The field director for Parent Led Reform Chad Mathis celebrates a recent appellate court ruling that overturned a lower court’s opinion that Douglas County’s school voucher program is unconstitutional.
The recent decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals really brightened the days of many Douglas County students and their families. It also offers hope to others who for now can only hope their local school board might be humble and brave enough to follow suit by honoring the authority and responsibility of parents to choose their children’s educational paths.
A scene from Douglas County’s voucher lottery in June 2011. The plan remains on hold as it makes its way through the courts. EdNews file photo
I have one child enrolled in a Douglas County charter school and another child who will be entering school in two and a half years.
As a consumer, I benefit when restaurants, tire stores, insurance companies or any other providers of goods or services compete for my business. Regardless of what the industry is, competition gives incentive for high quality products and services. Competition also gives incentives for providers of these products and services to specialize to meet specific needs of different consumers. K-12 education is no different from other industries in this aspect. Consumers of K-12 education benefit when there is a dynamic marketplace of options that strive to meet children’s diverse learning needs.
Some seem to believe that competition will hurt traditional neighborhood public schools. This belief simply is not true. If anything, increased choices for parents will ultimately make public schools even better, not worse, than they currently are. Public schools will have more incentive to customize and tweak their services to meet the needs of more children.
We experienced this phenomenon when Federal Express started competing with the USPS in the package delivery business. And our kids are far more important than the packages we send.
While I may not be an expert in the finer points of education, I will claim to be an expert in knowing my daughter and my son and their needs. There is no one in the education field who can claim to be a better expert in this area than my wife and myself.
There are also many children in the district with a different mix of needs than my own children, and the parents of these children are in the best position to determine what these needs are. Therefore, parents should have more input in how to direct the education funding for their children and special interest groups, such as teachers’ unions, should have less.
Most parents probably will continue to choose the district’s neighborhood school options. A growing number are satisfied with the various charter school programs in Douglas County. But to make sure 100 percent of students are getting the best help to meet their potential, I’m glad the board has put so much support behind the Choice Scholarship Program as well.
My children will be entering school over the next few years. That’s why I appreciate the efforts this school board has made to move away from the one-size-fits-all model towards a “system” with expanded choices and incentives for education providers to innovate and better meet the needs of children in the district.
About the author
Chad Mathis is the Douglas County field director for Parent Led Reform and a risk analysis manager for a Denver area insurance broker.
The Court’s recognition of a local school board’s authority to offer families more educational options is certainly worthy of celebration. A sure way to improve the potential for a child’s academic success is to engage the parents as full partners, recognizing the important freedom and responsibility they have by affording them the widest possible range of choices. On behalf of the families who stand to benefit from the Choice Scholarship Program, hurrah to the Douglas County School Board!
Tis a sad day in Douglas County when public dollars are siphoned out of the public school classroom door to religious and to private enterprises. We need collaboration, not competition, to meet the diverse needs of our children in public schools. Separation of church and State is a bedrock value of a Democracy, and the wall of separation should be enforced. Students should not be commodities to be freighted around the market place.
Ben – LOL…you and the Independence Institute are all about freedom and choice for families especially if they are privileged enough for the voucher to amount to the funding that family needs to send their kids to any school they want. Ayn Rand’s pipe dream is all great…in theory. Right?
BTW, did you get that teaching job yet? Or are you going to stick to sitting at your computer pounding out tired Independence Institute talking points forever??
The biggest problem with alternative education is that it produces people who have no idea of what other people think or know. For instance people who cannot understand science and then try to tell the rest of us that “it says in the Bible” and have no reality to base anything they say on anything other than a book that was written as a story and a parable of history. They are dangerous to the rest of humanity. If they would stay off in their wierd little worlds and leave the rest of us alone it wouldn’t be so bad. You will not be smarter than the smartest teacher you ever had, and when you start with limiting information and translate everything with “belief” you end up in a tar pool.
The term “Separation of Church and State” is not found in the constitution or any other founding document but was rather used in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church to ease their concerns that a rival denomination would not be legally “established” as a national church (similar to what existed with the Church of England). The Choice Scholarship Program does not “establish a reliigion” as referred to in the first amendment but rather is religiously neutral and allows the parents to direct educational funding based on the educational needs of their children. This is similar to what exists with the GI Bill or Pell Grant which can also be used by consumers of education at sectarian institutions. With the program, students are not “commodities” but rather the benefactors of the service of education for which different providers are incented to try to meet their specific needs and learning styles. This is opposed to the traditional “one-size-fits-all” approach.
There is no evidence from the long-standing voucher programs already in existence that competition from vouchers improves educational outcomes for children. If vouchers and competition accomplished anything close to what Mr. Mathis is suggesting, the public school systems in Milwaukee and Cleveland would be shining examples of the effects of competition, and voucher recipients in these cities would be outperforming public school children, neither of which is true.
Mr. Mathis’ opinions are based on conjecture and the fact that he is seeking vouchers for his own children. The notion that vouchers in Douglas County create more choice for parents is ridiculous. Vouchers create more choice for private schools who will get to choose which kids they will admit based mostly on religious discrimination.
Sad day indeed, but I have every confidence the state Supreme Court will decide that public tax dollars collected for the purpose of educating public school kids can only be used in our public schools.
It seems to me there are two issues here that are getting conflated: Does the voucher program violate the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution? And, is the voucher program likely to be effective in improving student learning for students who do not or cannot take advantage of the vouchers and remain in Douglas County schools?
The appeals court issued a split decision only on the constitutionality. My main criticism of the article is that it seems to say that the because the voucher program increases competition, and because competition always leads to better products and services, the program is therefore constitutional. The argument’s conclusion is a non sequitur and I think the second assumption regarding the success of competition requires more evidential support than generalized comparisons of schools to “restaurants, tire stores, [and] insurance companies.”
I’m not sure what relevance the discussion of the Establishment Clause has for this particular issue. Colorado has far more specific language in its constitution, and these are the provisions that the appeals court made its rulings based upon (wrongly, I believe, but the Supreme Court will either set me straignt or make me feel like a legal genius).
Probably the most relevant of the provisions is Article IX, section 7.
Colorado Constitution Art. IX, Section 7:
Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money or other personal property, ever be made by the state, or any such public corporation to any church, or for any sectarian purpose.
There is certainly a difference of opinion on how this applies to the DougCo vouchers (or there wouldn’t have been a reversal), but it is a pretty clear statement by the people of this state that church and state should be separate when it comes to public education.
Adam D. – Thanks for the correction. Because the only justification the author makes for his opinion is to cite the U.S. constitution in the comments section, I mistakenly assumed that was the relevant law.
It is incorrect that there is “no evidence” that “competittion from vouchers improves educational outcomes for children.” A number of studies with rigorous methodologies, including random assignment, show that there are numerous benefits to children from participating in voucher programs, especially in the areas of graduation rates and test scores. Many of those studies are summarized at http://www.edchoice.org/research/reports/a-win-win-solution–the-empirical-evidence-on-school-vouchers.aspx. The linked full report provides a description of each study and its results. Note that those who summarized the research are not responsible for it; the authors recognize that there will be some who contend that the results are ethically suspect due to the authors’ affiliations or funding sources, and they rebut those potential allegations.
Other studies also indicate positive results for students. For example, a very recent study from Harvard University shows a significant increase in African-American graduation rates and college enrollment due to vouchers. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2012/8/23%20school%20vouchers%20harvard%20chingos/Impacts_of_School_Vouchers_FINAL.pdf
Note that my citing of these studies is only meant to address the contention that there is “no evidence” of improved educational outcomes. EdNews readers may be interested in all of the evidence to the contrary. This research can inform the community’s debate on these issues, to include program structure, implementation and evaluation of results.
Prior to DCSD’s Choice Scholarship Program being enjoined, we had been looking forward to a study of the program that would be conducted by CU-Colorado Springs. It is my hope that should the program resume, that such a study would still be conducted, giving us meaningful data as to the CSP’s results.
Meghann…the Brookings study you cite has won a NEPC award for truly rotten education research. Also, count me as one who contends that the results of studies compiled by the Friedman Foundation are suspect. The Friedman Foundation is notable for their obvious bias and agenda. I would love to read an independent, peer-reviewed study that supports the notion that vouchers have improved educational outcomes for kids.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2013/02/bunkum-2012
Here is some interesting information from the Nstional School Boards Association, which I thought you might enjoy, Meghann, as you are a Douglas County public schools board member. There are lots of links here to read through regarding vouchers in Milwaukee.
http://www.nsba.org/Advocacy/Key-Issues/SchoolVouchers/VoucherStrategyCenter/State-and-City-Voucher-Programs/MilwaukeeVoucherProgram
Chad…the GI Bill and Pell Grants are used by adults who do not have a tuition-free option available to them. Neither program equates to a k12 voucher program.
After hearing how “illegal” this program was it turns out it’s perfectly constitutional. Looks like the Douglas County Federation is going to have to update their talking points. I still get a sick stomach thinking there are actually people who would politicize this and deny children and parents from choosing a school that best fits their needs. Evil still exists, check to make sure which side you are on. It is refreshing to know that good prevailed, hopefully we will see more of this.
I am so thankful that this Douglas County BOE puts the little people in the District before the big people. They give Parents every option possible to educate their children. They realize that not all children can learn from the cookie cutter of Public School. I thank you and all current and future children that use this program thank you. The best part about this program is if you do not want to take part you do not have to… priceless!
Brian, the Friedman Foundation’s report was not a study; it was a compendium of available empirical studies. The criteria to be included in the report “all available empirical studies on participant effects” that use random assignment, which is the so-called “gold standard” of research methodology, as well as those that use any scientific method. They address methodology and, indeed, spend an entire page addressing allegations of bias such as yours.
You are suggesting that anything included in this report is suspect simply because it’s included. I’ll list some of the studies individually, plus a few more for good measure. Note that at least one (Barnard) publishes the results of the peer review at the bottom of their study. If you choose to read them, I am interested in your opinions on the studies. I hope you will read with an open mind and not choose to write them off because you have a narrow viewpoint of what kind of study is automatically biased or otherwise unacceptable.
As for your citation of the Brookings study as “rotten research,” the authors themselves have a response to the NEPC critique, including pointing out a false statement. Interestingly, NEPC didn’t actually prove that this was “rotten research.” http://educationnext.org/critique-of-study-of-voucher-impact-on-college-enrollment-misguided/
You may not agree with the Choice Scholarship Program or vouchers in general. However, there are too many rigorous studies for you to state definitively that there are no effects on student achievement from vouchers.
Martin Carnoy, et. al., Vouchers and Public School Performance: A Case Study of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, Economic Policy Institute, 2007.
(http://www.epi.org/publication/book_vouchers/)
Rajashri Chakrabarti, “Can Increasing Private School Participation and Monetary Loss in a Voucher Program Affect Public School Performance? Evidence from Milwaukee,” Journal of Public Economics, June 2008. (http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/economists/chakrabarti/mil1-2_Chakrabarti_frbny.pdf)
Rajashri Chakrabarti, “Impact of Voucher Design on Public School Performance: Evidence from Florida and Milwaukee Voucher Programs,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report #315, January 2008.
(http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr315.html )
Caroline Minter Hoxby, “Rising Tide: New evidence on competition and the public schools.” Education Next, Winter 2001.
(http://educationnext.org/rising-tide/)
Jay P. Greene and Ryan H. Marsh, “The Effect of Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program on Student Achievement in Milwaukee Public Schools,” School Choice Demonstration Project Report, March 2009.
(http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/SCDP/Milwaukee_Eval/Report_11.pdf)
Hanushek, Eric, Sinan Sarpça, and Kuzey Yilmaz. Private Schools and Residential Choices: Accessibility, Mobility, and Welfare. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy (Contributions).
(http://hanushek.stanford.edu/publications/private-schools-and-residential-choices-accessibility-mobility-and-welfare )
Jay Greene and Marcus Winters, “Competition Passes the Test,” Education Next, Summer 2004.
(http://educationnext.org/competition-passes-the-test/)
Cecilia Elena Rouse, Jane Hannaway, Dan Goldhaber, and David Figlio, “Feeling the Heat: How Low Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure,” CALDER Working Paper 13, Urban Institute, November 2007.
(http://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001116_Florida_Heat.pdf)
West, M. R. and Peterson, P. E. (2006), The Efficacy of Choice Threats Within School Accountability Systems: Results from Legislatively Induced Experiments. The Economic Journal, 116: C46–C62. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01075.x (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/West_Peterson_ChoiceThreats.pdf )
Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters, “The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence From Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program.” Manhattan Institute, Civic Report Number 52, April 2008.
(http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_52.htm)
Rouse, Cecilia Elena. “Private School Vouchers and Student Achievement: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 113, no. 2 (May 1998): 553-602.
(http://www.nber.org/papers/w5964)
Barnard, John, Constantine Frangakis, Jennifer Hill and Donald Rubin, “Principal Stratification Approach to Broken Randomized Experiments: A Case Study of School Choice Vouchers in New York City,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, June 2003.
(http://biosun01.biostat.jhsph.edu/~cfrangak/papers/sc/vouchers.pdf )
Wolf, Pstrick, et. al., “Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report,” U.S. Department of Education, June 22, 2010.
(http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104018/pdf/20104018.pdf)
Figlio, David N. and Cecilia Elena Rouse. “Do Accountability And Voucher Threats Improve Low-Performing Schools?,” Journal of Public Economics, 2006, v90(1-2,Jan), 239-255.
(http://www.nber.org/papers/w11597)
Brian, keep your head in the sand. It’s your prerogative to believe a union-funded critique (NEPC) and ignore numerous peer-reviewed academic study, but it doesn’t bestow any critical thinking credentials to do so. Do you deny evidence showing improved graduation rates from the Milwaukee and DC voucher programs? Let’s take it to a slightly different realm. What do you think of the evidence showing the remarkable success of the KIPP charter school network?
Andres, my hat is off to you for setting a straw man and knocking it down… barely. Ayn Rand? Seriously? Maybe then you are for means-tested vouchers and scholarship tax credits to empower low-income families, like Howard Fuller or Cory Booker. I can respect that position. Otherwise, silly arguments ad hominem (look it up) may amuse you, but they’re not terribly persuasive.
Meghann…I didn’t say that the Friedman Foundation’s report was a study. Please re-read my post. I mentioned studies compiled by that foundation are suspect. As to the rest of the studies you posted, I will read them when I have time. You have no response to the discussions I posted via the NSBA?
Also, all of these places where vouchers have been tried are faced with issues we do not have here in Douglas County. You’ve talked with me enough to know that I value honesty a great deal, which is the primary reason I have little time for Mr. DeGrow. I wish you would just be honest…the Douglas County voucher program is about providing people with public tax dollars so they can send their kids to religious schools. It is not about improving our public schools through competition.
Ben, it’s interesting that funding sources are never important as long as they fund studies that support your ideology, but when they don’t, you are suddenly very concerned about funding. I know you’d like to have it both ways, but that’s not how it works. Also, your obsession with everything union related is becoming a bit of a joke. I’m beginning to think it must have been some sort of union issue that prevented you from landing that teaching job in Michigan.
Meghann, the first study you posted supports the position that vouchers do not have a positive effect on achievement. I am also not likely to be swayed by any studies involving Jay P. Greene, who has a clear bias. Do I really need to read the rest of them?
(Sorry for all these posts)
Meghann, the Hanushek study discusses the possibility of positive effects from income targeted vouchers for poor students. Again, this study does little to inform us about the negative effects vouchers will have in a relatively homogenous, wealthy community like Douglas County. There aren’t any failing schools in Douglas County and the tired rhetoric that people are trying to take away choices or that choices don’t already exist is disingenuous at best. The fact that a public schools board created a voucher scheme is remarkable in and of itself.
I have already read the studies you have posted and we have discussed a couple of them previously. I am growing more confident by the day that vouchers will be a moot point after November’s school board election anyway. I wonder what we could accomplish if we put this much time and energy into solving the socio-economic factors that actually have an extremely negative impact on achievement around the country?
Ben, what about the data that shows that student achievement has not been improved in Milwaukee? Do you deny that Milwaukee public school students outperform their peers who receive vouchers? Milwaukee voucher supporters are trying to make it so voucher students would not take Wisconsin standardized tests. I guess if the data does not support your position you just have to get rid of the data.
I believe it is imperative that we don’t use the “one size fits all model” for our kids and grandkids. Each child is unique and requires specific attention, schooling, etc. so I applaud the Douglas County School Board and their innovative ideas for our community. Parents being able to choose and find the best options for their kids is vital – family first!!!!
Greg and Brian, as I recall you are not really a fan of the standardized tests. How then can you base the success or failure of a voucher program on test scores? There are many more things to take into consideration. Truancy rate, crime, drugs. Also the fact of bullying. Does the child feel more secure and fit in better at another school.? These things are much more important than test scores. I think the success of a school and/or voucher program is measured by multiple things. The last thing on my list is test scores. Don’t you think that the parent and students should be the one measuring the success of it? For example. My son attends a high school that does not have a great letter grade. I don’t agree with that letter grade. He is getting an excellent education and the teachers are outstanding.
Brian, I didn’t say you said it was a study. Perhaps you should re-read MY post. In any case, the Carnoy study, which you say “supports the position that vouchers do not have a positive effect on achievement,” actually says, “This analysis tests whether the introduction of large-scale vouchers in 1998 had a significant impact on the performance of Milwaukee’s public school students. It confirms the earlier results showing a large improvement in Milwaukee in the two years following the 1998 expansion of the voucher plan to religious schools.” I suggest you read the studies thoroughly instead of skimming the executive summaries to find information that supports your position, which you’ve given the appearance that you have done.
Also, if you have re-read my post, I do not say that these apply to situations similar to Douglas County’s. That’s not what you asked for earlier. You first said, “There is no evidence from the long-standing voucher programs already in existence that competition from vouchers improves educational outcomes for children. “, then you later said, ” I would love to read an independent, peer-reviewed study that supports the notion that vouchers have improved educational outcomes for kids.” I provided those things to you despite you seeming not to believe they exist. Yes, you should read the rest of the studies, including the peer-reviewed study I provided for you.
Finally, it is peculiar that you instruct me what my motivations are for the CSP, and then lament that I am not “honest” if I do not agree and therefore climb into the box into which you’d like me to be. The CSP is not about sending kids to religious schools with tax money. It’s about providing expanded educational choices for parents, who ultimately decide what is best for their children. I have never been anything but honest with you, despite what you may wish to believe. Thank you for your service to the Douglas County School District.
Brian, I appreciate that you can take through a filter anything I say based on the fact of who supports my work. The same sort of filter can be applied to the union-funded NEPC. But you can’t apply that same sort of approach to the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed studies cited. I appreciate at least some recognition of the overwhelming research showing some positive impacts from voucher programs among certain student populations, but questioning their applicability to Douglas County. That’s a fair debate. And that might be a problem if the board had staked the program entirely on the argument that it would boost academic outcomes in the district.
Greg, to which data are you referring? The US Dept of Education review of the most comprehensive research on the impacts of Milwaukee’s choice program “found that the reading test scores of MPCP students in 2010 were 0.15 standard deviations higher than they were for the matched comparison sample, a statistically significant difference. There was no significant difference in math test scores in 2010. In the 2010–11 school year, the district implemented a new policy to publicize the test scores of MPCP students, and this could have affected the students’ academic achievement.” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/SingleStudyReview.aspx?sid=214
So, perhaps “Milwaukee public school students outperform their peers who receive vouchers” in a few areas but not overall.
Becky’s point is well taken here, too. Either there are other things besides test scores that matter in determining the value and effectiveness of a school, or there aren’t. It’s just that test scores represent the most accessible data of comparable, consistent value. But any determination about DougCo’s choice program, and what student populations may be helped academically or not, cannot be known while a legal injunction looms. Even if the results are neutral academically for most students, though, wouldn’t you at least want parents to be more satisfied somewhere else than miserable in a current DCSD school? Especially if it’s a small minority of students who would take advantage of the program.
Also appreciate Brian’s ability to put me in good spirits with some armchair psychiatry, especially because it happens to be off base. I never applied for a full-time teaching job in Michigan. But had I done so, I wouldn’t have appreciated being treated like this: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2013/03/mackinac_center-backed_right-t.html. My interest in unions dates back earlier in my life.
One might just as easily speculate about some people’s sensitivities about the subject of unions being discussed, but that approach doesn’t really get us anywhere. Or maybe one could explore the “obsession with all things” religious. I have no problem with parents directing funds to a school that they believe best benefits their child, from a level playing field of various religious and non-religious options. This program doesn’t represent a government endorsement of any religion in particular, or religion in general. The Appeals Court majority’s opinion addresses the state-level constitutional questions. The U.S. Constitution and First Amendment issues are clearly supportive.
As Dennis Prager often says, he values clarity over agreement. I think we are closer to understanding our philosophical disagreements here, and better appreciating the existing evidence (and lack of evidence) for what it is.
You want statistics….50% of Colorado high school students do not graduate and those that do are largely illiterate. The kids are told…. go to college…. go to college. Yet the only way to get them into college is dumming down the requirements….higher education means remedial classes to get the kids up to speed in math and literacy. Because of demographics Douglas County has a much higher graduation success rate….it is our inner city children who suffer the most with lack of school choice….The Dept of Education has been running our schools since the 60′s and have failed miserably. This fledgling Douglas County Voucher program can offer the inner city children a ray of hope. Soon they too can offer choice to their children. Competition always makes things better and that applies to our educational choices. The unions are a huge bore. They need to step aside and let the parents make their own decisions for what is good for their children.
Fair enough, Meghann. Can we agree, then, that the voucher program in Douglas County has nothing to do with improving our public schools as Chad stated in his opinion piece?
Margo…the voucher scheme in Douglas County does not increase choices for parents. The same choices that exist now will exist if the voucher scheme is allowed to go forward. However, in the event the voucher scheme is allowed to go forward, families will then take more public tax dollars then they contribute and send that money to a private schools. Therefore, voucher recipients would receive the benefits derived from a strong public school system, such as higher property values and a thriving business sector, without paying anything into the system from which they benefit. In economics, this is known a a free-rider problem.
Caty…your statistics are completely false. The “on time” graduation rates for Colorado students is over 75%. As far as remediation needs in Colorado colleges are concerned, students in Colorado’s high schools have every opportunity to learn everything they need to prepare them for college. Whether they choose to take advantage of that or not is often out of the control of teachers and administrators. When are people going to start looking at the home for some answers as to why some students don’t take advantage of the opportunities provided?
Brian, it is not true that it will require more tax dollars if the CSP pilot program is implemented. Only children who are already in public schools whose education is already being paid for by tax monies are eligible. The pilot program would simply take 75% of what would have gone to the public schools to educate the child and give it to the parent to use at an eligible school that is best able to meet the needs of the child. Therefore, there will actually be 25% lower tax dollars spent on the child who utilizes this program than if they were to remain in their public school.
I didn’t say it would require more tax dollars, Chad. I said that voucher recipients will recieve more tax dollars in the form of a voucher than the tax dollars they are paying into the system. In other words, very few, if any, DCSD families are paying $4,700 in taxes to fund education, but they will get $4,700 back in the form of a voucher. Isn’t that correct, Chad?
Brian,
I agree with you 100% however, what you said about parents who use vouchers could also be said about parents who have their children in public neighborhood schools or charter schools but to a greater extent i.e. ‘very few, if any, DCSD families are paying $6,100 in taxes to fund education, but they will get $6,100 back in the form of PPR spending to educate their children in public neigborhood schools or charter schools.’ Therefore, it is a given that most parents will have more funding go to their childrens education than they are paying in taxes to fund their education, I just support parents having more choices in how to utilize that funding.
Brian, if, as you say, the DC voucher “scheme” doesn’t increase choices for parents, then why do you oppose it? You seem to have an anti-religious bias, which you obscure in economic arguments–none of which stand up to scrutiny. The truth is that the public schools will end up with MORE money per pupil if the voucher program is implemented not less. Parents in a free society like ours should have the right to educate their children as they see fit not be told by you or anyone else what’s best for their kids. If you (if you are a parent) wish to give your kids to have a secular education, you should have that right (by the way, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared secular humanism a religion). However, if a Christian, Jew, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. want to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs and values, they should also have that right. The appelate court decision found the voucher program constitutional, meaning that it doesn’t violate Colorado’s religious funding prohibitions. I’m guessing that state dollars already help fund a great many programs with religious affiliations, such as drug recovery programs, day care and pre-school programs, homeless shelters, etc. So, “honest” guy that you are, what’s your real issue?
Hi Terry,
I’m not anti-religious at all. Vouchers result in the defunding of public schools and lead to privatization without any demonstrated results to suggest they benefit society in any way. I love private schools and I’m glad that they exist, whether they be religious schools or not. I don’t want a portion of my tax dollars to go to schools that discriminate. If parents want to send their kids to religious schools, I’m all for it. I just want them to pay for it themselves.
Having been a public school teacher for many years until having our own children, I have much to say on this issue. Especially since all our children attend private school.
I know. Here comes the bashings…
First and foremost, IF state lawmakers want to start forcing our children to learn ideas, behaviors, topics, curriculum, etc, that is against our values, beliefs, traditions, and do not even allow an honest and open discussion of others values, beliefs, behaviors, then the state must allow begin allowing tax cuts, tax credits and other allowances so that we can afford sending our children (note emphasis on OUR children) to schools not under state control with state mandated and in doctrinal beliefs.
Standards, morals, systems in public school are driven by either state or federal mandates and guidelines. MANY parents have issue with public school teachings as public schools teach ONLY what they want and are completely intolerant to teachings, thoughts, debates, beliefs or morals that go against the “State” philosophy. Public school is extremely intolerant when one choses to disagree with its tenants.
Enough with with the double standard of “tolerance”. Parents who do not agree with the mandated education of our children agree the state can teach as seen fit, PROVIDED, we, the parents who do not agree, are not forced to financially support such an intolerant and corrupt system as is being forced upon us and then we are bullied and belittled when we disagree with state mandates.
Currently many parents pay into a system that is corrupt, immoral, runs teachings counter to what the family structure believes and teaches at home. THEN in order to not have our children bankrupted in morally, ethically and educationally, we must pay on top of this to ensure a quality education. That’s a double standard. That’s bigoted. That’s robbery. That’s immoral!~
In Texas, CSCOPE was created so that teachers could frame their year around teaching points required by the state. Lessons, which are written by CSCOPE staff and current and former teachers, can be updated and delivered online, making it more cost-effective than standard textbooks. To note just how off-color some of the CSCOPE curriculum is, consider that the Texas CSCOPE Review, an independent watchdog group, uncovered an out-of-date, optional CSCOPE lesson-plan on terrorism — “World History Unit 12 Lesson 07″ — which allegedly likens the Boston Tea Party to “an act of terrorism.”
The system also recently asked students to design a flag for a new socialist nation.
According to a report, teachers were told they were expected to deliver the curriculum verbatim and only on days allotted by the CSCOPE lesson plan. Even if students were unable to absorb the lesson, teachers were allegedly directed to progress to the next lesson regardless. Teachers were “asked to sign a contract that would prevent them from revealing what was in the CSCOPE lessons or face civil and criminal penalties.”
CSCOPE was created so that teachers could frame their year around teaching points required by the state. Lessons, which are written by CSCOPE staff and current and former teachers, can be updated and delivered online, making it more cost-effective than standard textbooks.
To note just how off-color some of the CSCOPE curriculum is, consider that the Texas CSCOPE Review, an independent watchdog group, uncovered an out-of-date, optional CSCOPE lesson-plan on terrorism — “World History Unit 12 Lesson 07″ — which allegedly likens the Boston Tea Party to “an act of terrorism.”
The system also recently asked students to design a flag for a new socialist nation.
The controversial program’s website states that CSCOPE is a comprehensive online curriculum management system developed and owned by the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC), a consortium composed of the 20 ESCs in the state.” It goes on to explain that the CSCOPE system provides curriculum framework for grades kindergarten through 12 across a broad range of subject areas.
The online description might raise red flags for some when it states that the CSCOPE content is regularly updated based on, among other criteria, “feedback collected through various stakeholder groups in the collaborative, including individual teacher submissions through the CSCOPE website and the School District Advisory Committee, comprised of district representatives from all participating regions of the state.”
What, or rather who, comprises CSCOPE’s collaborative and stakeholder groups? That question and a myriad others are what critics hope to get to the bottom of.
But while the groups to which CSCOPE appears relatively beholden may sound alarms for critics, the actual researchers CSCOPE credits with providing the basis for its curriculum seem to be formidable industry veterans by and large. Those educators include Robert Marzano, Fenwick English, John Crain, Heidi Hayes Jacobs, Grant Wiggins, Jay McTighe, H. Lynn Erickson, and James Barufaldi.
CSCOPE has been adopted by some 75 percent of Texas schools and the aim was to implement a national adoption of the management system. However, according to some education blogs, Common Core Standards sought to purchase CSCOP as a national curriculum standard. It is by far and away, one of the more hotly contested topics in the current education debate and much mystery still remains as to CSCOPE’s core tenets. Secular progressivism, further, the notion of communal life and collectivism, is at the system’s core. Other points of contention concerning CSCOPE curriculum include lesson-plans positing that Christopher Columbus was an “eco-warrior” and, when referring to the famed explorer’s journal, all references to God and Christendom were removed.
Hartzler, who taught math for nearly four decades, retired early because of CSCOPE. He said that he was written nearly a dozen times for not following the system’s lesson plan and maintains that CSCOPE is dumbing-down American students. He said he tried his best to follow the lesson plans, but simply could not.
Bowen, who is currently forced to use CSCOPE in her school district, feels that schools are now more like factories that send children out into the real world from an assembly-line that has not even given them the basics.
WHy should I be forced to finance a school system that is fundamentally and morally wrong and counter productive to what I believe in? Something that others before me fought very hard to earn those rights for?
Instead of designing a flag for a new socialist nation, how about studying more about the true histiry and founation of America, both the good an dbad. How about discussing how the Star Spangled Banner came about and the lives that were given in the searh for liberty and an end to tyranny from Britain?
One last thought regarding religion in public schools. There has been significant discourse that vouchers will force taxpayers to support religious teachings and schools. Aren’t we already doing that in public schools? Isn’t secular humanism and atheism in fact a form of religion?
What is the definition of religion? A set of tightly held beliefs, as taught and discussed. Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Isn’t teaching evolution with the air of certainty considered religion when in fact this is theory as no certain proof exists? Isn’t atheism in fact a religion as it meets every criteria for the definition of religion? Public schools teach evolution and often teaches atheism through its support of anti deity thought teachings and processes. Students are told they cannot pray while at school. Yet they can support any number of atheistic practices. Again, atheism does meet the criteria and definition of religion.
What about secular humanism which is strongly held in public school? Does this meet the definition and criteria for a religion? The American Humanist Association endorses elective abortion. Other contemporary views include working for equality for homosexuals, gender equality, a secular approach to divorce and remarriage, working to end poverty, promoting peace and nonviolence, and environmental protection. Secular humanism embraces human reason, ethics, social justice and philosophical naturalism. Meanwhile it rejects religion as basis of morality and decision making
What is the definition of religion? A set of tightly held beliefs, as taught and discussed. Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.
Excuse the redundancy, but we already support and pay for religious teachings in public school… It’s time parents had a say in the educational process of our children and be allowed the liberty America was founded upon and opt out of the state institutionalized educational program.
Those of you in Douglas County cannot even begin to know about the voucher system, and how it can destroy a school district. You should do your homework on what happened with Hope Online- now a Douglas County turnaround school back in 2006 and DPS.
(I-News Network- Education News 2011- Nancy Mitchell). Now Title 1 funding? Where is that money going?
Cat you are right
….50% of Colorado high school students do not graduate and those that do are largely illiterate. The kids are told…. go to college…. go to college. Yet the only way to get them into college is dumming down the requirements….higher education means remedial classes to get the kids up to speed in math and literacy. Because of demographics Douglas County has a much higher graduation success rate….it is our inner city children who suffer the most with lack of school choice…. This fledgling Douglas County Voucher program can offer the inner city children a ray of hope.
Cat-
You obviously do not know or have talked to the right people about the “inner city” kids who have gone to Hope Online. 8 years of operation of which 4 years are failing scores and no TCAP improvement is not Hope. It is greed!
Choice is good, but good public schools in every school district is better.
So, Brian, let me get this straight: the DC voucher program doesn’t increase choices for parents, but somehow it leads to the defunding of public schools? Where’s your evidence for that? And you’re not anti-religous, you just want the government to discrminate for you against schools that discriminate. In other words, you wouldn’t choose send your kids (if you have any) to a religious school and you also don’t want me to be able to send my kids to one either (unless I pay double out of my own pocket to do so), is that right? Sounds like equal justice–in the mind of a liberal–to me.
In a truly fair system, every family would receive the per pupil education dollars allotted by the state for each of their children and be able to choose whatever schools they deemed best, not be forced to send their kids to schools that don’t share their values. THAT is discrimination–and a version of it you seem to wholly favor. It comes very close to Jefferson’s definition of tyranny: “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” He also said, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” In short, Brian, you seem to be in favor of government tyranny, as long as it’s a tyranny you agree with, but that’s a very dangerous stance to take–and one that ought to be beneath the dignity of one so fair and tolerant as no doubt you like to think you are.
Defund? Can you elaborate?
“Welcome to DougCo Education King, what would you like to order?”
“I’ll have a side of fries and a Coke.” “Will that be all?”
“Oh, and my kid is learning about biology. I don’t want her to be subjected to Darwinist indoctrination.”
“Not to worry, here at DougCo Education King, we let you have it your way.”
” Hi, DougCo Education King, can my family please have the biology without genetics but with an in depth study of how all species lived on Noah’s Ark?”
“Hello, DougCo Education King, can my kid take biology with genetics but all that stuff about change over time, descent with modification stuff, everyone knows that’s all just a theory–let’s skip over that. I don’t believe it, so my kid won’t either.
“Hello DougCo Education King, I want you to teach my child that life begins at conception and we are not apes, ok? The Constitution gives me the right to educate my child how I want, not the State. So, give me money to start my own school so my kid is well-edumacated.”
“This highway leads to the shadowy tip of reality: you’re on a through route to the land of the different, the bizarre, the unexplainable…Go as far as you like on this road. Its limits are only those of mind itself. Ladies and Gentlemen, you’re entering the wondrous dimension of imagination. . .
Next stop The DougCo Zone.”
This is a very heated topic. I would like to add one more piece of the puzzle with a simple question. If the tax dollars are to be diverted to private or parochial schools, will they also be subjected to state standards, state testing, teacher evaluations/licensure, AYP accountability standards according to No Child Left Behind? I just wonder about the freedoms allowed to one group of schools and not the other. I also wonder how Colorado would then compare student achievement without a common set of assessments. I am hoping that someone might be able to answer these questions but also be able to think about the ramifications for all schools.
Kim –
You hit it on the head. However, the lack of accountability to the state is not the concern of voucher proponents. They dream of a system where parents have access to all of the information they need about the k-12 “marketplace” to choose the right school for their kids….wait. They don’t have that now?? No. Because the nanny-statist liberal elite conspire with the liberal media to prop up a government monopoly of k-12 public schooling to brainwash kids with socialist atheism.
Seriously – either way – Vouchers don’t jive with the free market any more than the existence of public schools.
Ben –
We all appreciate your superior rational intellect, command of the English language, and understanding of education policy. I’m so glad we have political think tanks like the Independence Institute willing to pay non-educators like you to pontificate here about the inferiority of public schooling – of how doing away with teachers unions and privatization schemes like vouchers will free the magic of the market for all of our kids – and about a profession you seem to only know in theory because us educators are obviously capable of….uhh ad hominem-ism. None of these arguments should be taken personally of course. Sin verguenza (look it up).
I happened to be in a Douglas County middle school about a year ago….last period of the day several 8th grade classes were herded into one classroom to watch Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. There was no discussion afterwards …. no pros or cons….if the kids are not encouraged to have an intellectual discussion then it leans towards indoctrination. I wonder how many parents know this is going on in the schools. There are great teachers in DC schools but this one sided global warmning alarmism has to stop. I thought I would just mention this….it always bothered me and wondered what else they are teaching that I as parent would not be too happy about.
Hope on line ? Don’t know it, but if it is has government involvement (even as an alternative education form) not surprised it is failing. We need school choice as our children rank 29th or is it 39th (not really sure but definitely not the top10) in math and science placed somewhere behind Tanzania. Ok so I shouldn’t insult Tanzania. The beauty of school choice is competition….if the school is not performing it will not succeed and you can walk away from it. Not so in government schools. You are stuck with it. 50 years of an illiterate society isn’t enough for you? Point is even those who graduate are illiterate. Try this public schools …. stop dumbing down the system so every kid can feel good about himself and graduate. Go a step further and stop college remedial classes. If a kid doesn’t make the grade, he doesn’t go to college. Discipline and respect is a huge problem in inner city public schools..parents should be desparate to get their children out of that chaotic mess.
Caty -
So you think we should privatize the military? Who should be in charge of building roads?
“50 years of an illiterate society…” What?? Let’s see 50 years ago was ohhh….1963. Have you looked at educational attainment – according to the US census (http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf)? Or do you not trust Census numbers because that’s done by the government? In 1963 “SPED” among many other categories of kids (ELL, poor, etc.) deemed as not worthy or capable of education simply didn’t exist. Those kids were simply not in school. Less than 10% of those 25 and under attained a college degree. It’s almost tripled since then.
Have you seen any of the standards we are using the guide our teaching? What kind of score would you receive on the ACT? By the way have you seen the numbers of students taking the ACT historically? Not to mention overall scores? http://www.act.org/aboutact/history.html
Caty,
None of what you claim is based on any facts. If competition improved schools, Milwaukee would be a beacon for the rest of the country. I will concede that SOME studies show an improvement for a very small subset of students who receive vouchers, but the preponderance of the evidence from the longest running voucher program in the country is that vouchers have generally failed to improve educational outcomes for students.
Also, the narrative that our schools are somehow failing is completely false. Our students are performing better and better all the time, and when poverty is factored out, our students perform very well against international students. Here’s what the newly released scores for the 2011 administration of the National Assessment of Educational Progress show for fourth and eighth graders in reading and math, on a 500-point scale as reported by the NAEP and the Washington Post:
— In math, fourth and eighth graders scored on average 1 percentage point higher this year in 2009. Both grades scored more than 20 points higher this year than in 1990 (when the test was first given).
— In reading, fourth-grade scores did not change from two years ago but were four points higher than in 1992, when the reading test was first given. Eighth-graders scored on average 1 point higher this year than two years ago, and 5 points higher than in 1992.
— Asian students, this year for the first time in their own category, had the highest scores of any single group.
— The overall achievement gap between white and black students showed no real change over the last two years and it remains wide. There persists, according to the NAEP scores, a 25-point gap in reading in both tested grades and in math among fourth graders.
— The gap between Hispanic eighth graders and white students in reading and math closed slightly. It went from from 24 points in 2009 to 22 points this year; in 1992, it was 26 points.
— D.C. public schools reported gains in 4th and 8th grade mathematics.
— Some states trumpeted as being models for school reform — reform that involves plenty of tests and punitive action against low-performing schools — didn’t do so well in this administration of NAEP.
Louisiana, for example, may boast that it was one of only three states to increase the number of students who scored proficient, but three times as many of those students are white than black, and there was no significant change in the achievement gap.
New York, where former superintendent Joel Klein helped lead the test-based school reform movement, “was the only state to score lower in math among fourth-graders from 2009 to 2011.”
The fact that our schools have improved our student’s performance on these measures in spite of the capricious and harmful nature of the “reform” movement is all the more remarkable.