As promised in my previous post on Betsy DeVos I am here now to deal with the tricky situation of vouchers. Now H.R. 610 isn't just a voucher program, there is also a small line at the bottom about repealing nutrition standards, but it also calls for a complete repeal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The bill is separated into 2 titles but I will only be dealing with the first one in this post as there is a lot in there to unpack.
Title 1- Choices in Education Act
The first item in this title calls for an unequivocal repeal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Now, just what is this act? Well, you can read the full text here or an abbreviated synopsis here. This Act has been reissued every 5 years since the 60s. That means the Act has been carried through, expanded, and modified by 9 presidents (not including our current one). These presidents include 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats all of whom continued this important legislation as a gateway to education for American children. The Act was first put forth by Lyndon Johnson in his "war on poverty" with the idea that providing children from low income backgrounds with quality education would help them towards a brighter economic future. To give a little scope I'm going to list below the Titles and major Parts of this Act (it's a long list so feel free to skip to the bottom):
TITLE 1- IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE
DISADVANTAGED
PART A— Improving basic programs operated by local educational agencies
PART B— Student reading skills improvement grants
PART C— Education of migratory children
PART D— Prevention and intervention programs for children and youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk
PART E— National assessment of Title 1
PART F— Comprehensive school reform
PART G— Advanced placement programs
PART H— School dropout prevention
PART I— General provisions
TITLE II—PREPARING, TRAINING, AND RECRUITING HIGH QUALITY
TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS
PART A— Teacher and principal training and recruiting fund
PART B— Mathematics and science partnerships
PART C— Innovation for teacher quality
PART D— Enhancing education through technology
TITLE III—LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION FOR LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT
AND IMMIGRANT STUDENTS
PART A— English language acquisition, language enhancement, and academic achievement act
PART B— Improving language instruction educational programs
PART C— General provisions
TITLE IV—21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS
PART A— Safe and drug-free schools and communities
PART B— 21st century community learning centers
PART C— Environmental tobacco smoke
TITLE V—PROMOTING INFORMED PARENTAL CHOICE AND INNOVATIVE
PROGRAMS
PART A— Innovative programs
PART B— Public charter schools
PART C— Magnet schools assistance
PART D— Fund for the improvement of education
TITLE VI—FLEXIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
PART A— Improving academic achievement
PART B— Rural education initiative
PART C— General provisions
TITLE VII—INDIAN, NATIVE HAWAIIAN, AND ALASKA NATIVE EDUCATION
PART A— Indian education
PART B— Native Hawaiian education
PART C— Alaska native education
TITLE VIII—IMPACT AID
TITLE IX—GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART A— Definitions
PART B— Flexibility in the use of administrative and other funds
PART C— Coordination of programs; consolidated state and local plans and applications
PART D— Waivers
PART E— Uniform provisions
PART F— Evaluations
Welcome back. So, to recap, this Act works to close the education gap based on economic hardship (it should be noted that this especially effects people of color residing in economically depressed regions); it works to protect neglected, delinquent, or at risk youth; works to reduce drop out rates and establish advanced placement programs; ensures high quality teachers and continuing education for teachers; assists those for whom English is a 2nd language; promotes the use of technology in the classroom; works towards drug and tobacco free schools; and, oh yeah, has provisions for charter and magnet schools. Under H.R. 610 all of this is unnecessary however so time to throw it all on the scrap heap.
The next part of H.R. 610 restricts the Secretary of Education to evaluating state applications and making payments to states. It also includes this line "The Secretary shall not impose any further requirements on States with respect to elementary and secondary education beyond the requirements of this title." What does this mean exactly? Well once a state is given approval for funding (and the qualifications for such will be noted shortly) the Secretary of Education cuts a check, hands it to the state and then washes their hands of the affair. No oversight, no assurance of quality standards, no checks to ensure the children most in need are getting the education they absolutely deserve.
This bill has a provision for funds allocation that is exactly proportional. Meaning each state will receive a portion of funds based on the number of eligible resident children (all kids ages 5-17) in their state. This may seem all fair and equal but it will only hurt poor communities more. Since state level funding most often comes from income tax AND when income tax revenue is low it is usually an indicator of high levels of unemployment or underemployment AND since this would indicate a higher level of children living in poverty THUS this would indicate the state portion of education funding would be lower compared to a wealthy state so the per student funding available at the end of the line will now be LOWER per student than in wealthy states causing a disadvantage to students living in poor states compared to their wealthy counterparts. This argument also applies to the community level since some education funding comes from county and city funds.
To be eligible to receive funding under this bill a state must do 2 things. 1) Make it lawful for a parent to enroll their child in ANY public or private school or to home school. 2) Comply with and make available an educational voucher program. This program would require funding to be issued to parents directly (as a non-taxable disbursement) for parents to use towards private or home school expenses should they choose to remove their child from the public school setting. I will not even begin to argue that choice in schooling is not important. No school can offer programs to fit every learning style or be a perfect fit for every student. That said, some restrictions are necessary to ensure fairness and equality. It is my belief that most states already provide a mechanism for some choice in schools. The choice of charter or magnet schools gives a free option within the public school framework for low income families to take advantage of when their default public school is not providing what their child needs. There are also options to switch between different public schools within a district either at will or with cause to accommodate student needs. Home schooling is also an option available to all parents though, logistically, it can be difficult to take advantage of.
On the other hand, while vouchers may benefit some students it will create a lopsided system that will greatly disadvantage the poor. The best way that I can express this is through hypotheticals so here are a few examples of where this system goes wrong based on full implementation of H.R.610:
Case 1: John is in an abusive/neglectful home. His parent(s) don't care about his education so he attends the default public school in his area. This school performs poorly and receives little funding due to students choosing other schools in the district. While his school is not overcrowded it is filled with other students like John whose parent(s) care little for their welfare. These students present with various emotional/behavioral problems due to their abuse and neglect but the school lacks the funding necessary to treat these problems and so the situation continues with John and his classmates falling victim to circumstance.
Case 2: Tina is an immigrant in a poorer neighborhood. She speaks English but still has difficulty reading and writing in her new language. Her parents work long hours and are not available to drive her to and from school. The only school in the area that provides an ESL program is 15 miles away and will require Tina to take 3 public buses to get there. The commute takes more than an hour each way. This requires Tina to get up significantly earlier than her classmates. Because of the commute she has less time to complete her homework and no time for extra curricular activities. She also gets less sleep than her classmates and has difficulty focusing during class. While her school is highly ranked she is unable to take advantage of the quality education to the same extent as her classmates.
Case 3: Matt's parents are interested in giving him the best education possible. After researching in their local area they decide on a school that is advertised as "innovative" and "cutting edge". Matt is enrolled but after just a few weeks it becomes apparent that the school is not following through with the curriculum as promised. Matt's parents choose to enroll him at a different school mid year but by now all the top ranked schools are full and will not be accepting students until the next year. Matt's parents are forced to choose between keeping him in his current school or switching him to another mediocre school and hoping to find an open spot for him in a better school the next year. Matt does not learn as much this year compared to his peers and will be forced to make up the difference next year or risk falling further behind.
Case 4: The topped ranked school in Sarah's area is a Catholic school. Much of the population in her area is Catholic and a large percentage of them attend that school giving it a large funding base. She has her federally funded voucher but is rejected from the school because she is Jewish and, in order to attend the school, she is required to sign a contract stating that she will follow and practice all tenants of the Catholic faith. Sarah attends a different school and gets a good education but wonders why the majority Catholic community of her area has access to a better education than she, a Jew, can get.
Case 5: Marcel lives in a smaller town. The north side of town is wealthy and has 6 different elementary schools. The south side is poorer and has only 1 elementary school. Marcel's mom does not have a car to take Marcel to the north side of town where the better schools are located. While she wants him to get a good education, she has to be able to get to work on time and the only way she can do that is if Marcel attends the school close to their home. By the time Marcel is ready to apply for college he is significantly behind the students who went to wealthier schools and has not had access to the same college prep material as his peers. As a result it is more difficult for him to gain admittance to or succeed at the college level.
And on, and on. These are just a few of the situations that are likely to occur under a pure voucher program like the one laid out in H.R. 610. If all children lived in loving, involved families with access to a car and the time to drive their children whatever distance was necessary to get the best education for their child then this system could almost work. The reality is much different. Even if all other factors could be equalized using federal funds for religious schools should be a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Our education system is not perfect but this bill is clearly not the answer
No comments:
Post a Comment