According to the Democratic Congress and teacher unions, the Washington D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has not been effective in raising test scores and abilities of the 1700 students who have participated in the program each year over the past five years. They site a recent three year analysis conducted by the Department of Education which found limited gains in reading and no significant progress in math. This all very well might be true, although it goes against the anecdotal evidence provided by the students and their parents who love their new schools and the safer environment they provide. But if test scores don't live up to the anecdotal evidence, you do have to wonder if the program really is working. And if the program is not working, as the Dems and teacher unions claim, what does that then mean?
The Washington D.C. public school system, like most inner city public school systems, is an expensive, low quality, problem plagued system. Test scores are traditionally low, there are problems with school buildings, safety, and teacher performance. There are some very good charter schools within the system, but they are the exception. Most people of means who live in Washington will send their children to private schools. Indeed some 38% of the members of Congress with children in school send them to private schools. So 1700 public school students are given the chance to go to a private school of their choice, armed with a $7500 voucher courtesy of the federal government. Because a school is private does not necessarily mean that the school is superior in every manner, but presumably a private school should offer better teacher to student ratios, safety, discipline, perhaps better motivated teachers, and perhaps better motivated students. And while there is not the governmental accountability that public schools supposedly have, private schools are indeed accountable to their customers . . parents who are shelling out thousands of additional dollars beyond taxes for a better education for their children. That means that underperforming teachers are let go.
So 1700 students, spending the past three years in private schools rather than public schools, show no noticeable improvement in their learning? If that is the case, what does that mean? Are they saying that the private school experience has no affect on these kids? Are they saying that these kids, given the opportunity to learn, are still unable to learn? Does this then mean that any argument for more funding or for higher salaries for public school teachers really will not translate into better test scores? If a private school setting cannot help these students, and if the public school setting is failing these students, what now? Again, the school system will most likely say they need more resources (money) invested into the system. But to what end, especially if these students were unable to improve even under the best of educational circumstances?
I have not heard much of anything that addresses these kind of questions. All we hear is that the voucher program was ineffective. Of course these same people will never admit that the Washington D.C. public school system is ineffective as well. Meanwhile thousands of District kids are losing out. There are of course larger issues present in any inner city school system: too many kids from single parent homes, too many parents and kids on public assistance, too much crime, perhaps too many kids with dysfunctional parents, too little hope. It can be tough teaching and learning in that kind of environment, public or private. These are societal problems though, not school system problems. School systems have to deal with the kinds of kids they are given. I believe that most kids can transcend their circumstances if given the chance. Seems to me that a private school choice provides them with at least one more option to achieve this.
No comments:
Post a Comment