Susan Byrnes, the Seattle Times editorial writer who specializes in education issues, comments on this WaPo article about school vouchers in Washington, DC:
The thing that bugs me most about voucher programs is the ridiculous suggestion that sending kids to private schools will somehow fix crummy public schools...Voucher proponents don't really want to fix public schools. They want to ditch them.I don't think many voucher proponents want to "ditch" public schools. I think most simply want public education to be organized differently and for its institutions to be more responsive to the parents of schoolchildren.
Unfortunately, the existing public school bureaucracies and employee unions are terribly resistant to any meaningful changes in management practices, work rules, job protections, compensation structures, a culture that rejects genuine accountability, etc. (The Seattle school establishment's refusal to accept even the most modest of charter school bills is just one recent case in point). Such a system can only lead to disappointing performance and dissatisfied parents. In other words, this is not about people ditching public education, it is about existing public school institutions ditching the families they should be serving.
Parents who are dissatisfied with their local school district will inevitably move to a different community or send their children to private school, if they can afford to do so. Fewer low-income families have the same options. Realistically, the only way that many families will find any school to take them seriously is if they bring hard dollars with them. It's not only a matter of fairness that we allow lower income families public funds so they have the power to choose their own schools. It's also probably the only way that many of the urban poor will ever have a shot at upward mobility.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 24, 2004 04:41 PMWhy not ditch the 'public' schools? What possible justification is there for their existence? Governments are not instituted among men to run schools, any more than they're instituted to run supermarkets or shoe stores. If we want to help the poor buy food, we give them food stamps, and if we want to help them buy shoes we give them other welfare or charity - why should education be any different?
Excellent point, Zev.
Catholic schools, receiving no federal funds, almost always do better than the public schools in urban areas. Their teachers are paid less, but deliver on the basics better. Plenty of non-Catholic kids attend them. Catholic schools survive because lower income folks, where I live, want an alternative. Other denominations, especially those representing the black inner city communities(the most vulnerable kids), don't have the infrastructure in place that Catholic schools have. Vouchers would give them needed capital.
The real obstacle to vouchers is the public school teacher's union. As with every monopoly, it is a sweet spot for them. Democrats, aligned with unions, cynically perpetuate failure.
Posted by: onecent on January 25, 2004 06:38 AM
I've always wondered why the "black churches" have not followed the Catholic model and offered schools their followers?. It's likely they do not have the size, scale and resources of the Catholic Church. Imagine that partnership. A conservative faith based inititive that included financial support for black churches to establish schools would do more to eliminate live long black poverty than any increase in welfare spending.
Posted by: Gary B on January 25, 2004 08:01 AMA good point, Gary.
My observation working in addiction/mental health is that faith based programs do much better serving the needs of the addicted and homeless than government programs. They use their resources better and tailor programs more specifically. Salvation Army comes to mind. They have shelters/addiction programs where they are most needed. Can putting education into the same paradigm in poor neighborhoods have better results than the decaying public schools? I think so.
It's just too bad that blacks don't seize Bush's initiatives on faith based funding with a resounding groundswell of support. Sadly, I think their historic alliance with the Democrats has blinded them to the possibilty that a Republican can offer something better.
Posted by: onecent on January 25, 2004 08:52 AMIt is called competition. Are American cars better because they have to compete with Japanese and European car companies. The answer is a clear yes. I am sure, before the 70's American car manufacturers thought they had little to learn from foreign competitiors. The problem with public schools is that they think they are already doing all they can, when they are not. If they happen to get less money, perhaps they should look at making themselves more efficient, the way other people who compete have to do. What is it about public education that makes its followers believe they should not have to compete for dollars and students. If they offered a better product, they would probably get both.
Posted by: Merv Benson on January 25, 2004 04:13 PM