The Missouri State Board of Education took steps this week to curtail public school transfers between school districts. State law currently allows students in failing public school districts (read unaccredited districts) to transfer to higher-performing districts. Receiving districts were required to accept all students, and sending districts were required to pay whatever was required.
In the first year, the Normandy School District outside St. Louis saw more than 900 students – about a quarter of all students – flee its borders to neighboring districts. That resulted in the district falling into financial insolvency before finally being taken over by the state.
Now that the state is in charge, it is trying to curtail transfers. The state will now limit payments to $7,200 per student; receiving districts may refuse transfers; and students must have attended a Normandy school for at least one semester during the 2012-13 school year. That last rule guarantees 131 students will be forced back into schools they just escaped. And that is a big problem considering some were willing to travel three hours a day to attend the school they wanted.
Worse still, the state is “resetting” the district’s accreditation status for three years to prevent any future students from leaving the district.
For students in Normandy Public Schools, school choice is limited to other public schools outside the district. School choice opponents can’t muddy the debate by claiming profit motives, or arguing that choice schools operate under a different set of rules, or lack accountability. With public school choice the issue boils down to its pure essence: finding the right school for that individual child. Any excuse to limit or eliminate that kind of choice can’t be focused on the students.
Marcus Brandon D-NC
Late last week, Democrats in North Carolina attempted to kill the state’s new voucher program by axing the $10 million appropriation in a budget amendment. Republicans mounted a defense, but according to Ann Doss Helms, a journalist at the Charlotte Observer, the most vigorous support for vouchers came from two Democrats.
Rep. Marcus Brandon argued public schools in his district weren’t enough to meet student needs. He didn’t blame public school teachers or principals, but a “bad system.” Brandon was troubled by his party’s unwillingness to support learning options for low-income students. “There is nothing unconstitutional about giving poor and minority children the same opportunity as other children,” he argued.
Rep. Edward Hanes Jr., meanwhile, called out members of his caucus. He noted several of his party’s members send their own kids to private schools, but want to deny the same options for low-income parents who need help paying tuition.
The amendment to kill the program failed 43-71.
Editor's note: The Rev. Manuel Sykes is pastor of Bethel Community Baptist Church and president of the St. Petersburg NAACP, an active chapter on Florida's west coast. In this commentary, he responds to a recent Tampa Bay Times column that criticized a federal tax credit scholarship bill offered by U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio. The Times also published a letter to the editor from Rev. Sykes in today's editions.
Florida offers the nation’s best lesson on whether private school options can help poor children, but the Tampa Bay Times seems uninterested in what these parents and students are telling us. Instead, it is busy pointing a distinctly partisan finger.
Argue if you want about whether the federal government should provide K-12 scholarships to low-income students, but the tax credit scholarship plan introduced by Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is not “bankrupt” or “craven.” It is instead a learning option that economically disadvantaged students wouldn’t otherwise have, and to label it as “money laundering” represents the kind of rhetorical excess that cheapens our public debate.
In Florida, more than 50,000 students are on a similar plan, and the results are encouraging to those of us who work with struggling children. The students who use the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship are truly poor – incomes barely above poverty and averaging less than $25,000 for a household of four – and more than two thirds of them are black or Hispanic. State research tells us they were among the lowest academic performers in the public schools they left behind, and testing results show they are making the same academic gains as students of all income levels nationally. Just as encouraging, the traditional public schools that are most impacted by students who choose the scholarships are themselves experiencing higher learning gains.
The educational results don’t seem to matter to those who prefer instead to dismiss scholarships as some kind of Republican conspiracy. Never mind that nearly half the Democrats in Florida’s Legislature also support this option, including a majority of the Black Caucus. Never mind those of us who work in disadvantaged communities in St. Petersburg and see children for whom these opportunities can make the difference between a diploma or a jail cell. Never mind that the Black Alliance for Educational Options, which represents elected black Democrats across the nation, has expressed its support for Rubio’s bill. (more…)
President Obama has often called on us to be true to who we are as a people, as Americans. And in his second term, he has the opportunity to transform the education system back to our core - to where parents are primarily in charge of children’s educations.
We have paid a price for transferring authority and responsibility for educating children from parents to government entities. With mostly though not always good motives (remember Brown v. Board of Education), we allowed the dream of the government-owned and operated common school to live on despite overwhelming evidence that, in reality, it wasn’t working. A child’s educational destiny continues mostly to be a function of his/her zip code and the competence of strangers who sit on local school boards.
For more than three decades, a long, slow correction of this anomaly in American society has been underway. First, intradistrict and interdistrict transfers began to appear that allowed limited parental choice within some parts of the public school system. Then magnet schools surfaced, offering options such as vocational, talented and gifted, and language immersion programs, and responding to more demands. In 1992, charter schools emerged. Today they account for almost 6 percent of all public schools, approaching 6000 total, and the number grows steadily each year because the demand from parents so far is insatiable.
Thanks to my colleague at the American Center for School Choice, Gloria Romero, a new tool has appeared. The parent trigger empowers parents to make changes to their school when they are not satisfied. Already 20 states have considered the approach and seven have adopted laws.
Private school choice programs continue to gain support, too. And they have done so despite fierce opposition from forces that want to defend market share over a parent’s right to choose. Today, 32 such programs operate in the country. And in recent years, many school choice bills have either been passed by legislatures with Democratic majorities or signed by Democratic governors. Just as important, once enacted, these programs have only grown. No state has repealed a program or decided choice does not serve the public well. Moreover, the doomsday scenarios that opponents consistently forecast for public education systems have never happened.
It’s said you can’t argue with a river; it is going to flow. Parents are going to take back the authority and responsibility for educating their children. The river has been flowing for more than 20 years and the current is gaining speed. It’s time for more Democrats to stop arguing as families assert their fundamental and universally accepted American value that they know the best choice for their children. Democrats need to work in positive ways to transform our system. We need good schools and there’s plenty of room for all types - public, charter, and private.
President Obama has the life experience, as well as the political skills and credentials, to lead this transformation, and to make it less jarring and less confrontational. (more…)
Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan's major speech in Cleveland this week focused on combating poverty through community-based efforts rather than governmental programs. It also touched on he and Mitt Romney's plans for expanded school choice. Here are the prepared remarks in full. Here are the excerpts that addressed education reform.
Even though so many barriers to equality have fallen, too many old inequities persist. Too many children, especially African-American and Hispanic children, are sent into mediocre schools and expected to perform with excellence. African-American and Hispanic children make up only 38 percent of the nation’s overall students, but they are 69 percent of the students in schools identified as lowest performing.
That’s unacceptable. We owe every child a chance to succeed. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, we owe them “an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.” Upward mobility is the central promise of life in America. But right now, America’s engines of upward mobility aren’t working the way they should.
* * *
But strengthening these safety net programs is still not enough. If we want to restore the promise of America, then we must reform our broken public-school system.
The special interests that dominate this system always seem to have their own futures lined up pretty nicely. But when you think about the future of the young adults that the system has failed, many will face a lot of grief and disappointment – and their country owes them better than that.
After going 56 years without attending a national political convention, I’m headed to Charlotte for my second convention in a week. For school choice advocates, the Democratic National Convention will be a somewhat hostile environment, unlike last week’s Republican National Convention in Tampa, where all forms of school choice were enthusiastically embraced.
As we’ve discussed previously on redefinED, the political left, including wide swaths of the Democratic Party, was supportive of giving parents - especially low-income and minority parents - access to more diverse schooling options in the 1960s and throughout most of the 1970s. That support began eroding when the National Education Association gave Jimmy Carter its first-ever presidential endorsement in 1976, and was mostly gone by 1980.
President Clinton’s support of charter schools marked the beginning of a renewed interest in school choice within the party, and pro- and anti-school choice forces have been battling ever since. After two decades of struggle, the momentum today is clearly on the side of the pro school choice Democrats, which has caused anti-choice Dems to become more desperate and strident. American Federation of Teachers’ President Randi Weingarten’s recent attack on the new teacher/parent empowerment movie, Won’t Back Down, was so disingenuous and hyperbolic I was embarrassed for her.
Both Weingarten and NEA President Dennis Van Roekel will be participating in a town hall meeting tomorrow sponsored by Democrats for Education Reform. Four years ago, at the Democratic convention in Denver, DFER burst on the scene at a similar event, and, with close ties to the Obama Administration, immediately became a majority power center within the party. I’m anxious to see what issues predominate tomorrow, and how Weingarten and Van Roekel position themselves.
Choice at the RNC: Mitt Romney drops a line about school choice in his big speech, while Jeb Bush and Condoleezza Rice say more (redefinED). A former voucher student from Florida joins Jeb Bush on stage, saying in an interview later, "Because I had choice in my education, I was granted a better life (redefinED). (Image from minnesota.publicradio.org)
Louisiana: A statewide teachers union accuses the Black Alliance for Educational Options and other school choice groups of supporting a pro-KKK educational curriculum. (Choice Media)
Washington: The political landscape around charter schools has changed as voters get ready to vote on a charter measure for the fourth time. (Seattle Times)
Florida: A powerful lawmaker and school choice supporter is puzzled by charter schools that want to set up in one of the school districts in his legislative district. (St. Augustine Record)
Ohio: Hundreds of special needs students are benefiting from a voucher program. (Cincinnati.com) (more…)
Mitt Romney’s white paper on education, “A Chance for Every Child,” offers laudable support for increased parental choice and for other changes, such as tenure reform, that must occur to improve education in America. Like Obama, Romney wants to leverage federal dollars to move states in the right direction on public school choice, especially the removal of charter school caps and the adoption of open enrollment policies. He also advocates for private school choice “where permitted by state law.”
But is his plan viable? And will he lead to implement it?
Romney would remove most of No Child Left Behind’s accountability standards in favor of expanded reporting on how schools are different. He would allow states to set their own standards and tests, but print the state’s National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) outcomes on school and district report cards. NAEP brings much value to the discussion of education performance in America, but none to how an individual school district or school is performing because it does not test sufficient numbers or in every school and district. Implicit in this move - away from accountability by achievement measures towards improved information about schools - is that such information is lacking today. But parents are actually quite knowledgeable about local schools’ pluses and minuses and can access sites such as www.Greatschools.org for more detailed information.
So, for this information to be vastly more empowering than it is today, Romney recognizes that school choice would have to be dramatically expanded. That’s especially true for public school choice where, frankly, most of the schools will be for the foreseeable future.
The Romney plan seeks to expand choice primarily in two ways. First, he would convert Title 1 and federal special education (IDEA) funds that go to schools serving economically disadvantaged students. They would become vouchers that the eligible Title 1 and special ed students could take to any other school, including a private school, or even to a tutoring provider or digital school. Second, he would require states, as a condition for receiving these funds, to adopt open enrollment policies and eliminate caps on charter and digital schools.
The Title 1 and IDEA proposal is worthy of consideration. (more…)
