A quality education – Only if you know where to find it
Mitt Romney recently proposed allowing $25 billion in federal money to be fully available for any school choice a student wants to make in order to “introduce marketplace dynamics into education.”
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of marketplace dynamics. I think in many circumstances it is the completely appropriate way to regulate supply, demand and price points, to determine who gets what, what products flourish and which services flounder. However, one basic premise of the marketplace model, that so many seem to forget, is that it does not provide for everyone. By definition, some people are left out of the market. That’s fine when we are talking about who can afford a car or airfare to Disneyland. It’s appalling when we are talking about who gets access to an quality education.
I’m not making a blanket argument against school choice. I’m not arguing that our public school model always has, or currently is, adequately serving our nation’s youth. But no matter how many charters, vouchers, parochial, cyber, home-school options are out there, no matter how many families are taking advantage of those options, THERE ARE STILL STUDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS! (I hate writing in all caps, but it’s a point that is worth screaming.)
Charters and other school choice options are a phenomenal mechanism to experiment with new educational innovations. But take those lessons learned and bring them back to the public schools. The American dream is the idea that no matter where you start off in this country, through education and hard work, you can achieve. There are many who already call this a myth. We do nothing but prove them right when we continue down a path that accepts that public schools have failed and embrace a policy of abandonment.
The other, oft-overlooked, requirement for a well-functioning marketplace: the proliferation of information. The decisions that drive the market are supposed to be informed decisions. There is a well-ingrained concept of public schools in this country. A traditional method of educating our children that most parents reasonably rely on. How much research was required to determine which kindergarten your child should attend? How many applications did you have to fill out to ensure your child was “accepted” into middle school? How many specialized interests or skills did your child have to identify by the age of 13, to make sure they were getting a quality education? NONE. You buy a house or rent an apartment and your children attend the public school whose district you live in. Simple. Who will their classmates be? The children in their neighborhood. How far will they travel to get to school? Pretty much the same reasonable distance of every other student in their school. No one used the phrase “commute” to describe how they got to school in the morning.
Giving parents the ability to “vote with their feet”, as Romney proposes, is the kind of “empowered” spin that individuals who are in favor of more school choice focus on. I’ll even give them the benefit of the doubt that they believe it is simply that easy. But again it boils down to information. As a parent with limited literacy or computer skills, how are you supposed find the best school for your first-grader? How are you supposed to know that you have a choice, where to get the applications, how to work the system? Is the assumption that if you don’t know to make these decisions, your child doesn’t deserve a good education?
When many parents won’t know how to maneuver through the increasingly complicated mire of educational options, how do we ignore the fact that a growing proportion of public school-educated children will be the lowest achieving students who are most in need of all the educational resources we can give them. We start our most vulnerable children off in a flawed system that we continue to drain resources from. What reasonable person expects a child to succeed in those circumstances?
“Vouchers Unspoken, Romney Hails School Choice” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/us/politics/in-romneys-voucher-education-policy-a-return-to-gop-roots.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp
And in response... 
As a parent who just went through the application process for Kindergarten, I find this viewpoint disturbing because in the end the only thing that will happen is the complete dismantling of the public educational system.
This past year I spent most days after work completing applications and copying paperwork in order to get my child on the waiting list on some of the better Charter schools. In all we must had applied to 10 Charters in addition to higher achieving public schools (and this was just for Kindergarten not college).
This was just the beginning because once the schools had her application, we had to attend mandatory parent meetings and she had to then undergo testing and observation.Next we prayed that God found favor and she would be selected in the lottery process. For one of the schools we applied for, there were over 1200 children on the list for kindergarten for a possible 15 slots. Well in the end, out of the ten charter school her name never came up and she was wait listed .
This is the reality for most families who apply to have their children attend Charters, or schools accepting vouchers. On face value school choice seems as the answer to ensuring that children have access to quality schools because what parent would opt not to have the choice of sending their child to the best school if even the opportunity?
While a market system model may work initially the unmistakable reality it the market will always find itself upside down and in essence it will never be able to keep up with demand. As you stated in your post… most American families will be left out and it will further distance this American’s ability to compete with China, India, France, Slavic countries, and African countries such as South Africa and Zimbabwe.
The other problem with this type of system is that many of them fail and there is no public accountability. As many articles and research has shown, most Charters fail. Charters are venture capitalists dream because they are able to take risk and if they do not succeed, they can start over. Additionally the budget line item for the Department of Education is one that conservatives have tried to penetrate for years.
Charters offer big business and with the growing number of Charters popping up they are taking the valuable resources for public schools away from children who are trapped within this system.
Politicians such as Mitt Romney see this as the solution because they are not presently dealing with the daunting task of educating their children. And in reality if confronted with it now, he probably like other Republicans not take this risk. Because of his financial resources all five of his sons attend Belmont School for Boys, which is an affluent private school.
Shuttering Bad Charter Schools
Thanks for bringing up some awesome points and a first-hand perspective to the conversation, Aisha!
Good to read your thoughts Julie, and your response Aisha. Definitely a complicated issue and glad to see the discussion happening here.
“How much research was required to determine which kindergarten your child should attend? How many applications did you have to fill out to ensure your child was “accepted” into middle school? How many specialized interests or skills did your child have to identify by the age of 13, to make sure they were getting a quality education? NONE.
Actually, school selection is a huge reason why people purchase homes in certain areas. It is the first thing I look at when buying. When people choose a home, they are in essence buying a school district. Great schools help property values. There’s a reason why, say, Northern Valley is more pricey to buy than in Westwood. There isn’t that much inherently different from the towns (in fact Westwood has the benefit of a commuter rail) except for a superior pubic education.
You are also speaking from the benefit of having had a wonderful public education. Had you gone to school in say, East Harlem, none of these questions would even matter because the quality of education is so low. You would just want access to the better education because the public system is in fact, failing you.
“You buy a house or rent an apartment and your children attend the public school whose district you live in. Simple. Who will their classmates be? The children in their neighborhood. How far will they travel to get to school? Pretty much the same reasonable distance of every other student in their school. No one used the phrase “commute” to describe how they got to school in the morning.”
As I was stating before, the wealthy are able to self select the quality of education their child recieves by being able to afford high property taxes and homes. The voucher system allows low income children access to these much better schools.
Also, in NYC LOTS of kids commute to elementary, middle, and high schools. In fact, I’d say that most do. Parents lie on their applications about what district they are in (using an aunt or a friend’s address) and once the kid is in the district, the kid can’t be kicked out. That’s why the good schools in Flushing, Forest Hills, and Upper East Side are also the most over crowded. Hell, even Dad did this in the 1940’s; he grew up in Astoria but “commuted” to elementary, middle, and high school in Manhattan. He used a friend’s address.
All being said though, I don’t think the voucher system will be used this way at all and honestly believe that it is just another excuse to drain the public school system of resources. And also as an excuse to include religious teachings into a state-funded school system (see what’s going on in Louisiana)
I agree, DKN, that the local school district is a huge factor when most folks are purchasing a home, but I would suggest research is less onerous than a required application process. But the more salient point your comment brings up is that the quality differences between school districts expose the fundamental flaw in how we finance public education, namely the direct link to property taxes. Vouchers are promoted as the answer to that problem, so that a student is not condemned by his locale. But the problem of unequal schools, even among geographically close districts, remains because the underlying inequitable funding structure remains. And therefore, some students remain condemned.
I am very aware, and constantly grateful, for the phenomenal education I received. I’m aware that I was able to receive such an amazing education at a public school because my parents were able to afford to live where we lived. But I also believe such a causal relationship is kind of messed up. You mentioned that many children in New York City commute or lie to gain access to a good education. My point is that those actions shouldn’t be necessary. The same way that vouchers shouldn’t be necessary. As we continue to spend our efforts on finding ways around the system, we misuse energy and resources that would be better spent on actually fixing the system.
“And therefore, some students remain condemned.”
I don’t disagree. How much of your fine public education would you be wiling to give up so that we may have a more equal standard of education? Would you be willing to do that if you had kids in a superior school? It’s easy to say that all schools should be superior, but that’s easier said than done.
Personally I’m all for the entire dismantlement of the way education is done in America and enter into a system more similar to Gemany’s…. but that’s a whole other story 🙂
Btw, this isn’t really about vouchers but the lottery system NYC is trying with the charter schools. It’s on Netflix if you have it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lottery_(2010_film)