Archive | Parental Choice RSS feed for this section

Building a new education system with an old financial formula

By
On February 15, 2012 in Charter Schools, Funding, General, Parental Choice

A new report on how charter schools are funded in Florida is a reminder that being different typically comes at a price. Though state policymakers are indeed charting new approaches in the field of public education, their budget writers are still ciphering students in the same old ways. The impact is difficult to overstate.

How Charter School Funding Compares, written by the respected nonprofit Florida TaxWatch, looks beneath the hood of a state funding system that ostensibly delivers the same per-student allocation whether the student is in a traditional public school or a charter school. But what it determines is that charter schools are funded, per student, at roughly 68 to 71 percent of a traditional public school.

This finding might seem at odds with a state that has allowed charter schools since 1996 and has positioned itself among the national leaders with 180,000 students enrolled. But TaxWatch describes the dilemma this way: “Because the charter school model is both a relatively new entrant to the state’s public education system and a rapidly expanding educational delivery option, there is much discussion, and confusion, concerning the differences in funding between charter schools and traditional district schools. Because of a variety of factors, largely stemming from the relational dependency of charter schools on their local authorizing agency, commonly the local school board, questions of equal distribution of funding from federal, state, and local sources have emerged.”

The charter school math works like this: the per-student allocation removes between 2 and 5 percent for district School Board oversight, doesn’t include some local and federal sources or some spending categories deemed not relevant, and takes most of the capital money off the table entirely. That’s how a Florida charter school student ends up worth 70 cents on the public school dollar. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

What other nations are telling us about educational diversity

By
On February 14, 2012 in Catholic education, General, Parental Choice, Religious education

This essay was first posted at the CLR Forum by the Center for Law and Religion at St. John’s University School of Law.

In a recent column for the New York Times, David Brooks argued that a healthy society requires a “thick ecosystem” in which diverse organizations create a rich “spiritual, economic and social ecology.” He contrasted this with an abstract, rule-based “one-size-fits-all” approach favored by government technocrats. He wrote, “Technocratic organizations take diverse institutions and make them more alike by imposing the same rules. Technocracies do not defer to local knowledge. They dislike individual discretion. They like consistency, codification and uniformity.”

Brooks’s contrast applies to public education: America favors technocratic uniformity, while most other liberal democracies prefer a diverse ecosystem.

Here are a few examples of diverse educational ecosystems from other countries. Some good sources on this are Helena Miller’s work on Jewish schooling; Salisbury and Tooley on international comparisons; and Glenn’s Contrasting Models.

  • New Zealand has three different categories of schools: state-sponsored schools, state-integrated schools, and fully independent schools. They receive differing amounts of government funding and a commensurate level of state regulation.
  • Four Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec) allow 50 percent of total per capita costs to follow children to the school of their parents’ choice. Alberta also grants some funding for families who home school. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Retracing America’s path away from pluralism

By
On February 13, 2012 in Catholic education, General, Parental Choice, Religious education

This essay was first posted at the CLR Forum by the Center for Law and Religion at St. John’s University School of Law.

Let me begin with a thought experiment. Suppose that a majority of parents in a school district wished their children to have a traditional curriculum that included Latin, The Norton Anthology of American Literature, sentence diagramming, advanced mathematics and experimental science. Also suppose these parents wanted the teachers to have subject matter instead of education degrees. Suppose, further, they wanted the philosophical framework of their children’s schooling to be Modern Orthodox Judaism. Finally, suppose that these parents agreed to comply with the district’s regulations for school facilities, extracurricular activities and student-teacher ratios, and to surpass the district’s academic standards.

Would the district fund the new school? No, because the United States’ educational system was not designed to allow this kind of diversity.

This comes as no surprise to most Americans. But they might be surprised to learn that this is in sharp contrast to virtually every other liberal democracy. In England, for example, if such parents provide 15 percent of the capital costs, Central Government contributes the remaining 85 percent and also funds the ongoing operations of the school. In the Netherlands, the new school would be funded on an equal footing with the Muslim, Catholic, Montessori, and Anthroposophic schools down the street.

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Is parental choice really the enemy?

By
On February 8, 2012 in Funding, General, Parent empowerment, Parental Choice

Back in December, some of the top elected and appointed officials in Seminole County schools used a public meeting covered by the Orlando Sentinel to blame Florida’s tax credit scholarship for low-income children for their financial woes. They called the program a “travesty” and “part of an agenda” to weaken public schools. The school board chairwoman also claimed “there is no accountability in the program.”

It saddened me to see officials of a quality school system such as Seminole making such factually incorrect and inflammatory remarks, but they weren’t finished. This week, Seminole school superintendent Bill Vogel was asked tough questions by county commissioners who wonder whether his district had built too many schools in the face of declining student enrollment. His response was to again blame parental choice programs, according to the Sentinel, saying his district will need to close down schools because of “a huge shift to charter schools and private school vouchers — programs that Seminole school officials do not favor.”

Please allow me to lay out some facts.

First, let’s report on what the state’s independent researcher has determined about Tax Credit Scholarships:

  • Scholarship students are poorer than their peers on free or reduced-price lunch in public schools.
  • They are among the worst performers at their public schools when they leave on scholarship.
  • Their learning gains are slighter higher than their peers in public schools — a notable achievement for kids who might normally keep trending downward.
  • The more a public school’s students participate in the scholarship, the higher the learning gains for the kids who remain at that public school.

Second, let’s look at the impact of private options on Seminole school enrollment forecasts and planning. In Seminole today, there are:

  • 588 students on the Tax Credit Scholarship for low-income students.
  • 480 students on the McKay Scholarship for disabled students.
  • 814 students in charter schools.
  • 63,872 students in public schools.

In other words, only 2.7 percent of the district’s traditional public school students are attending private options. And yet the students are cited as the main source of the financial woes of the district, and the reason public schools need to be shut down. The district has become so averse to parental choice that the School Board voted recently to restrict student transfers even within traditional public schools next year. I have to believe that restricting public school choice will only spur more parents to seek choice outside of the district-run schools.

Perhaps someday the board and the superintendent will accept a new definition of “public education.”  The old definition: all tax dollars are used by district-run schools with students assigned by zip code. The new definition: using taxpayer dollars to educate children using the best methods, and the best providers, for each individual child. Sadly, I think the day they adopt this definition is far away.

 

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

He didn’t really say that, did he?

By
On February 8, 2012 in Achievement Gap, General, Parent empowerment, Parental Choice, Unionism

New Jersey employs a brand of education politics that is not renowned for its nuance or subtlety, so let’s credit New Jersey Education Association Director Vincent Giordano with raising the bar. In an interview on the New Jersey Capitol Report over the weekend, Giordano was pressed on the timely subject of a legislative proposal there to give private learning options to low-income students who attend public schools that are judged to be under-performing. For context, let’s add the fact that, according to the Newark Star-Ledger, his salary in 2010 was roughly $422,000.

His response, captured in this video clip, is nothing if not succinct: “Well, you know, life’s not always fair and I’m sorry about that.”

Giordano is no doubt thinking better of his remarks today. But it does seem fair to point out that key New Jersey Democrats, including Newark Mayor Cory Booker, support the scholarship option precisely because life is unfair for children who grow up in poverty. The mayor sees the scholarship as one modest way to try to level the playing field.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

LEGISLATIVE WATCH: The Florida scene

By
On February 8, 2012 in Education and Public Policy, General, Parental Choice

The legislative push in Florida on education is being generally described as light this year, with most of the emphasis on restoring financial cuts made to public schools last year. That being said, the annual 60-day legislative session has now reached its midpoint, and there are a number of important issues on the table.

Career Academies:

CS/SB 1314, Career-Themed Courses by Sen. Don Gaetz. Last Action:  2/2/12, a committee substitute was approved by the Senate Commerce & Tourism Committee, 6-0. Next up is the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education PreK-12 Appropriations  The bill revises provisions in the Career and Professional Education Act and allows greater access to industry certifications in high demand fields.

Charter Schools:

CS/HB 903, Charter Schools by Rep. Janet Adkins. Last Action: 1/31/12, a committee substitute was approved by the House K-20 Innovation Subcommittee, 12-0. Now in PreK-12 Appropriations Subcommittee. The bill requires the Commissioner of Education to annually determine a high-performing charter school or school system’s continued eligibility for “high performing” status, prohibits renewing a charter if a school received two “F” grades within a three-year period, and requires each charter school to maintain a website. It also authorizes certain Florida College System institutions to establish one charter school, and requires sponsors to distribute a charter school’s share of federal funds to the school within 60 days.

CS/SB 1852, Charter Schools by Sen. Stephen Wise. Last Action: 2/6/12, a committee substitute was approved by the Senate Education PreK -12 Committee, 5-1.  The bill authorizes certain Florida College System institutions to establish one charter school, authorizes each district to share revenue generated by its capital outlay millage levy with charter schools on a per-student basis, and requires sponsors to distribute a charter school’s share of federal funds to the school within 60 days. It also revises certain restrictions on high-performing charter schools. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

The ‘technocrats’ need not fear religion

By
On February 8, 2012 in Catholic education, General, Parental Choice, Religious education

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius didn’t set out to make life hard on Catholic hospitals, and it is not difficult to imagine why a guardian of health would come down on the side of contraception. But New York Times columnist David Brooks makes an enticing point as he examines how technocrats, to use his term, tend to cower from complexity and run from religion. He sees those same behaviors tying President Obama in knots on school vouchers.

Wrote Brooks:

“The administration’s policies on school vouchers and religious service providers are demoralizing because they weaken this ecology by reducing its diversity. By ending vouchers, the administration reduced the social intercourse between neighborhoods. By coercing the religious charities, it is teaching the faithful to distrust government, to segregate themselves from bureaucratic overreach, to pull inward.”

The communities that a young Barack Obama organized are deeply tied to the church, and those church leaders provide a form of social ballast. Indeed, one of the reasons most of the private schools participating in voucher or tax credit scholarship programs across the country are faith-based is that one of the missions of these schools is to help children who are in social or financial or educational need. That aligns with the mission of most of these private-option programs.

Florida is certainly an example. The Tax Credit Scholarship is available only to students whose household income qualifies them for free or reduced-price lunch, or 85 percent above poverty, and the actual average income this school year is only 12 percent above poverty. In turn, roughly four-fifths of the 38,375 students this year attend faith-based schools.

That these schools are tied in some way to religion can indeed give technocrats serious pause. They think of a wall that is supposed to separate church and state, and forget that the Establishment Cause was prompted by fears not that the government would cooperate with religions but that it would allow for only one. We’re a pluralistic nation, and the participating Florida schools make that point emphatically:  Of the participating religious schools, 36 percent are nondenominational, 17 percent Catholic, 16 percent Baptist, 5 percent Seventh Day Adventist, 3 percent Pentecostal, 3 percent Jewish, and the rest representing at least nine other faiths.

These schools are a snapshot of our communities, just as Catholic hospitals are a part of the medical landscape. As long as the government isn’t forcing children to attend them and as long as the options are religiously diverse, then technocrats have nothing to fear. In fact, there is a persuasive constitutional argument that the government can’t offer options that exclude religious ones. More importantly, these kinds of learning options strengthen the public education quilt by adding pieces of community fabric that sometimes can play a constructive role in helping disadvantaged children learn. That’s certainly something community organizer Barack Obama can appreciate.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Why it matters that compulsory education can mean private schools

By
On February 6, 2012 in Catholic education, General, Parental Choice, School Choice

The modern school choice movement was made possible by the 1925 Supreme Court decision, Pierce v. Society of Sisters.  This unanimous decision struck down an Oregon law, which was strongly supported by the Ku Klux Klan, requiring all Oregon children be educated in government-run schools.  The law was part of the KKK’s anti-Catholic campaign and was intended to force Catholic schools to close.

The court used the 14th Amendment as the basis for its decision. Writing for the court, Justice McReynolds asserted:

“The fundamental theory upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.  The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

As Joseph Viteritti, one of the country’s top experts in the relationship between the U.S. Constitution and school choice, has observed, the Pierce decision helped establish “the constitutionally protected right of parents to have their children educated in schools that reflected their own values, as well as the commensurate right of religious and private schools to coexist as viable alternatives to public schools.”

Unfortunately, all parents do not have an equal opportunity to exercise this constitutional right. Parents with sufficient resources may satisfy their state’s mandatory school attendance law by sending their children to secular or sectarian private schools, but parents with insufficient resources cannot. As Steve Sugarman recently wrote on this blog, just as the choices guaranteed by the Court’s Roe v. Wade decision require public funding to be fully realized, so do the choices guaranteed by the Pierce decision.

Over the last decade, school choice opponents have used state and federal constitutional provisions as the basis of legal attacks on various school choice programs, but these same provisions provide the basis for expanding and strengthening school choice. For example, if the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses require that government remain neutral when parents choose their child’s school, then shouldn’t the government provide equal financial support for the parents’ choice — regardless if the chosen school is secular or sectarian? Isn’t government putting its collective thumb on the scale when it financially supports parents to attend secular schools but not sectarian schools? And shouldn’t the Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee low-income parents the same access to sectarian schools as wealthy parents?

Though the Pierce decision is the better part of a century old, it may still have direct relevance to the issues playing out in a public education system that today is trying to keep pace with the individual needs of students and growing demands of parents. Liberty, equality and pluralism are so deeply embedded in the cultural DNA of America that parental choice seems inevitable.

 

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

New evidence in the field of cherry-picking

By
On February 2, 2012 in Parental Choice, School Choice

In a Florida House committee last week, a dutiful Democratic representative objected to a bill expanding Tax Credit Scholarships by raising a common objection. “I could run a successful school as well if I could cherry-pick my students, ’’ said Rep. Scott Randolph, “unlike the public schools who take everyone, both low-performing and high-performing.”

Leave aside the fact that the scholarship to which he referred is available only to students whose household income qualifies for free or reduced-price lunch and that the actual average income this year is only 12 percent above poverty. Randolph’s question persists in the national debate, and a new, as-yet-unpublished academic study gives us one of the most complete answers to date about which students choose these private options and why.

The short answer is this: In Florida, the students who choose these scholarships are struggling academically and come from school districts that don’t give them many other options.

The research is titled “Selection in means-tested school voucher program” and was conducted by University of California-Davis education professor Cassandra Hart with help from respected Northwestern University researcher David Figlio. It takes the measure of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship, which is now 10 years old and has 38,000 students in nearly 1,200 private schools. Figlio has previously determined, with four straight years of consistent data, that students choosing the scholarship are among the lowest performers at the public schools they leave behind. This report goes further in providing context.

The students who choose the scholarship:

  • Were more likely to be black and were poorer than other students on free or reduced-price lunch in public schools.
  • Had lower standardized test scores than other students on free or reduced-price lunch in public schools before entering the program.
  • Were previously in public schools with low aggregate academic performance.
  • Were previously in public schools with higher rates of violent incidents and out-of-school suspensions.
  • Were previously in public schools in which principals were more likely to report that student disruptions interfered with learning.
  • Were previously in public schools in which teachers were more likely to report they spent too much time on discipline and too little time working with low-performing students.
  • Were more likely to live near a wide variety of private schools.
  • Were less likely to have public school options beyond their assigned neighborhood school.

“From a policy perspective,” Dr. Hart wrote, “examining public school contexts is important because these policies are often justified as a way to help students exit underperforming, unsafe schools. Knowing that these policies do in fact attract applicants in poor schools is useful in gauging the success of the voucher policies in opening up choices to families in low-quality schools.”

Just as important, the research suggests that, at least in Florida, there is no skimming the educational cream. These are students who are among the lowest academic performers and their parents go through an extensive application process to verify their income and usually pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket to make up the difference between the $4,011 scholarship and actual tuition and fees. As Hart noted, “These time and financial costs suggest that parents are unlikely to apply on a whim. Rather, some specific factors are likely impelling them to apply.”

The people who administer the program in Florida and work with the parents who apply for scholarships typically describe them as desperate. Their children are on a downward path academically, and they’re just looking for an option that might work. In other words, these are not students that most educators would associate with the words “cherry pick.”

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

The exception that disproves the rule

By
On January 30, 2012 in General, Parental Choice, School Choice

Public educators sometimes criticize private school choice options by contrasting them with district-run public schools they say must accept all applicants. While that take-all-comers assertion is certainly true for school districts, a Miami Herald story from last week reminds us it is not necessarily true for individual district schools. As Herald reporter Cara Fitzpatrick put it, “Securing a spot in Broward County’s most selective public schools isn’t a task for the faint of heart.”

Read full story · Comments { 0 }