I do disagree with the article's opinion that "vouchers pose a serious threat to values that are vital to the health of American democracy". The author states that vouchers would be used to "indoctrinate" children with narrow parochial agendas. Not all private schools are oriented toward a particular religion. He also states that public education is for all students regardless of religious affiliation, academic talents, or the ability to pay a fee. Where do magnet schools fit in to this statement? Public schools like Whitney Young have enrollment based solely on academic talent and therefore is not open to all students. Schools such as Young do not even allow students to apply that do not have a particular stanine on standardized tests. I have taught students that had straight A's but did not score particularly well on the ISAT so were never even given a chance to attend that school. This seems to contradict the statement that public schools are for all students. A voucher might actually help those students attend an academically challenging private school.
He also states that vouchers would allow tax payer money to go to schools run by the KKK and other such extremist groups. I have never heard of a KKK school and I hardly think they would start up a school just because vouchers were available. People that are part of racist or extremist groups teach their own form of hatred at home. I think it's a stretch when he says that Brown vs. Board of Education would be tossed out because the money from vouchers would be used to deliberately segregate schools.
I don't know what the answer is when questioning if vouchers are a good idea, but I do know that many of our inner city and poorest schools are in extreme need of help and something does need to be done for the students attending these schools.
There is no question this is a controversial issue. I think the threat to democracy comes from the fact that the public schools are accountable in terms of what values they teach, whereas some private scihools DO teach exclusivity, racism, ethnic hatred, and religious intolerance. (Brown vs. Board of Ed doesn't apply to private schools, although it might be applied to vouchers...no one is sure.) Also, vouchers would encourage the more involved/interested parents to pull their kids out of the neighborhood schools, leaving those even more impoverished (in terms of both human capital and socio-economic status). The other argument against vouchers is that any energy that the public is willing to put into improving public schools will be lost. Personally, I believe it's tantamount to giving up on public schools in many localities, including Chicago.
ReplyDeleteI agree that something needs to be done to help struggling schools. I'm not sure vouchers are the answer. Vouchers would allow students to move to a private school of choice. What would then happen at that private school? Having worked at a private school, I can tell you that sometimes there are uncertified teachers teaching. (Many religious schools that I know of only require a college degree, not a teaching certificate.) How will they help students who may be years behind because they come from an impoverished neighborhood? How will that private school respond to the increase in students needing special services? They do not receive funding for such needs. Legally, the neighborhood schools are accountable for servicing all students in their attendance area- even if the student attends a private school. This would create an additional drain on the neighborhood schools. Instead of paying for vouchers, I think the money is best spent to encourage improvements in the schools that are failing. Hire specialists, lower class sizes, train teacher, lengthen the day, add enrichment and tutoring programs. All of those things will help local schools service the children they are ultimately responsible for anyway. Let the private schools stay private.
ReplyDelete