School Choice

When reflecting on the question “Is increasing choice for parents good for American education?” it is easy to start having conflicting thoughts. When discussing vouchers and charters, there are many variables that come into play.

In defending the use of vouchers for students to attend a school that is not considered in academic “watch” or “emergency”, I think that it is great for that student to have the opportunity to receive a “better” education elsewhere. In reading the EdWeek article Arizona High Court Rejects Private School Vouchers it says that “Voucher supporters argued that the programs help parents meet their children's educational needs. Opponents said vouchers undermine state support for public schools”. If parents are able to choose between sending their children to schools that have proven success versus ones that have not then it is understandable that they want them to receive the best education possible. However, vouchers can only go so far and help so many students. Would schools be able to improve if that money were given directly to them instead of using it for students to go to a different school?

When looking at the chart titled Voucher Use in Cleveland Catholic Schools, it showed that a majority of the students enrolled in the schools were there because of the vouchers. Do the same children receive the vouchers each year, or does it always change? I know the parents have to apply for them, but how easy are they to obtain? If students do not get to stay at the school they attend because of the voucher I honestly believe that they will have a hard time going back and forth between two different schools. Also, what happens in the event that the school that they should attend no longer is considered under academic watch or emergency?

In regards to charter schools, there becomes even more choice involved. Charter schools “frequently take alternative curricular approaches (e.g., direct instruction or Core Knowledge), emphasize particular fields of study (e.g., the arts or technology), or serve special populations of students (e.g., special education or at-risk students)” (Charter Schools 9/10/04). I am of the belief that there are certain students who are not able to “fit” in the “typical classroom” who may benefit from these unique approaches to education. Because charter schools typically have less students in each class, students receive more individualized instruction. The truth is, however, that there is a varying degree of effectiveness when comparing numerous charter schools to their pubic school districts. I agree with Leigh Dingerson and Julian Rogers when they say “We need charters in Ohio to incubate new educational strategies and to figure out what works to support our most disadvantaged kids. If we slow down, step back and reflect together, we can find ways to better support the best charter practices and hold all our schools accountable to our students, our communities and our collective commitment to public education”(Plain Dealer 3/30/09).

The one part about charter schools that I don’t understand is the ones that are designated “for-profit”. In Kelly’s presentation I was astounded to hear that there are schools that cut back on the cost for each student and pocket the money that is left over. Shouldn’t the money that is designated for each pupil be spent on that pupil? I know it’s the parents’ choice where to send their kids, but to me the school should have the students’ best interest at heart, and in reality these “for-profit” schools don’t seem to fit that description.