4727
Why Democrats are anti-choice when it comes to schooling
This morning I heard a radio interview about school choice in Ohio and the nation's capital. People who support school choice--school vouchers--are usually conservatives or libertarians. Liberals, Democrats and "progressives," usually do not. On this issue they are illiberal. The reason, of course, is not quality of education--they can read the charts and scores--but the power of unions. Democrats do not support the poor and weak if the unions have anything to say about it. The guest on 91.5 FM was Virginia Ford, (D.C. Parents for School Choice) and she has done a survey for the state of Virginia and not a single federal legislator puts his/her child in the DC public schools. The teachers of the DC children don't put their own children in DC public schools. Obama's daughters go to private school; Hillary's daughter attended a private day school; Al Gore's children went to an exclusive school; Jesse Jackson's grand children, whose father claims a link to every major civil rights event since he was born, don't. If Nancy Pelosi brought her grandchildren to Washington, I'm sure she wouldn't enroll them in public school. Even suburban DC parents don't use the public schools if they can help it. Democrats control all the major cities--Cleveland, Chicago, New Orleans, New York, Atlanta--and parents have to fight tooth and nail to have a choice.
All children will benefit when there is competition, was the theory behind tax supported vouchers. When schools have to be accountable and the best they can be in order to get the federal and state dollar, they will drop some of the silliness that passes for education. You may not like NCLB, but it is the result of generations of professional educators leaving the poor and minority children behind. Choice is why Catholic schools are better than the public. That's why homeschooled children with parents untrained in pedogogy do much better than publicly schooled children.
Sol Stern writes:
"Public and privately funded voucher programs have liberated hundreds of thousands of poor minority children from failing public schools. The movement has also reshaped the education debate. Not only vouchers, but also charter schools, tuition tax credits, mayoral control, and other reforms are now on the table as alternatives to bureaucratic, special-interest-choked big-city school systems."
But school choice groups are struggling. They are being worn down by the powerful and well-funded unions who fear losing control. In Ohio, our former Methodist pastor Governor Ted Strickland, who ran a touchy feel-good, family values campaign to get elected, is not supportive of choice and better education for Ohio's children. The Catholic schools, the only viable alternative in many cities, will probably not survive without vouchers for the poor, according to Stern. [In my opinion, the Catholic church's pockets are deep enough in Rome from centuries of wealth building to do this without government aid, but that's another blog.]
"Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., recently announced plans to close seven of the district’s 28 remaining Catholic schools, all of which are receiving aid from federally funded tuition vouchers, unless the D.C. public school system agreed to take them over and convert them into charter schools. In Milwaukee, several Catholic schools have also closed, or face the threat of closing, despite boosting enrollments with voucher kids."
Stern says competition hasn't had the results hoped for--individual children have benefited but the systems haven't changed. I'm no math whiz, Mr. Stern, but if only 25,000 children have been able to use the voucher system and there are 50,000,000 children in the public schools, that's not exactly a fair test of market incentives! Stern says he's now leaning toward the problem of teacher training, not market forces. It's hard for me to believe 62 years after my husband and I started elementary school, me with phonics and he without, that the "experts" are still fighting that battle. I'd call throwing a child into reading without phonics is child abuse.
"Professors who dare to break with the ideological monopoly—who look to reading science or, say, embrace a core knowledge approach—won’t get tenure, or get hired in the first place. The teachers they train thus wind up indoctrinated with the same pedagogical dogma whether they attend New York University’s school of education or Humboldt State’s. Those who put their faith in the power of markets to improve schools must at least show how their theory can account for the stubborn persistence of the [Soviet style] thoughtworld."
Ironically, New York has embraced "market" forces in giving principals and teachers bonuses for improved scores, according to Stern.
"While confidently putting their seal of approval on this market system, the mayor and chancellor appear to be agnostic on what actually works in the classroom. They’ve shown no interest, for example, in two decades’ worth of scientific research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health that proves that teaching phonics and phonemic awareness is crucial to getting kids to read in the early grades. They have blithely retained a fuzzy math program, Everyday Math, despite a consensus of university math professors judging it inadequate. Indeed, Bloomberg and Klein have abjured all responsibility for curriculum and instruction and placed their bets entirely on choice, markets, and accountability."
I wonder where their children attend? Stern is able to cite one success with improved test scores, and it isn't vouchers or bonuses, it's curriculum reform and better teachers; and it's in Massachusetts.
Posts
