School vouchers are not synonymous with school choice. Vouchers have a history of abuse, particularly in the South, as a tool for maintaining school segregation. They have been rejected by the AFT, the NEA, and most liberals as a tool for dismantling or undermining public schools, a potential cause of “white flight” from urban schools, and a means of damaging public schools further by concentrating students with learning, behavioral, and health problems. None of these criticisms can be ignored, and better solutions exist for providing parents with school choice, while preserving public education.
In the Fifties, Milton Friedman proposed a system of vouchers intended to promote competition and local control of schools. Another free market capitalist, Friedrich Hayek, even envisioned a school system funded entirely by vouchers, without a single public school. These politicized notions are at best wishful thinking. I would not expect to see many educational corporations clamoring to serve the predominantly poor student body in, say, nearby New Bedford’s West Side Junior-Senior High, a last resort school for predominately poor children, where not one eighth grader tested proficient in English or Science (according to the 2007 MCAS tests). Have the champions of a free market economy forgotten to follow the money? If I were a corporate education mogul, Manhattan would be my first choice as the best place to set up shop, New Bedford near the last.
One question not usually discussed in polite society is whether broken schools are the cause or the result of a broken community. It’s always convenient to accuse teachers of being the complacent, poorly-educated, self-interested cause of bad education. But no one ever takes the educational bureaucracy itself with its changing educational strategies and fashions, community, poverty, crime, dysfunctional or broken families, or the children themselves to task. And even if we do, we still expect a public school teacher to be able to reverse a lifetime of trouble or neglect in a single school year – and to see it reflected on a standardized test. The public that believes this is smoking more crack than some of the students in those roughest of neighborhoods. Schools that attempt to tackle these problems in a holistic manner are more likely to obtain results than by simply cashing vouchers. This is where charter schools offer the most promise.
The real problems in schools are ownership and quality. A parent in a private or religious school is asked to join committees, to help out in the school, to donate their time, and this establishes relationships with teachers and administration. While a child attends that school, both the student and parents are members of a community they have themselves chosen. Choice coupled with involvement produces a sense of ownership. Contrast this with the educational mills of today, institutions federally mandated to show more interest in standard deviations on test scores than on educational excellence or community building. Public schools today teach to the standardized test and spend too many of their resources dealing with the toughest educational problems. They increasingly provide less for the average or superior student, who is frequently pulled out and sent to private or religious school. Private schools, on the other hand, are not encumbered by SPED programs, MCAS tests, NCLB compliance, or health and behavioral problems, so it is not entirely fair to compare them. It is fair to say that social problems play a much greater negative role in public schools than their private counterparts. Again, public schools need to address these problems with more than a school psychologist or an IEP form.
If a voucher system were instituted, I can’t see how it would fail to accelerate the separation of “good” and “bad” students. Ultimately, the poorest children with the least concerned parents and the most problems would remain in the public schools. Everyone else would have bailed, including students from families who previously lacked the financial resources. Of course, if the vouchers were big enough to send any kid to, say, the Forman School in Connecticut, where annual tuition is approximately $49,000 a year, this would indeed raise standardized test results in the sending public school by taking the test takers out of the sampling population since private schools are not accountable to state standards. Vouchers are simply a Very Bad Idea.
On the other hand, if public schools were more like private schools (minus the exorbitant tuition), fewer families would seek other options and many would return to public school. What do suburban parents who flee from urban public schools want when they move Junior to Ye Olde Exclusive Academy? Safety, enrichment programs, small class sizes, excellent instructors, an approachable administration and staff, and a track record of producing students accepted at good colleges. Minority parents want no less for their children. NCLB is supposed to provide alternatives to failing schools and, increasingly, minorities have embraced privatization and the idea of vouchers as one means to provide these alternatives. But this doesn’t go far enough. No parent with financial resources waits until a school has hit absolute rock bottom before transferring their child to a private school. And not every child has the same experience at the same school, so even a choice between two adequately-performing schools is desirable. And choice is as American as Coke versus Pepsi.
In some communities, families do have the choice of leaving a comprehensive public school to attend a public vocational school. Aside from a few schools like Boston’s Latin Academy, there are very few options for students who want to pursue a more rigorous academic track. Just as there is a network of vocational schools supported in part by the federal Perkins Act, we should also be investing in public academic schools of excellence. Public schools should serve the entire public, from the most disadvantaged to the most gifted.
Charter schools are an option that gives communities more direct control over curriculum and school administration. Educational outcomes in charter schools are often better than in traditional schools, although one 2004 union study analyzing NEAP data showed lower test scores in charter schools. Massachusetts DOE figures show dropout rates in Massachusetts charter schools are higher than comprehensive schools, but these are often high-risk kids who drop out and are coaxed back to school. So why, despite any shortcomings, are charter schools so popular? I believe it is the ownership factor that makes students want to attend such schools. A Boston Globe article described the MATCH Charter School in Boston: > Once they begin classes at MATCH, students face an eight-hour school day, a dress code, a strict code of conduct, and academic standards that designate a D as a failing grade. They also are required to attend at least two hours of daily tutoring with a member of the MATCH Corps, a group of 45 tutors who live in a dormitory at the school. And their parents get contacted at least once a week by a teacher, tutor, or the principal. Propping up these high academic expectations is an underlying familial atmosphere.
Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick has proposed “readiness” schools, which sound rather similar to charter and pilot schools, and which insist on the same educational standards as conventional schools, assuring the unions they can be part of the solution rather than a fearful impediment, while improving administration and accountability. The governor’s plan would double the number of charter schools in Massachusetts with the next 4 years. This is a smart decision because these schools (by whatever name we choose to call them) have the greatest potential to introduce innovative programs, involve parents, and motivate students, as private schools currently do. Charter schools can promote school choice within a public education system, while not destroying the system altogether as vouchers would.