Seriously... why is this such an issue?

If I am not mistaken there is no law that currently exits stating "all children who reside in the United States must attend a public school, to determine committment to our government". If I am misinformed please correct me. In my opinion the purpose of early education through high school is to establish a foundation of basic knowledge and skills for success. Along this journey, educators make the decision to either teach the bare minimum of what's required or expand the curriculum and expose students to unlimited possibilities. True enough, parents should not be dependent upon the school system entirely to assure thier child is recieving all life and learning experiences necessary, and parents should take responsibility in the learning process of thier children as well. However, the reality is that an average child spends majority of his or her time in a school and can go into evening hours due to day care or extracurriculars. As citizens who dwell the "land of opportunity", it should be parent choice to send their child to any type of school that will best meet that child's needs (mentally, physically and emotionally). Sadly, there are some families who cannot afford full tuition or afford housing in areas with excelling schools. A great number of urban schools, across the U.S. are not performing well acadmeically for various reasons (quality of teachers, environment surrounding school, poor community involvement, misappropriation of funding, demands required to meet some student needs, quantity of staff). With that in mind, I think it was more than just to establish the voucher program.

According to Noll, the issue with vouchers that created controversy in 99-00' school year was that 96% of Cleveland students who recieved assistance were enrolled in religious/faith based schools. What's the problem? Like most new programs you have to lay out your basic rules and as time progresses you will learn what works best and what new guidelines must be established. I think the voucher program fits that idea. Noll informs us that the program is designed to give tuition vouchers to certain students in the Cleveland public schools who want to be transfered to a participating school of thier choice. Choices in the project include public schools in adjacent districts, nonreligious private schools and religious private schools. Again what's the issue?

This all ties into the idea that all children should have the opportunity to recieve equal education and no one should be left behind. With vouchers, this gives families the chance to take advantage of the opportunity and give thier kids the best education possible. But this program has brought in the debate of keeping church and state separate based on our U.S. Constitution (Noll). Glenn mentions that hostility toward relgious schools is not only a matter of keeping church and state separate but comes from the self-image of many educators who think they know whats in best interest of a child. These same educators who are teaching in poor performing districts have shown the public what they feel is in best interest of the child, and the results are acadmic watch and poor test scores. The separation of church and state has lead to a decline in morality in public education, especially now that schools are taking on greater responsibilities to assure the well being of its children (free meals, day care, free health services). Peterson says that Catholic schools have an outstanding record for teaching democratc values as well as moral values. Based on my personal experience, I agree.

I think vouchers should be provided to families who not only meet fiancial and geographical need but should be awarded to students who will meet certain acadmic requirements. The purpose of the program is to provide students with an equal opportunity to recieve a good education correct? What's the point of awarding monies to a family who doesn't see that thier child is taking adavantage of the education? Just a thought.

Are vouchers good for our schools?

I think increasing parents’ choices for a good education for their child is good up to a point. First I believe we need to determine what needs to be taught in our schools to create well-developed citizens and future workers in our community. I also believe that both public schools and private schools should be held accountable to reach these goals in a child’s education before they graduate. Religious schools and private schools will still hold the freedom to teach what they want, like teaching morals, but at least it will level the education field a little bit if there is at least a minimal level of standards that all schools must adhere to. This way, no matter where the child goes to receive their education they will be taught the same basic skills taught to all other children in all other schools
Vouchers give students the opportunity to go to an alternative school if their school is failing. I support the use of vouchers because I feel every child deserves the right to receive a good education. But what happens to the student that goes to a failing school but his/her parents earn too much to qualify for vouchers but not enough to be able to afford to send their child to an alternative school? What options does this child hold?
The state has to start concentrating more on fixing all schools rather than fight about whether or not vouchers are constitutional. Again, we first we need to determine which critical skills should be taught in all schools and what are the best methods to teach these skills to our students. We also need to identify a way to more successfully turn failing schools around. We also need to impose harsh consequences if schools are not meeting these standards. For example, the vouchers that were given in Washington D.C. were part of a five-year pilot program recently up for renewal. After five years the public schools are still failing. So what was done during the five year period to improve public school education? So what’s going to be done to the schools since they have not improved? The only answer so far is to renew the voucher programs for another period of time. How is that going to fix the main problem, the public schools, in the end?
As Arne Duncan, US Education Secretary, stated in an Edweekly article "We need to be more ambitious. The goal shouldn't be to save a handful of children. The goal should be to dramatically change the opportunity structure for entire neighborhoods of kids." In class we discussed how it would be very difficult to change these schools if the environment around them does not change. I agree with this comment up to a point. I’m sure not all the students given vouchers to attend private schools were all little angels before they switched schools. But once they changed schools they were forced to adapt to their surroundings or they were out. So why can’t we bring these environments into the public schools that already exist?
In the book Taking Sides Charles Glenn argued that parents have a right to choose their child’s education. I agree to this to a point. I believe a parent has the right to choose a safe environment for their kids and also whether they want them to be taught religious views within their education. Any more than that, however, I think should not be left up to the parents. In the same article it mentioned a 1997 survey by the Public Agenda that stated teachers thought “communication with parents important but not in order to learn what education parents wanted for their children. Parents were to be educated or reeducated about how learning ought to be in the classroom.” This was looked down upon but to a point I believe this is true. I believe outside of their child’s safety it’s the right of the teacher to teach what they are supposed to teach in their class. Teachers learn the different learning styles and methods used to teach and should be trusted by the parents to teach their children the best way they know how, much the same way they trust their doctor to know what they are doing as a doctor.
I think we need to inform parents on what we are teaching in the classroom and why so they are included in the process. I do not agree with parents having the right to tell a teacher what should be taught or how. If a parent doesn’t like the teaching methods of a given teacher or school, should the state be expected to pay the cost of moving their child to another school? I think if the state offers too many options to keep parents happy, the real problem is just being swept under the rug, never to be resolved.
I feel offering vouchers should be a last resort to provide improved educational opportunities to students while the failing schools are fixed. Once vouchers are provided to enable students to leave a particular school, that school should be put through an intense rehabilitation so that vouchers would not need to be given for more than a few years. Extended voucher programs hurt our schools because the “urgency” to improve a given school is diminished.
Voucher programs can also hurt our schools because the school is weakened when a number of students are physically removed from the environment. The social ties developed between students that attend school together in elementary, middle and high school are severely disrupted when a portion of the student population uses vouchers to attend a different school. This disruption negatively affects the students’ attitude about their school and their environment.

Vouchers as a choice

~ In Flint, Michigan on June 16, 2008, Mr. Barack Obama was quoted as saying, "We cannot be satisfied until every child in America - I mean every child - has the same opportunity for a good education that we want for our own children." Dan Lips, of Heritage Foundation, agrees, stating that we must "shift power out of Washington - back to the state and local level, where it's close to parents and students who are affected by its policies." (both quotes found on www.HeritageFoundation.com) Why shouldn't the poor be given an equal opportunity to attend schools whose values are compatible with their own? The voucher system can be seen as an alternative for students who desire a quality education but are in a school system that is performing below standards. As Charles Glenn stated in our text, families "have a fundamental right...to choose the schooling that will shape their children's understanding of the world." (p. 186) When families can't afford to provide a good education for their children, they should be given some options to do so. The EdChoice Scholarship program was designed for students who attend persistently under-performing schools to be able to attend a private school from an approved list of choices that can be found on the web (In Ohio, these can be found on the ODE website).
~ Minorities in the inner city would seem to benefit the most. Looking at the chart "Voucher Use in Cleveland Catholic Schools" as posted in our readings, one can see how many minority students use the voucher program to attend Catholic schools. The increased standards these students achieve would seem to promote the private school choice. As was mentioned in our text in a quote from Jeffrey Grogger and Derek Neal, "urban minorities in Catholic schools fare much better than similar students in public schools." (p. 196) Mr. Peterson attributes this to parental satisfaction and teacher quality. Smaller classes are also beneficial to these students.
~ As more choices for education are presented, it "seems to improve the performance of students who remain in the public schools." (Peterson/Noll's text, p. 196) In "A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on How Vouchers Affect Pubic Schools", it was found "that empirical evidence consistently supports the conclusion that vouchers improve public schools." This report collects the results of all available empirical studies on how vouchers affect academic achievement in public schools. Contrary to the widespread claim that vouchers hurt public schools, it finds, "no empirical study has ever found that vouchers had a negative impact on public school" (www.friedmanfoundation.org) Competition may be the foremost incentive for the public schools to improve. When looking at the private sector, competition drives creativity , innovation, and change. A better product or service results because there must be improvement and adaptiom in order to give your customers a reason not to leave you for a better product.
Vouchers can provide choice, a choice which most families desire for their children. Parental satisfaction will be heightened and academic achievement will be elevated. Providing vouchers for families that have no other choice can lead to a win-win situation for all.

choice in education

The question of the validity of the school voucher program is a question of choice, not for all parents, but specifically for poor, urban families, that do not have the money to move out of a failing public school system into a suburban school district with exceptional schools. Parents have choice currently in our public school system when they select the city and district in which to live. As stated in Paul Petersons article there are various internet sites that state a city's school report card and all real estate agents provide school data to potential home buyers. Everyday American home buyers are exercising a choice in public education by selecting which suburb to live in and which school district to have their children attend. However, the mobility that makes these choices possible requires money and "it is no accident that children lucky enough to be born into privilege also attend the nations best schools." Therefore, the issue of the school voucher program is to allow all children and families the access to quality education regardless of their address.

I personally believe that until all of our public schools, regardless of their city of location are equal, then a voucher or school choice program that allows families in failing districts to attend schools that are superior to their local schools is fair and goes a long way in equalizing the socio economic gap that exists within our public school system. Justice Clarence Thomas stated "The failure to provide education to poor urban children perpetuates a vicious cycle of poverty, dependence, criminality, and alienation that continues for the remainder of their lives. If society cannot end racial discrimination at least it can arm minorities with the education to defend themselves from some of the discrimination's effects."

Keep the Tax Money in Public Schools

Parents should have a choice of schools to which they can send their children, but public tax dollars should not be used to send children to any school. In the Teacher Magazine article “D.C. Vouchers Provoke Debate”, the author states that “Republicans insist that parents deserve a choice if their kids are in failing schools, saying vouchers create competition that puts pressure on public schools to do better.” However, I would like to contend that vouchers be used only at alternative public schools, not private schools. If a school wants to accept tax payer funded vouchers then that money needs to stay in the realm of government supported schools where accountability can be assessed the same as public schools are assessed. When examining the Local Report Card data for Cuyahoga, Lorain, and Medina counties on the ODE website, the private, religious schools are not listed. I can only conclude then that they are exempt from Ohio’s system of accountability. The comments after the articles for vouchers were interesting. Some wrote that their religious school experience was quite lacking, and some wrote in that their experience was positive. These comments got me to thinking of accountability. How can we compare private, religious schools to the public schools if they are not assessed the same? How can government money be going to a school that is not held to the same standards as public schools? Where are their report cards?
The voucher system seemed to be started as a “Band-Aid” solution, as mentioned in class. The “D.C.” article reminds us that the voucher system only helps a handful of students. The government should be more focused on getting the public schools up to high standards for all of its students. Handing out vouchers to “escape” the public school system is detrimental to the system, because it focuses the debate on vouchers rather than the improving of failing schools. If a private school wants to remain “independent of government” (Glenn), then let it remain independent of tax dollars, as well. Homeowners have paid taxes for a long time to support their local school, with or without having their own children in those schools. The benefit to the taxpayer was higher property value when it came to sell their home. The entire neighborhood benefited from having good schools. As a tax payer, I want my tax money going to my local school.
The need for more options is certainly true for the parents of children on the east side of Cleveland. Most of the students in the Catholic schools, according to the chart outlining the population of students in the Catholic schools, are non-Catholic, minority, and poor. These families are obviously looking for alternatives to their local public school. Is it the religious nature of the school the reason for the enrollment in the Catholic schools or is it because those schools are the only alternative? Vouchers may be the quick fix to the problem, but the problem will not go away, until all tax dollars and more are funneled back into the public school in a constructive, efficient, and effective manner. The government should be bolstering their own schools, not supporting “independent” schools.

Vouchers - The Golden Ticket

Just like Charlie in Willy Wonka, the child who gets the golden ticket is given a golden opportunity. With vouchers that golden opportunity is to better education and a safe environment in which to learn. How lucky a child must be to be selected to receive this opportunity in Ohio; just like the movie there are only a select number of vouchers available; 14,000 to be exact, as “Deadline to Apply for Tuition Vouchers Loom” illustrates for us, out of 80,000+ students enrolled statewide. Voucher applications are filled out, criteria is applied i.e., income, neighborhood in which the child lives, the rating of the local public schools, etc. and then the child is selected. Fair is fair I suppose, those who are selected for the vouchers are very fortunate, but what about those who are not selected or the 14,001 child when the vouchers run out?
Is it fair for a child to be shut-out of a program? Or for a program to be dissolved because of politics? Is it fair for our government to abandon our public schools by offering an alternative?
Our federal government established a “five year pilot” voucher program in Washington D.C. to allow or give opportunities to children to attend private schools instead of public schools because they were so bad. In the article, “D.C. Vouchers Provoke Debate”, the voucher program will most likely be abandoned after next year. Why? Because of politics, money and the simple explanation of “it was just a pilot program”; it wasn’t meant to be long term. Great – now what? What is the plan for the children, who have been able to attend a private school for a number of years, adjusted to the private school curriculum, established friends and succeeded in the environment; are they going to be ripped out of their safe environment and thrown back into the ill-fated public schools? Our government, whether federal, state or city look for quick fixes to a problem without regard for the future. Quick, let’s put a program together to fix the immediate problem, we’ll worry about the future when it happens and when the future happens they all of a sudden have no answers, no plans, and no forethought.
What about the children who haven’t been given the opportunity for alternative schooling? Why hasn’t the federal government taken a look at public schools to identify the problems, address the issues, and apply some effort in bettering the schools for all children? The State Supreme Court of the state of Arizona has addressed their Private School Vouchers, by rejecting them. Their philosophy or plan is to have a strong public school system. Why can’t other states address this the same way?
Don’t get me wrong…vouchers are good and do provide a choice (for a select few); however, I believe vouchers would work better for children who have physical or learning disabilities, to provide them a specialized environment conducive to their needs. But as a whole vouchers are exclusionary and unfair.

How can the increasing educational choices for parents by bad?

How can the increasing educational choices for parents by bad? They’re not. From viewing Miranda’s presentation last night on vouchers, and Kelly’s presentation on Charter Schools, my opinion about the positive influence these programs bring to the American educational system was solidified.

Focusing on the issue of vouchers, my first reaction would be that the government shouldn’t be spending more money, especially tax payer money. However, would we not want our tax dollars going to a program that is helping children escape horrific schools and give them a chance to a solid education at a private school? According to Miranda, proponents state that with the voucher program, citizens will have the freedom to spend their tax money as they choose. My thoughts ran back to what Dr. Scott asked last night in class. “Do you think these schools that are some of the worst in the country, could ever change?” (I think that is close to what she asked). I strongly feel that even if you brought the brightest teachers and resources to these schools, they would not change. This is not an optimistic point of view, but I firmly feel that it is our society that needs to change first. Unless morals and values can be changed, I don’t see these schools changing. So, these choices being offered to parents are an excellent way to help lift many of these unfortunate children out of their sad circumstances.

Miranda listed several other reasons why proponents say vouchers are good:
· Vouchers would localize accountably as opposed to relying on government standards.
· Vouchers would allow for a greater economic diversity.

In the Fox News clip from the Glenn Beck show that Miranda showed us, Jeanne Allen from the Center for Education Reform, stated that the voucher program in Washington, D.C. brings about diversity, and that is a good thing. As for accountability, Ms. Allen stated that because over 33% of D.C.’s public school population attend Charter Schools, and 1700 students are in a voucher program, the new chancellor of D. C. public schools was energized to bring about reform. I feel that these two programs do bring about a healthy competition to the educational arena. In the article “D.C. Vouchers Provoke Debate” from Teacher Magazine March 4, 2009, Republicans in Congress feel that the voucher program gives parents the choice they deserve for their children, and creates a competition for the public schools. This competitive pressure helps public schools to try to do better.

One last comment that Ms. Allen stated on the Glenn Beck show was that “education is about educating the child for what they need”. These children in D. C. need this voucher program to help them succeed. Who is going to stick up for these kids? Our new administration isn’t.

A Good Program With Flaws

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.