Quick Search
Advertise Here?
Rebuttal: School Choice: A Q&A Primer
- 30-8-08
- Categorized in: EducationNews Commentaries
Bill O'Dea
Q. Why should school choice become universal?
A. It already is, thanks to the 1920 Supreme Court ruling. Parents may opt to send their children to public schools, private schools, or educate them at home. The only choice that is unavailable is to not send a child to school.
But when people speak about school choice these days, what they often mean to ask is, "Why must I pay for public schools if I my child attends a private school?"
It's true that the wealthy practice "school choice" while the poor cannot due to the high cost of tuition for private schools. However, the wealthy always get advantages over the poor. Wealthy families live in low-crime areas where the poor cannot afford a home. Does that mean this country doesn't give citizens the right to choose where they live? The problem does not lie with the real estate market—it lies in the disparity of wealth. The same is true for school choice.
Q. Why not limit choice to government schools?
A. There is no need. Many private schools and homeschooling parents do an excellent job of educating children, especially in areas of religion and regional culture where the government cannot effectively manage.
Q. Won't state support of school choice divert funds from government schools?
A. Yes. While it depends upon the details of a school choice plan, most include a voucher system where a set amount of tax money follows the child. If the child attends a private school, that money goes there instead of to the child's local public school. Also, many funding programs depend upon enrollment to determine a funding level. The less students a public school has, the less funding they will receive.
It's possible that a state legislature will create a system that sets aside additional tax dollars for private school vouchers, it's unlikely. Few states have the money to spend extra on education.
Q. What effect will the passage of school choice legislation have on government schools? Independent schools? Educating children in general?A. It's very hard to say. On one hand, a school choice program could increase competition between schools, public and private alike, forcing both to improve in hopes of getting more students and the subsequent money. On the other hand, public schools could shut down due to lack of funds, putting additional strains on private schools to handle the students who find themselves without a school.
Independent schools may also suffer from increased government intrusion. The federal government prefers to link control to funding, forcing recipients of tax dollars to follow certain guidelines and regulations. If the media reports on a big scandal involving private schools and voucher spending, politicians may decide to exercise more oversight and intrude on private school matters.
One common metric used to decide the quality of schools is test scores. It is difficult to determine if students attending private schools have better scores than those attending public schools. Many use different tests, making any comparisons suspect. Private schools are also not required to test students and do not have to report any test scores.
Overall, students in school choice programs often show academic improvements in the first year of their new school, then come back down to the same level they were at before moving. Then again, with people manipulating data so often these days, we may never know if that is true or not.Â
Q. Is it fair for independent schools to practice selective admission/retention, while government schools must accept all students?
No. Public schools may limit admission on geography but that's it. If you reside within the district borders, you can attend school regardless of what the school prefers. Private schools may limit enrollment any way they see fit. While few, if any, private schools deny admission on the basis of race, many deny due to religion or gender. Since vouchers rely on funds paid by all taxpayers, it's not fair to limit which taxpayer gets to attend.
Perhaps more significant is the effect on students with disabilities. Educating a student with special needs costs much more than educating an average student. Yet voucher programs only give a set amount per child based on the local area's taxation. Why would any private school accept a student with severe autism that will cost three times as much as any other student?
Another important point is private school limit enrollment based on space. If they get a set number of students, they won't accept any more. Public schools, however, must accept students as long as they live in the local community. Even if a voucher program has a "first-come, first-served" guideline, many children could be denied admission because they weren't in line early enough.
Many public school use "tracks" to limit a child's choice of classes within the school. However, this has nothing to do with admission or retention of a student. A student who wants to be in a College Prep class receives the same admission/retention treatment as a student who wants a Vocational track.
Q. Is school choice common?
It depends upon your definition of school choice. As we said above, many families choose to homeschool their children or send them to private schools, making school choice common. Because both options cost money, however, few poor families can take advantage of this choice.
Voucher systems that allow tax dollars to follow a family's school choice is much less common. In the US, vouchers are used in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida and maybe more depending upon recent legislative efforts.
Q. Is school choice a panacea?
A. No, but given the complexity of education, there is no panacea. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, school choice won't fix everything.
Q. Why should any students be required to attend a school where they are unhappy or unsuccessful?
A. It depends upon why they are unhappy or unsuccessful. In today's political climate, any student who fails to learn in school is assumed blameless. Instead, the blame is placed on the school system first, then the parents, and then often culture itself. Very little accountability is placed on the student in question. If a student is unsuccessful because they refuse to study, moving that student to a private school will not help.
Publsihed August 30, 2008
Editor's Choice
Sign up for our Free Daily Email Newsletter
> Haberman Foundation/National Louis University Masters Degree - Who will benefit when classroom teachers take this Action Research and Assessment masters degree?
> Healthcare Education Information 
> Learn a foreign language
> All You Need To Know About Visa to Learn French France
> Online College Degree - Information and tips on online degrees
> do-it-all-janitorialservices.com
> Haberman Foundation and Harvard Graduate School of Education complete a Collaborative Effort
> CampusExplorer.com Search for colleges
> NACAC.net National Association for Admissions Counseling
> Students.gov Link resources for students
> Review and compare the best trade schools in your area.
I thought every point Kirkpatrick made were arguable. And some like his answer to the 1st question dead wrong in its thinking
I've written the first rational universal school choice bill (state-based, not national).
It abolishes the school district, cuts property taxes, increases income and sales taxes, converts every public school to a 501(c)3 charter, and cuts billions of dollars of waste by gutting Administration waste and corruption.
It is tailored for Illinois, but can be applied (with variations) in any state.
There is no intellectually sound argument against 100% fully funded school choice.
It is time for an education system FOR the children and parents - NOT one run by, and for the sole benefit of teachers unions and their closed, corrupt, and opaque BIG EDUCATION industry.
http://extremewisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/fundam...
<p>Parents have the choice to RANSOM their children from the iron grip of the government schools by paying extra in the form of private school and homeschool expenses.</p>
<p>2) There is no such thing as a religiously neutral education. **ALL** schools promote a religious worldview. At the moment government schools promote and **establish** the godless religious worldview of Secular Humanism. </p>
<p>Unfortunately no one can escape the taxes the government collects to **establish** the government religion of Secular Humanism in its anointed, police threat, compulsory attendance temples ( oops! "schools") </p>