politicians ignore when they push for charters or vouchers. Lots of “reform” is a gigantic pay to play scheme. Too many elected officials jump on the “reform” bandwagon for campaign donations, and some are even invested in charters.
The really ugly and nasty thing about “the market” is that it INCENTIVIZES charters to push out the students who are unprofitable.
And if a charter tries NOT to do what those market forces are demanding that the charter does — then they are crappy and are shut down! What kind of school keeps their students that are more expensive to teach? One that is bankrupted and closed down! One whose test scores look so lousy the authorizers are delighted to shut them down. That is the market.
We have reformers who are no more honest than Donald Trump. Like
Trump, they have absolutely no problem saying whatever will make the sale. And their understanding of the “market” is as truthful as Trump’s.
After all, Trump is repealing Obamacare and replacing it with “charter” health insurance where the market will make everything wonderful!
Charter health insurance companies will model themselves after charter schools and insure the Americans that are profitable and dump the ones that aren’t.
Who needs regulations? Trump says this new insurance will work great as long as you happen to be one of the healthy Americans! And the rest can rot!
Just like charter folks who have already established this system in education are saying “it’s great, as long as you are one of the “worthy” (i.e. cheapest to teach) children! And the rest can rot!”
There is no difference between the ethics of the charters and Donald Trump. Except — as sad as it is — Trump is actually a bit more honest about his complete disregard for any American who has no value to him. Charters fake concern for the children they don’t care about at all. Trump just tells us outright that we shouldn’t even care about those people.
Politicans cannot think out of the box. They are tied to “the market.” Sad. Their schema is limited.
The school choice program in our nation’s capital is going to be extended. see
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/congress-expected-to-reauthorize-dc-school-vouchers-in-sweeping-budget-deal/2017/05/01/d20dbce0-2ea2-11e7-9dec-764dc781686f_story.html?utm_term=.f1b62cfc5b54
The latest federal evaluation of the DC choice program shows kids’ test scores go down when they get a voucher. Most will drop out and return to the public schools.
It is a disaster but Republicans don’t care about results or kids.