Archives for category: School Choice

Steven Singer, teacher and blogger in Pennsylvania, sums up the top ten reasons to reject school choice. Since National School Choice Week occurred just recently, Singer thought it was an appropriate time to explain what’s wrong with school choice.

 

  1. Voucher programs seldom provide full tuition, so parents must make up the difference. Wealthy parents and middle-income parents can do that, but not poor parents.
  2. Schools of choice don’t have to accept anyone who applies. The real choice belongs to the school. It gets to choose the students it wants.
  3. Charter schools are notorious for kicking out students they don’t want.
  4. Vouchers and charters offer less choice than public schools. If you don’t like the way they operate, you can choose to leave.
  5. Charter schools [and voucher schools] do no better and often much worse than public schools.
  6. Charter schools and voucher schools increase segregation.

 

 

To learn about the other four reasons why school choice is a bad choice, open and read the post.

 

 

 

Jeb Bush hasn’t made much headway in the polls but he is hanging in there, the favorite of the GOP establishment and the best-funded.

 

He recently announced his plan for reforming American education, and it is a paean to school choice. He just doesn’t like public education, period.

 

Peter Greene has performed a public service for us by reviewing Jeb’s proposals. He does so in part 1 and part 2.

 

i will give you some pithy excerpts and encourage you to read the whole thing by yourself.

 

This is from part 1:

 

“For all the conservative love for choice and freedom, it never seems to include the choice and freedom to do things that conservatives believe are Very Wrong, or to say, “We will pick our own choices to choose from, thanks.” That’s in part because the very idea of school choice is fundamentally flawed.

 

“First, nobody wants choice. Rich kids don’t have an advantage because they have choice– they have an advantage because they have access to an excellent education. People want a good school. That’s it. If someone gets a restaurant meal that is undercooked and cold, they don’t say, “Bring me a dozen mediocre meals to chose from.” They want what they want, done right.

 

“Second, choice is not “budget neutral.” When facing a tight budget, no school district says, “No need to shut down any buildings. It wouldn’t save us any money.” You can’t operate several sets of schools (with several sets of administrators) for the cost of one. Anybody who tries to set up a choice system without a plan to fully fund it is smoking something.

 

“Third, choice as currently conceived, disenfranchises a huge part of the electorate and cuts social responsibility out of the picture. If you don’t have a child, you don’t have a say in how tax dollars are spent. Choicer “it’s the family’s choice” rhetoric only goes so far– nobody is seriously suggesting that vouchers be literal vouchers that students can use to go to school, buy a car, or take a vacation in Europe. Choice never seems to include “I choose no school at all.” Choicers haven’t suggested doing away with compulsory education, but they can’t admit that it’s because the students have a level of responsibility to the country that’s paying for their education, because that would mean admitting that families are not the only stakeholders in education, which would conflict with the “the money belongs to the family” theory.

 

“But even if we get past those, we arrive again at the conservative conundrum– if you allow freedom and choice, you have to accept that people may choose things you don’t like, including NOT having a bunch of choices. Conservatives– and Bush is no exception here– keep calling for a system of imposed choice, which is a big screaming oxymoron.”

 

This is from part 2:

 

Bush wants more money for more charter schools, although he reminds us that money is not the answer.

 

Greene goes through the various proposals and here is the bottom line:

 

“Bush is being direct and clear– he would like to get rid of traditional public education. He thinks schools still work like they did two generations ago (there is no excuse for this belief). And he likes blended learning and competency based education, which means he is destined to meet the same people who hammered him over Common Core, only they’ll be carrying different signs.

 

“Also, remember– it’s important to give parents and students a choice, as long as they choose the choices that Bush chooses for them. Under Bush, you can have lots of choices– except for a traditional public school.”

 

 

 

The Lt. Governor has a powerful role in Texas government. Unfortunately, the Lt. Gov. right now is Dan Patrick, a former radio talk show host, who is a zealous supporter of vouchers. When he headed the Senate Education Committee, he put forward voucher bills but they died in the House. They died because of rural opposition to vouchers; it seems that rural Republicans in the House don’t see any good reason to kill off their public schools and divide their communities.

 

But Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick now says he wants “education savings accounts” so that public money can flow to private and religious schools, as well as homeschoolers, and he wants to model his plan along the lines of the one enacted in Nevada. It is still public money going to religious schools, but that’s what he wants. As he says in the article, he wants school choice for all children, not just the poor.

 

The Nevada plan is being challenged in court by several organizations, because it violates the explicit language of the Nevada state constitution. Studies show that it primarily benefits well-to-do families, not poor families.

 

As in most other states, about 90% of the children in Texas go to public schools. Those schools are underfunded, especially since a dramatic $5.4 billion cut in 2011. Some of the money was later restored, but not most of it. The children in Texas are poorer than they were five years ago. The pupils are majority-minority. This is the scenario in which Dan Patrick proposes to gut public education.

 

It is time for the Texas Pastors for Children, for Friends of Texas Public Schools, and for every organization that believes in democratic control of public schools in Texas to step up and beat back Patrick’s bills.

A teacher from Denver posted this comment:

 

 

“As a teacher for Denver Public Schools, I’m keenly aware of the flip-side of so called school choice… schools choosing their students. School Choice is an outright lie.

 

“Some schools remain segregated by property values, unavailable to the vast majority of DPS students. The district actively deceives parents into believing a lottery system places students when demand exceeds available space. In fact an indeterminable number of schools are allowed to use what DPS calls SchoolChoiceTool or some garbage name for what really amounts to administrators sitting behind closed doors accepting and rejecting students based on grades, behavior records, attendance data, and standardized test scores.
“The result. DPS is more segregated for Latino students today than when the school board was intentionally segregating African-American students in the years past. DPS school choice segregates the already segregated. Income-achievement gaps are greater than in any other “reform” oriented city studied.
“As they expand and lose their ability to cherry pick the boot camp style charters foisted on Denver’s low-income communities are tanking. Principle and teacher turnover is abysmal. School Choice = inequity = buyer beware gimmick schools = chaos”

Julie Vassilatos explains why school choice is harmful: to students, families, and communities.

She writes:

I don’t care what anyone tells me about competition among schools making them all better, or how being able to pursue individual preference is paramount to all Americans. I don’t care. The real impact of choice is entirely, 100% negative on our neighborhoods, on our communities, our cities. All of them.

Because “choice” of this kind quietly diminishes the real power of our democratic voice while it upholds the promise of individual consumer preferences above all else.

Even though Chicago is famously a city of neighborhoods, CPS does not pursue a neighborhood-based model for its schools but rather, choice–the constant proliferation of charter school options, even when neighborhoods don’t want this and even when CPS cannot afford this.

In this model the local community is not important, and the voice of the local residents is not important. The neighborhood school is not the social epicenter for kids in one community and it is not the locus of parent effort and investment of time. In some neighborhoods few resident kids attend the local school and in still others the neighborhood school is shuttered and abandoned.

What is important in this model? Marketing. Test scores. Options.

Schools must now “build a brand” in order to attract students. Schools must maintain high test scores at all costs, regardless of what corners have to be cut in the process. And a multiplicity of schools offers us all a dizzying, and therefore–according to this logic–superior, array of options.

But in a choice district, parents and kids rarely have the one option they most want–a strong, well resourced, nearby, neighborhood school. I think there’s a reason for this.

We’re veterans of choice in our family. I can tell you what I see in my neighborhood.

This is what school choice looks like: no schoolmates in your neighborhood for your whole life.

It looks like children traveling several hours a day to get to and from their schools….

With the choice model, what CPS is doing is investing in severing community. CPS has chosen a school model that fractures and breaks down local bonds among families and within neighborhoods.

But consider: severing community bonds intentionally is not something democracies do. Democracies require stable communities with strong institutions that are of, by, and for the community. Democracies are built on strong stable localities.

Severing community bonds intentionally is something totalitarian regimes do. Because it weakens communities, it weakens individuals, it weakens their democratic voice and power.

It looks like very little political and residential investment into the heart of neighborhood communities.

School Choice-What the Research Says, a New Resource from the Center for Public Education

Alexandria, Va. (October 28, 2015) – In its at-a-glance overview, the National School Boards Association’s (NSBA), Center for Public Education (CPE) looks at the various forms of school choice, and drawing upon relevant research and statistics, the effects each has on student achievement. CPE finds that that while many schools of choice do an exemplary job, “the results aren’t universally better than those produced by traditional public schools.”

“America’s public schoolchildren are dependent on us, policymakers and the public, to make informed decisions that will lead to improved outcomes,” said Thomas J. Gentzel, Executive Director, National School Boards Association. “CPE shines a spotlight on education options in its study, finding that not all choices are equal.”

School Choice: What the Research Says succinctly describes the many alternatives to public schools: those within the public school system (magnet schools, charter schools, and within or between district transfers) and without (private schools, vouchers and homeschooling), and also looks at virtual schools which can be either public or private.

CPE finds that:

Nearly nine in ten school-age children in the U.S. attend public school, a proportion that has been fairly consistent for four decades; 16 percent are enrolled in a public school of choice. On the non-public side, 10 percent of school-age children are in private schools, and 3 percent are homeschooled.

Research on the impact of school choice on student learning generally shows mixed results with studies typically showing little or no difference in overall performance compared to traditional public schools. For example, about one in four charter schools outperforms its traditional public counterpart in reading, and one in five does worse. However, benefits seem to be greater for some groups of students, including English language learners, children from low-income families, and students of color.
Private schools tend to outperform public schools on national assessments. But when researchers controlled for students family background and location, they found the reverse – public school fourth- and eighth-graders scored higher than their private school peers in math. In addition, math scores for public school students have increased steadily over the last 25 years, and high school graduation rates are at an all-time high.
“If the research shows us anything, it’s that school choice does not come with a guarantee,” said Patte Barth, director of the Center for Public Education. “Rather, public school leaders should look to their successful programs – charters, magnet, and neighborhood schools alike – and apply the lessons learned to other schools so that the choices parents and students have will all be good ones.”

# # #

The Center for Public Education (CPE) http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org is a national resource for credible and practical information about public education and its importance to the well-being of our nation. CPE provides up-to-date research, data, and analysis on current education issues and explores ways to improve student achievement and engage public support for public schools. The Center is an initiative of the National School Boards Association.

The National School Boards Association (NSBA) http://www.nsba.org is the leading advocate for public education and supports equity and excellence in public education through school board leadership. NSBA represents state school boards associations and their more than 90,000 local school board members throughout the U.S. Learn more at http://www.nsba.org.

CPE’s latest resource on school choice:
At a Glance http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/schoolchoice
Full report: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Policies/School-Choice-What-the-Research-Says-At-a-Glance/School-Choice-What-the-Research-Says-Full-Report-PDF.pdf

Contact:
LInda Embrey, Communications Office
National School Boards Association
(703) 838-6737; lembrey@nsba.org
http://www.nsba.org

The Network for Public Education created a list of questions that journalists should ask the candidates. In this post on Salon.com, I explained NPE’s agenda to improve our public schools and to repel the corporate assault on them.

K-12 education issues, of huge importance to the future of our nation, were almost completely ignored in 2012. They should not be overlooked in 2016 because the very existence of public education is under attack. Billionaires hope to privatize urban districts, then move into the suburbs and elsewhere.

For those of us who believe that public education is a public responsibility, the time to become active is now.

We oppose the status quo of testing and privatization. We seek far better schools, equitable and well-resourced, where creativity and imagination are prized, not test scores. We seek equality of educational opportunity, not competition for scarce dollars.

Please join the Network for Public Education and help us build a new vision of education for each child.

Paul Thomas marks the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina by looking at Charleston, South Carolina, a coastal city similar to New Orleans but without the devastating hurricane. Proponents of the “New Orleans Model” or the “New Orleans Miracle” imply that school choice is itself a solution to the problems of racism and poverty. School districts across the South are proposing ways to be like New Orleans, without a public school system or with full choice.

But Thomas shows that school choice is a diversion from the root causes of low academic performance.

A large body of research finds that:

Private, public, and charter schools have about the same range of measurable student outcomes, regardless of the school type and strongly correlated with the socioeconomic status of the child’s home. (See this discussion of “charterness.”)

Research on school choice has shown mixed results at best, but even when some choice has shown promise of, for example, raising test scores for black, brown, and poor students, those increased scores are linked to selectivity, attrition, and extended school days/years—none of which have anything to do with the consequences of choice and all of which expose those “gains” as false success.

School choice, notably charter schools, has been strongly linked with increasing racial and socioeconomic inequity: increased segregation, inequitable disciplinary policies and outcomes.

SC advocacy for charter schools as the newest school choice commitment fails to acknowledge that charter schools in the state are overwhelmingly about the same and often worse than comparable public schools (see analysis of 2011 and 2013 data here), and the South Carolina Public Charter School District is among the top four worst districts in the state for racially inequitable discipline with blacks constituting about 19% of the enrollment but over 50% of suspensions/expulsions.

The research on school choice does not support the claims made by SCPC [a free-market think tank], and the rhetoric is also deeply flawed.

School choice advocates often fall back on “poor children deserve the same choices that rich children enjoy.”

However, several problems exist within this seemingly logical assertion.

The greatest flaw is suggesting that affluent and mostly white affluent children are thriving because of choice is itself a lie, a mask for the reality that the key to their success is their wealth and privilege. Being born into a wealthy family trumps educational attainment, and white privilege trumps educational attainment by blacks (see here and here).

In its most disturbing form, then, school choice advocacy is a distraction from the consequences of racism and poverty, both of which are reflected in and perpetuated by the education system.

All the links are included in his article. Read it.

The Post and Courier in South Carolina discovered that school choice leaves the neediest students behind. Its investigation of North Charleston High School describes the flight of the most able and advantaged students to “choice” schools. The students with the greatest needs are left behind.

“The school, which should house a diverse group of 1,141 students from across its attendance zone, instead enrolled just 450 this year — and shrinking. Nearly 90 percent of its students are black in an area that’s more than a quarter white, and virtually all left are poor.”

The largest department in the school is special education.

This story, one of a five-part series, focuses on Maurice Williams, a freshman who nearly died because an infection in his brain that led to a blood clot. Maurice lives with his half-sister. No car, no job, little money, no choice. Left behind.

Competition has drained the top students out of North Charleston Hogh. Those who lacked the means are left behind. With fewer resources in a highly segregated school.

A situation caused by a law ironical led named No Child Left Behind. Call it a landmark in resegregating our public schools and leaving behing those children with the greatest disadvantages.

Watch superstar principal Troy LaRaviere debate the future of education in Chicago with a representative of the rightwing Heartland Institute. Like all conservative think tanks, Heartland would like to replace public schools with a free-market of charters and vouchers, allowing (or leaving) every family to be on their own.