Editor's note: After redefinED posted Howard Fuller's comments about universal school choice, we asked the Cato Institute's Andrew J. Coulson for a response, which we published last week. To keep the debate going, we asked Matthew Ladner, senior advisor of policy and research at the Foundation for Excellence in Education, for his take. He generously offered the following.
My friends Howard Fuller and Andrew Coulson started a needed discussion regarding the direction of the parental choice movement. Dr. Fuller has been quite outspoken in his opposition to universal choice programs in recent years, and Coulson raised a number of interesting and valid points in his redefinED piece. The parental choice movement has suffered from a nagging need to address third-party payer issues squarely. It’s a discussion that we should no longer put off. The example of American colleges and universities continues to scream a warning into our deaf ear regarding the danger of run-away cost inflation associated with education and third-party payers.
Howard Fuller and Andrew Coulson also indirectly raise a more fundamental question: where are we ultimately going with this whole private school choice movement? Dr. Fuller supports private choice for the poor and opposes it for others. He has concerns that the interests of the poor will be lost in a universal system. I’m sympathetic to Howard’s point of view. I view the public school system as profoundly tilted towards the interests of the wealthy and extraordinarily indifferent to those of the poor. We should have no desire to recreate such inequities in a choice system.
Andrew makes the case that third-party payer problems are of such severity that we should attempt to provide public assistance to the poor through a system of tax credits, and have other families handle the education of their children privately. Andrew’s proposed solution to the very real third-party payment issues is in effect to minimize third-party payment as much as possible, and to do it as indirectly as possible through a system of tax credits.
Despite the fact that Howard comes from the social justice wing of the parental choice movement and Andrew from the libertarian right, they agree that private choice should be more or less limited to the poor.
My own view is different from both Howard and Andrew’s. I believe the collective funding of education will be a permanent feature of American society and that it should remain universally accessible to all. I believe Howard’s real concerns over equity and Andrew’s real concerns over third-party payment can be mitigated through techniques other than means-testing. (more…)
Arizona: Gov. Jan Brewer signs into law a bill that makes students in D and F schools eligible for education savings accounts. (Arizona Republic) An estimated 100,000 students could be eligible. (Arizona Daily Star)
Florida: U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan questions why the Florida Legislature decided to continue a program that allows low-income parents to choose private tutoring providers. (Associated Press) Tutoring providers fire back, saying Florida's law is a model. (Tampa Bay Times' Gradebook blog)
New Hampshire: Both houses of the Legislature have now passed a tax credit scholarship bill by margins big enough to override an expected veto from Gov. John Lynch. (Concord Monitor)
South Carolina: Gov. Nikki Haley signs into law a bill that will allow expansion of charter schools, including creation of boys-only and girls-only charter schools. (Associated Press)
Louisiana: State teachers union president says opponents will try to undo the sweeping education changes led by Gov. Bobby Jindal, including the statewide voucher program. (Baton Rouge Advocate) (more…)
As you know, we keep tabs on what’s written and said about school choice and ed reform, particularly in Florida. This week has been a doozy when it comes to head-scratching statements. Today we highlight a few and offer a quick response …
In just a few years, Orlando-based Fund Education Now has become the leading parent group in Florida. Aggressive. Media savvy. Super effective. I respect its members for their passion. I sometimes agree with them. But there are times when the rhetoric is at odds with reality.
After this week’s FCAT fiasco, the group wrote in an action alert to members: “These abysmal FCAT Writes scores are proof that Tallahassee’s ‘education reforms’ are an unmitigated disaster.” I agree the state raised the bar too fast and too fast on some of our standardized tests. But have the state’s policies as a whole flat-out bombed?
In the past four years, Florida has ranked No. 11, No. 8, No. 5 and No. 11 among all 50 states in Education Week’s annual Quality Counts report. And contrary to some critics’ claims, that’s not just because of policies on paper that sound good; it’s also because the state has moved the needle on student achievement, particularly for low-income kids. On the K-12 achievement portion of EdWeek’s rating – which considers performance and progress on NAEP, AP and graduation rates – Florida finished at No. 7, No. 7, No. 6 and No. 12 over the past four years. In 2011, it finished in the Top 10 in eight of nine progress categories. It finished in the Top 3 in six of them.
The reason Florida tumbled out of the overall top 10 this year is because of budget cuts, and because its NAEP scores have stalled in reading and math. That’s troubling when the state is still nowhere near where it needs to be. I think that’s what led the state Board of Education to be too bold in raising the bar.
But Florida’s policy makers, like them or not, have been more right than wrong in the past decade when it comes to standards and accountability and school choice. To deny there’s been progress is good for stoking fury and mobilizing troops. But it’s unfair to the teachers who made it happen. And it could undermine changes that really did make things better for kids.
In an op-ed Sunday, syndicated columnist Bill Maxwell describes what he sees as another round of teacher bashing in Florida and blames “conservative lawmakers who dominate Tallahassee” and are gunning to privatize public schools. The prompt for his outrage: A cost-cutting decision by the Pinellas County School District to curb the use of individual printers by teachers. (more…)
The last thing you want to give people waging a scorched-earth campaign against you is a gas can and a match.
Though well intended, the hard-charging Florida Board of Education moved too far, too fast last year when it raised the bar on academic standards. The short-term result for the state’s standardized writing test isn’t pretty. According to scores released this week, the percentage of passing fourth graders alone dropped from 81 to 27.
In an emergency session, the board tried to mitigate. It revised the passing scores downward so the percent passing will be roughly the same this year as it was last year. Education Commissioner Gerard Robinson also admitted the state should have better communicated the new scoring criteria to teachers.
But (sigh) the damage was done. The people who have bitterly fought every major education reform in Florida since Jeb Bush was elected governor – and who will never admit there has been real progress - now have a bit of real ammo. They’ll use it to take fresh aim at everything from new teacher evaluations to expanded school choice. They’ll be even more aggressive ripping into the next batch of reading and math scores, which will also look a lot starker this year.
Conspiracy theories are spinning wildly. This was a well orchestrated plot, goes one, to make traditional public schools look bad so charter schools shine by comparison and the privatization agenda can reign supreme. Never mind that just a few years ago, the state had a record number of A and B schools. Or that charter schools take the same tests. Or that, if the past is any guide, a disproportionate number of them will be tagged with F’s.
You won’t read this in the papers (except, thankfully, in this Orlando Sentinel column), so here’s the backdrop for Florida’s latest ed reform flap. (more…)
If President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney want to win over Latino voters, a new survey of five battleground states suggests they do two things: Talk up education. And emphasize school choice.
More than voters in general, Latino voters are more likely to say education is a leading issue, just behind the economy and jobs, found the survey, released Tuesday by the American Federation for Children and the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options. The survey also found Latino voters are more likely than voters in general to support vouchers, tax credit scholarships and education savings accounts.
For instance, while 57 percent of likely voters said they supported vouchers, 69 percent of Latino voters did.
“Unfortunately a lot of our Latino families come from low-income areas (where) choice is the only way that they are going to be able to achieve that American dream, graduate high school and go on to make something of themselves,” Julio Fuentes, president and CEO of HCREO (and a Step Up for Students board member) said in the redefinED podcast attached below.
The survey results suggest both Obama and Romney will have challenges swaying Latino voters.
For Obama, it's a matter of position. The president has endorsed school choice options such as charter schools, but has stopped short of backing vouchers and tax credit scholarships. For Romney, it's a matter of emphasis. Hard-line positions on immigration may fire up the Republican base, but it's not a top-tier concern for Latinos.
"The immigration debate from a national level has taken the spotlight. And this educational crisis that we find ourselves in, especially within our Hispanic community, just seems to never be discussed," Fuentes said. "In a professional, politically roundabout way, we asked our candidates, President Obama and Gov. Romney, to basically give us their take. What's their plan when it comes to the Hispanic educational crisis?"
The survey was conducted with likely November voters in Florida, Arizona, Nevada, New Jersey and New Mexico. You can see the full results here.
Over at the Gradebook (the Tampa Bay Times education blog) this morning, another example of why public school choice alone isn’t enough:
Forty-two percent of the 2,200 parents in the Pasco County School District who applied to switch schools this fall were denied, the Gradebook reports, often because there wasn’t enough room. (Florida's voter-approved class-size restrictions contributed to the complications.) The blog post notes the appeals process is ongoing so “a few more families might win their preferred school seats.”
That still leaves a whole bunch frustrated - and unnecessarily so.
This happens far too often. In Florida alone right now, there are thousands of upset parents in Pinellas, Palm Beach and other major school districts because they failed to get their kids into the public schools they wanted. In Hartford, Conn., 10,000 kids lost the public school lottery a few weeks ago.
As we’ve written before, school districts must become more nimble in responding to parents. At the same time, expanding choice options to include private schools and charter schools can help, too. The more that chance and lotteries can be taken out of the process, the better.
The end result will be more parents invested in their schools – and more kids in the learning environments that work better for them.
Editor's note: After posting Howard Fuller's concerns about universal vouchers last week, we asked Andrew J. Coulson, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, to offer his perspective.
It’s not hard to see why Howard Fuller might be skeptical of universal government education programs. Public schooling is one such program and it has done an atrocious job of serving the poor. But is its universality the cause of its failure? Fuller believes that the poor are forgotten and given short shrift under universal programs and that the wealthy are favored by them. If that were the case in public schooling, we would expect schools serving the poor to receive less funding than those serving the wealthy. In responding to Fuller, Matthew Ladner contends that this is indeed the case: that public schooling “systematically distributes more money per pupil” to wealthier kids.
Actually, though, that doesn’t appear to be true. According to the federal Department of Education’s Condition of Education 2010, Indicator 36-1, districts with the poorest students are the highest spending. Public schools serving these students are not atrocious because they are underfunded, they are atrocious despite the fact that they are the best funded districts in the nation.
Having voted to raise public school spending relentlessly for generations, and having chosen to direct the highest level of per-pupil spending to the poorest children, it is hard to believe that Americans are indifferent to the education of the poor.
A more plausible explanation of the facts is that Americans would love to see their poorest countrymen thrive educationally but don’t know how to make that happen. For generations they have been told by the media, academics, and political leaders that the solution is higher spending. They have gone along with that recommendation and it has failed utterly. A few are finally beginning to realize that, but they still don’t know how to improve matters.
But the school choice movement believes it does know the cause of the problem: the lack of alternatives. Middle and upper income families find it easier to pay for private schooling or to relocate away from the worst public schools. They have alternatives that the poor do not. As a result, they get better service. The movement’s solution is thus to ensure that everyone has alternatives.
And this brings us back to Fuller’s claim: that the poor will be better served by a school choice program targeted exclusively at them. Is he right? In answering that question, it helps to consider a few facts and distinctions that are usually overlooked:
• First, there is a difference between universal access to the education marketplace and universal participation in a government program;
• Second, tiny markets are dramatically inferior to vast ones;
• And third, it actually matters who is footing the bill for a child’s education.
Saying that everyone should have educational choice is not the same thing as saying that everyone should participate in a particular government program. (more…)
After reading story after story about Catholic schools closing, it was heartening this morning to instead read about an aggressive local effort to help them rebound. The Diocese of St. Petersburg, in the Tampa Bay region of Florida, has launched an ambitious plan to reverse declining enrollment and ensure that Catholic schools remain a solid part of the community bedrock that they have been for generations.
As detailed in today’s Tampa Bay Times, the effort aims to make school operations more efficient and academic offerings more rigorous. It includes a key partnership with Notre Dame University’s Ace Academies, which will help with the quality piece. And it involves increased use of Florida’s tax credit scholarship program, which gives low-income families more learning options for their kids. “It’s a reimagining of how our schools would look like in five to 10 years from now, to make them viable,” Alberto Vazquez-Matos, the diocese’s superintendent, told the Times.
In this podcast interview with redefinED in March, Christian Dallavis, director of the ACE Academies, put the Tampa Bay partnership in context. He noted Hispanics in the U.S. make up two thirds of practicing Catholics under the age of 35, and that the high school graduation rate for Hispanics is about 50 percent. “We see the future of the church is on pace to be kind of radically undereducated,” he said. But “we also have a solution in that we know Catholic schools often put kids on a path to college in ways that they don’t have other opportunities to do so.”
The success of Hispanic students is especially important in Florida, where Hispanics could be a majority in a few decades. Boosting Catholic schools with innovative partnerships and school choice programs is a bold response that offers hope for the future.
Editor’s note: Progress in the parental school choice movement is measured not only by big gains in states like Indiana and Louisiana, but by the flurry of incremental developments in more states every year. Peter Hanley, executive director of the California-based American Center for School Choice, offers a look at encouraging developments in his home state.
California has the nation’s largest charter school program, with 982 charter schools serving 412,000 students. But with nearly a two-thirds Democratic legislature heavily influenced by the California Teachers Association, tax credit scholarships or vouchers have been entirely off the table. In fact, charter schools’ flexibility is under near constant attack. Now, though, two legislators have introduced innovative approaches that address a unique feature in California’s constitution and attempt to bring educational tax credits to the state.
Unlike any other state, California has a voter-initiated constitutional amendment (Prop. 98) that sets a floor on the percent of general fund monies that must be spent on education. Anything that removes money from the general fund will instantly trigger the public education coalition to oppose it. So these legislators, one Democrat and one Republican, have proposed models that benefit both public and private schools.
Senate Bill 1542, introduced by Democratic Sen. Gloria Negrete McCloud, provides individual and corporate tax credits to Local Educational Advancement Program (LEAP) organizations. They will assist K-12 students from families with demonstrated financial needs to receive critical services before or after school, on weekends, or during the summer. SB 1542 precisely aims to ensure academic services - such as diagnostic evaluations, tutoring, summer school, and college and career planning and counseling - that have been heavily damaged by the extraordinary recession California has experienced since 2008. Although many more fortunate families in the state continue to be able to provide such services for their children, those with low and moderate incomes cannot and are disproportionately suffering. Children from public and private schools would be eligible for these services.
The Senate Governance and Finance Committee is expected to hold a hearing on this bill within the next few weeks. The future likely depends on whether it can be fit into the state’s budget, with questions now revolving around whether both individuals and corporations will be eligible for the credit, how large the credit will be, and whether it will be a straight credit or a percentage of a donation. Notably, the committee has not raised any objections about private school participation.
Assembly Bill 2582, sponsored by Republican Assemblyman Brian Nestande, takes a more traditional approach. (more…)
Florida: The state's top education official offers a strong pitch for continued expansion of school choice options despite recent scrutiny of charter schools. (redefinED) The state Board of Education overrules several school districts that opposed new charter schools. (Orlando Sentinel)
Louisiana: One local school district plans to open a virtual school to compete for home schoolers. (Baton Rouge Advocate) Meanwhile, this district seeks to opt out of the state's new voucher program. (Baton Rouge Advocate) So does this one. (Monroe News Star) Charter schools get a thumbs up from Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu. (Baton Rouge Advocate)
Alabama: Charter schools bill, watered down after vigorous opposition from state teachers union, is dead. (Montgomery Advertiser)
Massachusetts: State lifts temporary moratorium on new charter schools. (Boston Globe) (more…)
