The D.C. voucher program and its critics
This WaPo editorial takes up for the D.C. voucher program against Democratic critics, who are quick to seize on data from this DoE report (executive summary here; press release here). To be sure, the report shows that, after seven months in their new schools, children taking advantage of the vouchers didn't perform significantly better on tests than did those in a control group (voucher lottery losers). These results are in line with other studies that show little effect in the first year of a voucher program.
But the report notes that parents are significantly more satisfied with the new schools their childrent are attending, which I guess doesn't matter to Democratic critics. With respect to education, the Democrats are going to have to decide whether they're the party of the unions or the party of the parents. So far, they've sided with the unions.
One last point: perhaps one additional reason that differences are small is that the populations being compared are of students whose parents sought vouchers. What both groups have in common is parental concern and involvement. (Indeed, some children who didn't receive vouchers ended up in private schools anyway.) To the degree that parental involvement affects results (and how can it not?), wouldn't it be likely that the differences between the two groups would be less than between students whose parents were so concerned that they sought opportunities for their children and a random sample of public school students, whose parents may or may not be actively involved in their education?
Technorati Tags: 
Moving the goal posts, aren't we?
I've been meaning to take this on all weekend, but am only getting to it now.
You seem to be moving the goal posts. Almost every voucher advocate will say that students will improve academically if we increase choice and allow students to move from one school to another. This report shows that students don't really improve.
However, now we are to judge vouchers not by the academic results of children, but "that parents are significantly more satisfied with the new schools their childrent are attending." While I'm in favor of change in education, vouchers and the free market aren't a good idea.
If parental satisfaction is all that matters, why not have cocktail nights and comics for parents? Why not just have an election for the next principal?
Education is about the child. Will s/he have the skills needed to participate fully as a citizen and worker in the 21st century? Anything else is a wasteful distraction.
Oh, come on!
Expat, this report most certainly does not show that students don't improve within the voucher system, only that they don't immediately improve. Would you, as a teacher, buy into any so-called "trend" or study that only relied on evidence from a single year? That is simply preposterous, and you know it. It may well be shown that vouchers don't dramatically improve education, but this report is not the starting point for such a conclusion. Far from it.
I think you missed Expat's point
His point was this: now that the study shows no marked improvement, different arguments are being deployed for supporting them. If the goalposts weren't shifted, we'd expect an argument for vouchers to simply note that there hasn't been enough time to adequately assess the program.
What it looks like we're seeing, though, is the groundwork for arguments in case vouchers don't show improvement in the future. ie, the point is no longer improvement in education, but parental satisfaction. And that's goalpost shifting, plain and simple.
Nope
Expat,
Do you really have such a low view--almost to the point of contempt--of the parents whose kids you're serving? Do you not think that the people with the primary responsibility for educating their children are the parents? (The Supreme Court, in PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, thinks so. For what it's worth.)
Would you be willing to fire a teacher whose students didn't markedly improve in seven months? I'd be willing to give him or her more time. (Having served as a university department chair for nine years, I have some sense of how long it takes accomplished adults to acclimate to a new place. I don't expect kids to adjust at the speed of light.)
Above all else, it seems to me that vouchers are defensible on the grounds of parental authority and choice alone. They "empower" parents, especially those who lack the economic means to "empower" themselves. The fact that they're in such high demand in D.C. suggests to me that there's some parental dissatisfaction with public schools. All evidence that I've seen on cost, performance, and safety suggests good reason for dissatisfaction, even if individual schools and individual teachers are doing a cracking good job. The "competition" gives the public school system an incentive to try to satisfy parents (many of whom we'll assume actually care more about their children than the teachers do) in a serious way.
But trust me, contempt for parents (which I've experienced first-hand from public school authorities here in the Atlanta area) isn't a way to win our confidence. We pay the taxes. We elect the school board. And we decide what's best for our children.
Vouchers vs. School Choice
Alaskan Brian-
Let's not confuse the two issues here. The first is school choice. That is, allowing parents and students to choose which school they will attend. I'm all in favor of that. It isn't all that radical and many school districts have (in theory anyway) mechanisms in place for that.
The second is much more radical. It is to pull public funds from the system and move them to private individuals. That is the voucher system. And because it is more radical and most people are pleased with their local school, voucher advocates say that students' academic performance will increase with their usage. This study isn't the end of the conversation, I'll agree, but it sure makes it more difficult for folks that want to dismantle public education to do so.
Post new comment