School Vouchers and Curricular Choices: - Bruce Sabin



School Vouchers and Curricular Choices:

Whose Kids are They Anyway?

By:

Bruce M. Sabin

A general State education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mold in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body.

~ John Stuart Mill, 1859

Educational vouchers have been part of the political landscape for several years now. The issue of vouchers has sharply divided many people. On one side, people advocate the ideas of parental choice, and market forces. On the other side, people argue for solidifying the public school as society’s educational provision. While there are numerous issues involved in vouchers, such as the Constitutionality, I am focusing on those issues which affect curriculum. Allowing for vouchers increases the curricular opportunities that students have, by giving families the chance to choose between various curriculums. While most families are currently forced into the local public school’s curriculum, under vouchers, parents can choose between everything from Catholic schools to Montessori.

There are many powerful groups opposing vouchers. As one might expect, teacher unions, such as the NEA have spent tremendous amounts of money opposing vouchers.[1] Other groups, though, have also come out against school choice. The NAACP,[2] the Anti-Defamation League,[3] and others have argued that vouchers should be eliminated.

The NEA cites research by Kim Metcalf which found that vouchers provided (marginal differences( in educational quality over public schools.[4] Of course, the NEA(s statement that vouchers should be opposed because there was not enough improvement begs the question of how much improvement the NEA would require before they could support vouchers. The NEA also uses the results of a Government Accounting Office study. The NEA Web site states, (The U.S. Government Accounting Office issued a report that found only minimal differences in student achievement between voucher-eligible students who attended public and private schools.([5] However, when I reviewed the GAO(s report, it revealed ideas that the NEA undoubtedly would not support. The GAO did find only minimal improvements in voucher students. The GAO admits, though, that other studies have found more improvement. According to the GAO, each of these studies is statistically sound, but differences in testing methods, small sample sizes, and other difficulties make generalizations impossible, The GAO goes on to recommend that more research be done.[6] The NEA seized the small part of the study showing (minimal differences( and is trying to use that to dismiss vouchers. However, the NEA ignores the evidence of greater voucher success and the call for more research.

The NEA even appears to misuse the work of Kim Metcalf. The NEA Web site states,

(education researcher Kim Metcalf has reviewed voucher research, pro and con, and expresses concerns about the (costs of choice(."[7] When I read Metcalf(s article which the NEA references, Metcalf actually endorses choice. He writes:

It seems untenable to argue that giving parents and families greater control over their children's education is bad.... Many in the education establishment would

argue that the framework [of choices] should be relatively restrictive to minimize

differences in the outcomes and benefits students derive. However, we take a

different position and suggest that the widest possible range of choices should be

made available and that, though it will not always be popular, the educational market should be allowed to operate.[8]

Metcalf argues for the “widest possible range of choices” and that the “market should be allowed to operate.” He hardly seems to be expressing concern over the “costs of choice” as the NEA claims. Metcalf details the true interest of the NEA when he writes:

The position to restrict educational choices requires one to assume... that someone

besides parents -- presumably federal or state education authorities or education

scholars -- knows what education is best for all children.[9]

Metcalf concludes his article with the following:

As educators... we have a unique opportunity to use the educational choice

movement to promote innovative, creative approaches to schools and teaching....

If we take advantage of this opportunity, we have the potential to make schools

more inviting and supportive places for children. If we ignore the momentum for

educational choice, we risk becoming increasingly irrelevant to our stakeholders.[10]

The NEA Web site has a plethora of false statements. The NEA states that Nobel laureate “Milton Friedman, the ‘grandfather’ of vouchers, dismissed the notion that vouchers could help low-income families, saying ‘it is essential that no conditions be attached to the acceptance of vouchers that interfere with the freedom of private enterprises to experiment’.”[11] However, Friedman’s economic theory, in fact, states that free-market systems benefit every group, including the poor. The Friedman quote used by the NEA in no way dismisses “the notion that vouchers could help low-income families.” The reality is that Friedman directly theorizes that vouchers will help low-income families.[12]

Vouchers seem to offer parents and students an excellent opportunity to have (ownership( of a student(s education. There are numerous studies which suggest that vouchers help the poorest, black students.[13] Some research has shown vouchers improve test scores by as much as 15 percentile points.[14] Of course, as the GAO reported, these studies are still in dispute. However, it is clear that parents report greater satisfaction in their children(s educations when choice is allowed. Depending on the city surveyed, voucher parents are roughly three-times more likely to say they “very satisfied” with the quality of their children(s education than parents of students in their zoned public schools.[15]

The decision of teacher unions, and other groups, to oppose voucher has less to do with quality education than with communist philosophy. The NEA even opposes private scholarships, saying:

Much has been made about the cleverly titled “opportunity scholarships”—the privately funded vouchers for disadvantaged minority students. These sound

perfectly harmless, but their impact on public schools can be just as damaging as

vouchers funded by taxpayer dollars. Public schools lose state funding when

students leave to attend voucher schools.[16]

So, the NEA holds that even privately funded private schools hurt public education, and therefore should be opposed. Clearly, the NEA will not be happy until every American child is forced into their zoned public school. The NEA opposes all choice, believing instead, that bureaucrats are better able to make decisions than parents. As Metcalf wrote, the NEA believes “federal or state education authorities or education scholars—knows what education is best for all children.”

The decision about whether to allow school choice or not comes down to both practical and philosophical debates. Should parents be given the opportunity to make the subjective decisions about their children(s educations? When varying curriculum ideas abound, and even professional educators cannot agree on what constitutes the “best” education, who should decide what education a child receives? Teacher unions are obligated to protect union teachers( jobs. That obligation requires teacher unions to oppose school choice, just as factory unions oppose free trade. I believe that basic human dignity mandates that parents, and not bureaucrats, should make the educational decisions. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 26, “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”[17] Anyone who attempts to violate parents( rights and force children into government schools must be fought.

-----------------------

[1] Archer, Jeff. (NEA Dips Into New Fund to Aid Campaigns.( Education Week. Sept. 27, 2000. Article available on-line at . Accessed March 3, 2002.

[2] Garnett, Nicole. (NAACP Lawsuit Challenges Vouchers.( Intellectual Ammunition. Feb/March 1997. Article available on-line at . Accessed March 3, 2002.

[3] Anti-Defamation League. (School Vouchers.( Article available on-line at

issue_religious_freedom/faith-freedom/faith_freedom_vouchers.html. Accessed March 3, 2002.

[4] National Education Association. (Vouchers.( Article available on-line at

vouchers/index.html. Accessed March 3, 2002

[5] Ibid.

[6] Government Accounting Office. (School Vouchers: Publicly Funded Programs in Cleveland and Milwaukee.( August 2001. Article available on-line at . Accessed March 3, 2002.

[7] National Education Association. Ibid.

[8] Metcalf, Kim, and Polly A. Tait. (Free Market Policies and Public Education: What Is the Cost of Choice?( Kappan. Sept. 1999. Article found at . Accessed March 3, 2002.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] National Education Association. Ibid.

[12] Swartley, Laura. Letter to the author. March 4, 2002. In the possession of the author.

[13] (A Supreme Opportunity.( The Economist. Feb. 23, 2002. Article available on-line at . Accessed March 3, 2002.

[14] Wolf, Patrick J., Peterson, Paul E., and Martin R. West. (An Evaluation of the Cleveland Voucher System After Two Years.( June 1999. Article available on-line at

clev2ex.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2002.

[15] West, Martin R. , Peterson, Paul E. and David E. Campbell. (School Choice in Dayton, Ohio after Two Years: An Evaluation of the Parents Advancing Choice in Education Scholarship Program.( Article available on-line at . Accessed March 3, 2002.

[16] (Talking Turkey.( NEA Today. Nov. 1999. Article available on-line at . Accessed March 3, 2002.

[17] (Universal Declaration of Human Rights.( Declaration available on-line at

50/decla.htm. Accessed March 3, 2002.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download