The voucher system, as it currently stands, is a political burden. The basic premise was to give parents and children choice, to stay in a failing school or to attend a thriving school. What a great opportunity for some students!! The idea seems to make sense until the politics get in the way. In the article, "DC Vouchers Provoke Debate", Republicans feel it creates competition while Democrats feel it unfairly steals money away from public school districts. But, DC will allow those federally funded vouchers to continue through next year although Arizona's state funded vouchers will only be provided through the end of this school year. Cleveland's will continue because according to the article from Cleveland.com, tuition voucher applications are being accepted for next year. I see advertisements also for parochial schools that are urging parents to look into the Edchoice "scholarships" in order to attend their schools. In terms of separation of church and state, opponents of the program (Peterson,Issue 11) take issue with the state money going to parochial schools. But in response, Justice O'Conner makes a good point in stating that Pell Grants and other monies are often used for religious universities or institutions without argument.
Problem in all this? Everyone is on a different page and not all states are offering the option of the vouchers. That inequality is not good for American education. But I do think that the idea of the voucher system is good for American education. The ability to attend a school in a district that could effect a child's life of learning cannot be restricted. The choice to attend a school that can care for all of the needs of the child with disabilities is inarguable. Whatever the reason, choice is good for students. Students become productive citizens when given a good education. Productive citizens are good for America.
The voucher program has flaws but the choices it offers certain parents and students are meaningful. The program must be fair and usable in all states to be effective though. It should not be used in political motivations but should be about promoting learning for student growth and achievement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Deb, This was a well stated blog, and as I was reading it, all of a sudden I giggled to myself because politically, both parties have sort of flip-flopped in their core beliefs. Democrats usually are the big government, big spending, increase taxes party, and the Republicans are usually the less government, less spending and lower taxes party. In the case of vouchers, the tables have turned. The Republicans are in support of helping children get out of their circumstances and get an education that is adequate. The Democrats want to squash these programs. Why? Perhaps Glenn Beck and many others are correct in their conclusions. It must be the teacher unions.
ReplyDeleteWell, Mary, I was surprised too when I learned that the teachers union didn't support this social, largely liberal idea. It seems that money is at stake. We also talked a little on Monday about the teacher's unions being against the charter schools too, another idea that seems to be for the children, and that their stance is because the charter school teachers aren't unionized. Does anyone know if that's the real reason or is it because the money follows the child, thus taking away the public schools $ base? I sense a pretty large divide between teachers in both systems....
ReplyDeleteWell, I will be giving my presentation on teacher unions in a couple weeks, but what I will say now is that teacher unions are advocates for the public school teacher. What kind of advocates would they be if they supported whatever program that came along that took jobs away from the people they are trying to protect?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Glenn, teacher unions do not respond to the views of the general public and of parents. The teacher unions are there as a support and a voice for the public school teacher. Other groups, like the Black Alliance for Educational Options(Peterson), are out there to be advocates for student vouchers. Both groups are needed for both voices to be heard.