Not knowing the outcome of the Presidential race, I feel that vouchers loom
on the horizen as a big educational debate.
I am opposed to the idea of vouchers. I believe them to be
unconstitutional. Whenever publically raised money flows into private
hands, it crosses a line because there is no direct accountability to the
public. (Charter schools get the state formula funding as do the public
school students. Charter schools are considered to be public for the sake
of the argument, although there is always room for more discourse in this
area.)
The public schools are subject to many state and federal mandates, although
they are not funded for much of this, especially at the federal level. We
are required, as we should do, to provide services for children with
special needs whether they are learning disabled, emotional or physically
challenged. Parochial and private schools do not have to do this, and if a
student does not fit in to their educational methods, they are asked to
leave.
Charters are suppose to be regulation free, but they are not, they too, are
subject to the same mandates as public schools; but if a child can not stay
in a charter, they come back to the public schools. We take everyone, we
do not discriminate. Many private and parochial institutions do not want to
accept vouchers because they do not want any governmental control over
their internal affairs and decisions. To take public money is to accept
the regulations of the federal and/or state government. I can almost
guarantee that attorneys will get rich on this constitutional challenge alone!
When we take money from public schools where there is a body that is held
accountable through elections, and send it to private and religious
schools, we are, in essence, support the teaching of that particular
religion. Students attending parochial schools are required to take
religious classes. That truly crosses the line between the separation of
church and state. Many private schools are operated by religious entities,
and they too require religious training commiserate with those beliefs.
Constitutional questions aside, the research that is now available shows a
number of trends. In a commentary entitled Voucher & Class Size, by Alex
Molinar and Charles Achilles that appeared in the Oct. 25th edition of
Education Week, they state that the research supporting vouchers recently
touted in the New York Times, comes "from the privately funded voucher
programs, such as those in Dayton, New York and Washington." These 2
scholars also call into play how these studies were done.
I am not a statistian, but the methodology used to reach certain
conclusions looks like it is vague at best. The authors called attention
to another report issued by Mathematica, a private research firm entitled
"Vouchers Claims of Success are Premature in New York City". I have not
read this report yet.
In response to the current research, Molinar and Achilles say "The
literature on vouchers and academic achievement adds up to an inconsistent
gaggle of results that do not offer intelligible guidance to either parents
or policymakers." In light of all the research, that includes the recently
RAND study as well as the Tenn. STAR study, there is a much stronger
argument to be made for small class sizes and early childhood preparedness
than with merely providing vouchers for students to attend private or
parochial schools.
They conclude that many voucher supporters support their positions by
stating that it has not been proven that vouchers harm the public schools.
They contend that this is flawed reasoning; if policy makers are to use the
current research to strenghthen public education, then research clearly
shows that the current direction being taken here in Minneapolis is the
correct direction we should be going, smaller classes, early childhood
preparedness, attendance, teacher training and development, and
strenghthening parent involvement.
PS Thanks again for the support on the Better Schools Referendum!
Audrey Johnson, MPS BOE
10th ward
