Archives for category: Vouchers

This article by Helen Ladd of Duke University is absolutely “must” reading.

Ladd is a major economist of education.

The same article might be written for many states.

North Carolina was once renowned for its commitment to public education.

But now the legislature is starving the funding for public education: “Per-pupil spending on K-12 education in North Carolina is now 46th in the country, teacher salaries are 48th and the General Assembly has been cutting funding for our university and community college systems, once the envy of other states.”

Worse, the legislature seems determined to create a dual school system, one public, the other run by privately managed charters, vouchers, and for-profit vendors.

Here is the utterly predictable result:

“Proponents of this private vision push for reduced spending on traditional public schools, unfettered expansion of charter schools, transfer of school management to private firms that view education as a business opportunity, school vouchers that shift public funds to private schools and scholarships for private school tuitions financed by tax breaks to corporations and wealthy individuals.

“This private vision espoused by Republican leaders diverts attention from the public purposes of schooling and reduces accountability for the use of public funds. Perhaps most important, this anti-public education vision leaves little room for principles of social justice and the commitment to equal educational opportunity for all students.

“When education becomes primarily a private affair, benefits flow disproportionately to those with the most means to work the system to their advantage. The losers are typically disadvantaged children who end up in under-resourced traditional public schools with large concentrations of low-performing and challenging-to-educate students. The role of education as an engine of opportunity for every North Carolina child is downplayed in favor of greater benefits for those already advantaged.”

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/10/2816261/the-perils-of-a-private-vision.html#storylink=cpy

Mercedes Schneider, who holds a Ph.D. In statistics, analyzes Patrick Wolf’s evaluation of the voucher program in Milwaukee. Wolf acknowledges that the voucher program may not have raised student achievement but claims that it increased graduation rates. This “success” was qualified by a high attrition rate. In the initial study, he said that the attrition rate was 75%, but subsequently revised it to 56%.

Dr. Schneider took a closer look at the study. In this post, she demystifies the technical jargon for non-specialists and clearly explains why the methods employed by Wolf and his associates do not offer much reassurance about the value of vouchers.

Larry Lee is an Alabama native who cares about public schools. He has a particular interest in rural schools and community schools. He is a member of the board of the Network for Public Education. This is his analysis of the recently passed “Alabama Accountability Act,” which enacted tax credits and is a stealth voucher plan.

Larry Lee writes:

Have you ever made a promise you knew you couldn’t keep? I sure did every time mama took a switch to me. “I promise, I promise I won’t ever do it again,” I hollered as I tried to dance out of her reach.

Unfortunately when you strip all the rhetoric away, when you cast aside all the pleadings that “this is for the children” and when you look at the starkness of the numbers, you see that this is what our legislature did when they passed the Alabama Accountability Act.

They made a promise they cannot keep. Whether this was intentional or just inept doesn’t much matter at this moment. HB 84 was passed by the Alabama House and Senate and signed into law on March 14, 2013 by Governor Bentley.

As they said, it is what it is. A promise that cannot be kept.

On page 13, line 13, the new law says:

“For tax years beginning on and after January 1, 2013, an Alabama income tax credit is made available to the parent of a student enrolled in or assigned to attend a failing school to help offset the coast of transferring the student to a non-failing public school or nonpublic school of the parent’s choice.”

It further states in the same paragraph:

“If income taxes owed by the parent are less than the total credit allowed under this subsection, the taxpayer shall be entitled to a refund or rebate, as the case may be, equal to the balance of the unused credit with respect to that taxable year.”

My math says there are 89,087 students in “failing schools” in Alabama. This means we have promised to give a tax credit or rebate check of about $3,500 to each of these students. That’s a liability of more than $311 million.

While some guesstimate that only 10 percent of these kids will apply for the money, they may need to take off their rose-colored glasses. A close look at Montgomery County shows what I mean.

There are 21 schools on the “failing” list in Montgomery with 14,511 students. Of these, 86 percent receive free and reduced lunches, a substantially higher rate than those in non-failing schools.

But here’s the rub. There is no way for the existing non-failing public schools to accommodate even a small portion of these kids. However, the law says the rebate, “is made available”. It does not say “may be available under certain circumstances.”

There are seven public high schools in Montgomery. Three, with a total of 4,848 students, are failing. Three are magnet schools that have stiff entrance exams. So the failing high school students have only one public school option, Carver High with 1,385 students. They’re going to add nearly 200 classrooms and 200 new teachers to take all these students? Highly unlikely.

What about these kids going to private schools? For one thing, how many poverty families can send their kids to a private school, even with a $3,500 rebate since tuition is far more than $3,500? And can private schools in Montgomery absorb 14,511 additional students?

Or do we just hold a lottery to see who gets into a school where there is some space and who gets the $3,500 rebate? Surely since we’re dead set against gambling we would never do this. (Even though the truth is that in some places in Alabama we already hold lotteries to see which kids get to go to pre-kindergarten.)

Of course there are plans for a scholarship fund to help students get into private schools. Let’s say 10 percent of the Montgomery students can get into private schools (1,451 students); at $5,000 per scholarship, that’s more than $7 million for just this one school system.

But forget all this guessing on numbers and go back to the law and the promise that each child in a failing school in Alabama is worth approximately $3,500. Common sense tells me that a single mother who takes advantage of free lunches for her school age kids is also going to apply to get $3,500 for each of them. And she’ll find plenty of tax preparers who will be glad to help her–for a cut of the rebate.

But wait, if her kids don’t move to a non-failing school is this then tax fraud? Is it her fault the local school can’t find space for her children in qualified schools? Is it her fault some lawmakers made a promise they could not keep?

One might even ask: is it the mother perpetrating the fraud, or is it the state of Alabama?

Larry Lee led the study, Lessons Learned from Rural Schools, and is a long-time advocate for public education who frequently writes about education issues. larrylee33@knology.net

Mike Deshotels reports on what is happening in the Louisiana legislature.

Bear in mind that Governor Bobby Jindal proposed to “reform” taxes by eliminating the personal income tax and the corporate income tax, shifting the entire tax burden to the sales tax. This is a very unpopular proposal, which appears to have driven his poll numbers down into the mid-30s. It will also hurt the state’s public schools, as you will see in this post.

Jindal also plans to fund the voucher schools by taking money from the state’s Minimum Foundation budget for public schools, even though a state court has already declared it unconstitutional. Same for Jindal’s plan to pay for-profit course choice providers, also found unconstitutional but still in the governor’s budget. And predictably, Jindal’s allies will return with new ways to strike down teacher tenure, which was struck down by a state court a few months ago because the law addressed too many issues in the same bill.

Here is Mike Deshotel’s report:

From: Michael Deshotels
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:01 AM
Subject: Legislative update
Governor Jindal is kicking off the 2013 legislative session today at 12 noon and I am happy to report that it looks like his big tax reform proposal is in big trouble. The governor’s new tax proposal greatly increases state sales taxes and could end up depriving local school boards of a vital source of sales tax when local voters fail to renew local sales taxes to try to offset the high state sales tax. I hope that trouble spills over to the education area so that we will have a chance of stopping his destruction of public education.
The MFP: Several of you asked that I give you more details about why the legislature should reject the new MFP. Some of you have since supplied me with critical information including the changes to special education funding. So I hope the following gives you plenty of information about why we want the MFP rejected by the legislature and sent back to be reenegotiated with the stakeholders so that a more acceptable formula can be proposed.
1. The new MFP would remove the automatic growth factor in the MFP. Because of huge unfunded mandates in recent years, it is critical that the growth factor be reinstituted. Meanwhile many charter schools are exempted from paying their share of mandated costs such as the increased costs for retirement contributions. Just the increase in retirement contribution for unfunded accrued liability is a crippling drain on local school system. To add insult to injury, our DOE is forcing local systems to upgrade local computers and internet access just to take care of more state tests that are making the testing companies rich and are reducing student instruction time. (Remember the Governor refused the federal money for upgrading internet services because his favored private companies may not get the contracts)
2. The new MFP still provides funding for vouchers and the new course choice programs even though this has been ruled unconstitutional. Thecourse choice program allows out of state companies to raid the MFP while the student testing scores still go to their local home schools. These private companies can get paid even if the students do not attend regularly or learn nothing!
3. The new MFP begins a change to a new weighted formula for special education that is strongly opposed by all special education stakeholders because it may not provide adequately for some students individual plans and may penalize gifted and talented programs based on as yet untried tests.
Bills: Jindal’s allies in the legislature have filed bills that would find a way around the recent court rulings stiking down Acts 1 and 2 of last year. I will send more details on this later but for now I want to point out just a few important bills. You can read the bills just by clicking on the highlighted bill numbers.
SB 89 by Appel: Please ask your Senators to defeat this bill if it is brought up because it destroys all teacher due process and makes many teachers’ fate rely on a very innacurate evaluation system.
HB 160 by Reynolds: Please ask your representative to support this bill which will put off the evaluation system until the VAM can be reworked. (I hope VAM can be done away with because in my opinion it can never be accurate for all circumstances)
SB 41 by Kostelka: I am hoping we can support this bill because it will allow a vote of the people to make the State Superintendent an elected position. As it stands now, the Governor totally controls both the State Superintendent and the majority of BESE. The present system does not have checks and balances and allows a radical like Jindal who has other motivations to practically destroy public education. Again this would just let the general public vote on a constitutional amendment to make the position elected.
Please go to the Louisiana Legislature web site and click on the name of your Representative and Senator so you can get his/her local office phone number where you can leave him/her messages with his legislative assistant, or send an email. Just introduce yourself and make sure they know you live in their district and that you want their support on education issues.
Thanks in advance for your efforts,
Mike Deshotels
____________________________________

This came from a teacher in northern Indiana:

Dear Indiana Politician:

I am a public school teacher. I am a breast cancer survivor. I dreamed as a little girl of the day I would be a teacher. I never dreamed as a woman that I would one day be a cancer survivor. So now I am both and proud that I am.

I write to you today as both, for you see there are times these days that my role as an educator are more challenging, more stressful, more worrisome than my days as a cancer patient/survivor. I never ever in my wildest imagination dreamed that I would one day be in a fight for my life. I also never ever dreamed I’d be in the fight of a lifetime to save my students’ joy of learning, my public schools, my profession.

I didn’t just wake up one day, and my lump was there. It had been there all along, undetected. The same holds true for vouchers and their expansion. They have been there all along, mostly undetected. But now, they have metastasized at unparalleled speed.

With my cancer diagnosis I worked closely with my team of doctors, my cancer experts. I always felt as though my input mattered. Together we made sound decisions.
Yet the educational reform (and all that it encompasses) rages across our country out of control without many, if any, educational experts weighing in. Those educational experts valued by teachers are dismissed by those making legislation in favor of individuals with business savvy and big bucks but no expertise—no experience—in the classroom. Why would educators be left out of the decision-making process?

Even clinical trials are observed to see how well they are working. Yet the voucher program expansion of HB 1003 goes unchecked, willy-nilly, into unchartered territory without regard to how it will affect public education, financially or otherwise. What started out as a way to afford impoverished children an educational opportunity they may not otherwise have had seems to have become lost in this whole process. Today voting constituents feel that the focus is more on profit, not students. Communities are no longer buying into the façade that public schools are failing. They are beginning to follow the money.

I have seen how my having cancer affects those around me. I have seen and, sadly, continue to see how the siphoning off of public funds from public schools affects my students, my colleagues, my district, my neighborhood, my community, my city. More choice for students receiving vouchers results in less choice for my students.

The lessons learned as a cancer patient/survivor are plentiful. Perhaps the most important lesson is that I learned not to let the cancer define who I am.

In the same manner I will not allow all that is happening in education define who I am as a teacher. I know what kind of teacher I am, for I hold that belief in my heart. Teaching is much more than my career; it is my passion. Everyday I enter my classroom believing I am a master teacher, for if I didn’t hold true to that claim, I shouldn’t be there.

Even more importantly, I refuse to let all that is happening in education define my students, my school, my district, my community. My students have so much potential. My students’ lives are more complicated than I can ever begin to imagine. They overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles and are successful because they meet their challenges. If you could see my students, you would know what I mean.

It is time to exam how well the voucher program in place is working before expanding it even further. Every dollar diverted from public schools is another blow to public education upon which this great country of ours is founded. When public school funding is lost, my students lose out! It is not a fair and level playing field. When public schools lose, we all lose. The public is becoming aware of the injustice of what is happening to their public schools and their students.

My physicians saved my life. Be a Hoosier politician who saves public education—not one who dismantles and helps privatize it. Give all students the same educational opportunities. Our future, our democracy, depends on public schools. It’s time to bring back the joy of learning for all students! I applaud those of you who have taken a stand in support of public education even it has meant that you must face the ire of your political party. I know that can’t be easy.

Please vote NO! on HB 1003. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once stated, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Thank you,

Donna Roof

In Indiana, new legislation would offer vouchers to children who never attended a public school. This eliminates the fiction that vouchers are going to “save children from failing schools.”

This is a message from Julian Smith in Induana. He offers a sample letter. Or, write your own.

Subject: Fwd: Two Minute Task #8 HB 1003 Vouchers

As you are probably aware, HB1003 will be coming to the Senate floor for a vote next week.

This is a battle we can and must win. These guys may want a reason to vote no, and blitzing them with a compelling thought may make a difference if we do this together, share with others, and ask them to do the same. The contacts, meetings, and emails have already had positive effects. Let’s keep the pressure on right up to the vote.

Feel free to copy and paste if you’d like, but please make sure they hear from you and anyone you know that has an interest in saving our public schools. It may be more effective to copy/paste to each senator individually, so they don’t see a big group of senators in the address line and realize that they have been targeted.

Miller s24@in.gov
Bray s37@in.gov
Crider s28@in.gov
Steele s44@in.gov
Waltz s36@in.gov
Hershman s7@in.gov
Delph s29@in.gov
Leising s42@in.gov

Dear Senator ____________________,

I’m writing because I oppose HB1003 and the further expansion of the voucher program. If enacted it will have serious negative effects for public schools. I would remind you that the way this was originally packaged and promoted to the Senate was with the understanding that “public schools would have the first shot”, Gov. Daniel’s words, and as a savings to the state. Offering vouchers to children that have never been counted in public schools amounts to a new expense to the state and reduces dollars available to already struggling to catch up traditional public schools.

We have yet to establish whether or not the program is producing any benefit, as some students initially utilizing a voucher have returned to a traditional public school. Accelerating the program at this point does not make sense. Let’s slow down and first evaluate the program we now have in place.

Thank you,

(Sign your name)

Click send

Copy/ Paste/Repeat

Senator Grooms s46@in.gov has already gone on record as opposed. You might send him a quick thank you to help insure he doesn’t have a change of heart.

Larry Lee, an Alabama native and a member of the board of the Network for Public Education, has a great idea.

He decided that the best way to demonstrate the foolishness of the Alabama Accountability Act was to translate it into terms every Alabama reader would understand. He wrote a satire in which he urged accountability for high school football coaches. He said that the failure of high school football teams was a major scandal.

He strongly recommended that coaches be held accountable. Some 13% of teams won one game or less last season. This, he writes, is unacceptable.

“The fact that more than 10 percent of our teams are incompetent is a statewide embarrassment. Obviously, too many coaches are not working hard enough and too many student-athletes are unworthy of being called such.”

The comment below draws attention to a debate that followed Dr. Mercedes Schneider’s methodological dissection of Patrick Wolf’s Milwaukee study. Wolf holds an endowed chair in school choice in the “department of education reform” at the University of Arkansas. The Wolf study initially reported a staggering attrition rate of 75% from the voucher schools, which was later altered to a merely astonishing rate of 56%.

Dr. Schneider then was peppered with criticisms from someone who signed only as JB, preferring anonymity (funny, on this blog I often get pro-voucher comments from jb@uarkansas.edu).

Here is the Comment, which includes the thread from Dr. Schneider’s blog:

“75 – to – 56%… ?”

Why, it was just a typo! Case closed!

Or so someone calling himself “J.B.” offers up
as a possible explanation for Wolf’s alteration
from 75% to 56% in quantifying the percentage
of students who leave Milwaukee’s voucher program.

“J.B.” is going to need muscle relaxants after an
absurd stretch like that.

This nugget is from a nice little debate between the
“J.B.” and “Deutch29” in the COMMENTS
section of Schneider’s blog article at:

In Ravitch’s Defense: Milwaukee Voucher Study Found Wanting

Scroll down the COMMENTS section to read it.

“J.B.” and “Deutch29” get into it, with Deutsch29
repeatedly asking J.B. what possible explanation
there could be for the mysterious 75 – to – 56% alteration,
and how when you do make such an extreme alteration,
one should include the reasons behind or the the mistake(s)
that led to making that alteration; to date, there is none.

After ducking the question, J.B. finally offers up:

J.B: “I have no idea about the alteration. Seems odd,
but typos do happen.”

His farts probably make more sense than that.

Thankfully, Deutch29 will have none of this pseudonymous
mountebank’s obfuscation, and blasts back with the following
response…

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Deutsch29: “You should investigate that 75% to 56%
attrition alteration with the same veracity as you used
to defend using ITT on a voucher study, or with
the same rude vigor with which Wolf attacked Ravitch
for ‘getting it wrong.’

“Perhaps you are Wolf, JB, or someone working for him.

“And I challenge you to honor Dr. Heilg’s request for
access to the data set used in the Wolf et al. study.
It sure would be nice to know just how far from that
‘gold standard’ these two groups strayed.

“Finally, let me add that your group’s (I assume you
are of their camp) decision to not investigate students
who choose to begin with vouchers and use consistently
until graduation makes me wonder whether those funding
the venture really don’t want to know the answer. Or
perhaps it was investigated but not publicized (?)

“No one (on this side of the study) knows.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

It’s a great and illuminating debate. Again, to read it,
scroll down the COMMENTS section of:

In Ravitch’s Defense: Milwaukee Voucher Study Found Wanting

School choice advocates now stand on shaky ground. Their own funded evaluations show that students in voucher schools do not get higher test scores than their peers in public schools.

So they fall back to the next line of defense, which is to say that the voucher students have a higher graduation rate.

In the case of Milwaukee, the graduation rate is muddied by a very high attrition rate, either 75% or 56%, depending on which version of the evaluation you read. Both are very high attrition rates, not much of a statement of student satisfaction.

But there are other problems, as you will see if you read Dr. Mercedes Schneider’s review of Dr. Patrick’s Milwaukee study.

Read here for first summary.

Will post again when new stories available.