I don’t have the time to write anything substantial at this point, but here are some excellent links furthering my point of view on school choice (I’m writing this like anyone who reads this blog cares besides Brophey).

Paul Soglin: Kids, Schools, and Cities Part I

Public schools work. Public schools that have 90% of their kids above the poverty line do just fine. When public schools have over 40% of their kids from households below the poverty line, performance tanks.

To fix the problem, it takes a three-pronged strategy: money, parental involvement and a sound faculty. Public Education: Resources Matter, as Does Context - Milwaukee is NOT South Dakota

Here are some of the critical elements that are too often ignored:

• Low income kids are more likely to be from a single parent household.
• Low income kids are less likely to have a working computer and printer at home.
• Low income kids are more likely to have chronic health problems resulting in frequent absences.
• Low income kids are less likely to have a parent involved in their education because:
  • Their parents may not have a high school education.
  • Their parents had lousy educational experiences and consequently do not want to go to the school.
  • English is a second language for the parent (and perhaps the child).
  • Transportation to after-school conferences and evening activities is difficult, or even impossible.

Low income kids are less likely to have access to after-school or summer recreation programs which would enhance their skills.

Thirty years ago, many school districts said, “We have the kids from 8:00 am until 3:00 pm, after that, they are not our concern.”  Most districts now realize that if there is going to be academic achievement, the child is of concern 24 hours a day.

Folkbum (Jay Bullock):  Voucher Questions, Budget Woes

Actually, well you’re at it, just read Folkbum everyday… you’ll be better for it.

I’m currently engaged in a school choice with James Widgerson over at his Library and Pub.

It started with my response to this post… where Widgerson contends that not raising the cap on school choice is “standing in the way of school choice and educational opportunity for young African Americans in Milwaukee.”

My response was simply a cross-post of my earlier rant on school choice that I posted here on January 23rd.

Widgerson devoted an entire post in response, saying that I’m “honest enough to admit they would like to end school choice.” I can’t really argue with that. I still consider myself open-minded… and if I can be convinced that school choice is a positive solution, then so be it. But I’m not there yet.

Widgerson goes on to quote me and respond:

One correspondent here has laid out what I think are the basic arguments against school choice they’re willing to offer.

He writes, “Money used for vouchers to send Milwaukee students to private schools is money that could have been put towards the public school system”

The question is, why is this an issue? Shouldn’t the education dollar follow the student? And if there’s a more efficient means of educating the student (our presumed goal) then shouldn’t we put our investment there?

And that’s the beauty of the concept of school choice. The education dollar follows the student, and the parent (whom we trust would know best) gets to choose what is the best method for educating that child.

Here, Widgerson highlights our main difference, which I address in my comment:

One of the major problems with school choice that I haven’t seen addressed is that it’s parents, not students making the “choice” to attend a school out of the district. Unfortunately, in parts of the MPS district, there are parents who couldn’t care less where their kids go to school. Unfortunately, not all parents care enough (or have the time… with a strained family or work situation) to put much thought into their children’s education.
I think that’s our true difference. You say that it’s the parent that “we trust would know best”. That’s a broad assumption… I argue that’s (again EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATELY) not true. Sometimes school is the refuge for a child who’s home situation is less than desirable.

This post may be a little self-serving - but I think it’s valuable to have this discourse in a single venue so that it may be seen in its (near) entirety. The education of our (well, not my) children is an extremely important issue, and one that is currently being overwhelmed by partisan poltics and bickering on both sides. I have yet to see either public officials or political pundits lay the issues and priorites out as plainly and honestly as in this discussion.

Update: The one and only Chris Brophey weighs in (take a look at the comments):

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure schools operate on economies of scale. Therefore, removing money for individual students hurts the students left behind, not the institution or the teachers union some accuse Democrates of only looking out for. You may gladly forsake the remaining students, but I simply cannot. Especially when the solution is not as simply send them to private school. Fourth, an all charter/private school system in Milwaukee? I dont believe the city has the infrastructure for that.

Additionally, when funds are diverted to build this, where do they come from, MPS schools trying educate? And when you infuse large amounts of MPS students into the existing private schools, where do the kids that currently attend the private school go? There are such things as school capcities. So the kid that planend on going to private school now has to attend public…is that not the problem you are trying to avoid?

There aren’t many subjects that get me as riled up as school choice. From what I’ve been reading lately, Governor Doyle has continued to veto attempts by the legislature to raise the cap above the current 15% of Milwaukee’s public school enrollment. To many people, such as Charlie Sykes and writers at the Wall Street Journal, the answer is simple: let more kids in the system use vouchers to attend private schools outside the crippled MPS system. Better education for more kids. How can you argue with that? Like this:

Money used for vouchers to send Milwaukee students to private schools is money that could have been put towards the public school system.

The argument for school choice is that taking students (and money) away from public schools will force them to compete with private schools, and raise the quality of public schools.

The goal: Improve public schools.
The means: Take money away from public schools.

Great plan!

According to the WSJ article, a study has shown that “students using vouchers to attend Milwaukee’s private schools had a graduation rate of 64%, versus 36% for their public school counterparts.” What the WSJ failed to note is that parents who desire their child to participate in the voucher program are more likely to provide an environment conducive to learning and success. What the study should have done was compare kids who participated in the choice program to kids whose parents wanted them to participate in the program, but were not accepted.

Those in favor want to raise the cap on school choice participation above the current ceiling of 15%. My question is, raise it to where? To 20%, leaving 80% of Milwaukee’s students in the public schools that choice advocates say need to improve so much. To 50%? The major problem with school choice is that, while a small fraction of the students may get a better education, THERE ARE ALWAYS STUDENTS LEFT BEHIND. Why not devise a plan to fund and improve public schools for all of these students? Why must we save the few lucky enough to make the 15% cut and defund public schools for the other 85%? Raising the cap won’t help, but proper funding and some effort put into fixing MPS will. Don’t just abandon these kids, help them.

Mr. Sykes writes, “Today, black students in choice schools face the possibility that they will also be excluded from the schools of their choice. While the current governor will not literally stand in the schoolhouse door, the effect will be the same: the kids will be kept out.”

My question to Sykes is: what is your plan to provide EVERY child with a quality education. Sykes says that kids will be left out if the Governor doesn’t up the cap. What he doesn’t state, is that, no matter what the cap is, kids will be left out. What I believe Sykes is saying here is that all children who have parents who desire them to get a quality education should be allowed access to it. What I’m saying is that all children should have access to a quality education, whether their parents are supporting enough to care about where they go to school or not.

According to the WSJ, the only way Doyle will raise the cap is if, “it’s tied to a change in the school-aid formula that he knows would never pass the Republican legislature — particularly in an election year.” No shit. Doyle realizes that just sending more kids into the voucher program won’t help the bigger problem: improving our public schools. You know what will help? Proper funding; which is exactly what Doyle demands be part of the package and is what he’s been fighting for over the past three years.

This isn’t to say that simply throwing money at poorer districts will improve the problem. Funding has to be accompanied by effort, reform, and accountability. But defunding public schools doesn’t come across as a responsible action to me. The bottom line: use public money to improve public schools, not to send a small fraction somewhere else.

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

Folkbum: Shameless Race-Baiting on the Right: Conservatives’ True Colors (this one’s a must-read)

Wall Street Journal: The Education Borg (Poor form with the analogy, WSJ. I expect better.)

Charlie Sykes: WHY ARE DOYLE AND XOFF SO UPSET?

Xoff: Sykes choosing words more carefully? His ’spot’ becomes paid commercial

This week, the online magazine Slate.com features a series of articles related to higher education.

Highlights include answers to the question of whether America’s University system needs reform (most think that we should re-embrace the liberal arts mentality) and the favorite books of famous college grads.

Nothing groundbreaking yet, but the series continues all week.

Tom Still explains an concept developed by Bruce Meredith, the general counsel for Wisconsin’s teachers union, that lays out a plan for public education based on the model for pro sports.

From Wisopinion.com:

“Competition and deregulation may improve education, but only if carefully implemented and controlled,” wrote Meredith, who served as interim director of the Wisconsin Education Association Council during a recent leadership transition. “Sports leagues, which are grounded in competition, have learned that only fair and carefully controlled competition can improve the quality of play and produce long-term, self-sustaining successful franchises.”…

Meredith argues that’s precisely how public education should function. It should not be run as a commodity product in a totally free market, but as a service to society provided under market rules that give all “teams” – schools and the children within them – a realistic chance to win.

Meredith says the existing rules of play in education aren’t uniform or clear. The creation of private-school voucher programs, while founded on the notion of competitive choice, have created situations in which private schools can “de-select” students who are too hard to educate. Rules also vary in the administration of charter schools and public school “choice,” which allow some transfers among schools and school districts. Finally, the federal “No Child Left Behind Act” has imposed another set of rules on schools previously guided by state and local standards.

The combination “makes it difficult to determine whether deregulated schools are providing a better education or simply educating better students,” Meredith wrote.

This “plan” addresses the biggest problem I have with school choice and the voucher program: the fact that if you give the opportunity to some kids to go to different schools that may provide them with a better education, you do NOTHING to improve the schools that those children left. Plenty of children are still stuck at underperforming schools and getting inadequate educations. Abandoning the public school system to help just a few kids isn’t going to solve the larger problem.

It seems as though UW leaders (especially John Wiley) have a death wish. Following the release last week of the Steingass Report, a document investigating UW administrator Paul Barrows’ conduct prior to his extended (paid) leave of absence and containing accusations of inappropriate conduct from five different women, Barrows returns today to his position as senior administrative program specialist at a salary of $72,881.

What’s worse than the original allegations have been to cover-up from Bascom:

From the Badger Herald:
When Wiley demanded Barrows justify his use of sick leave, the embattled administrator produced an unsigned physician’s note, which did not validate the continuing application of paid sick time.

“[Y]ou and your administrative team should have been aware of the requirement that an employee must be ill in order to charge an absence of sick leave, and should have acted promptly either to obtain the appropriate documentation on Dr. Barrows’ situation or to require his return to work,” Reilly wrote to Wiley.

Not doing so “has hurt the university’s reputation,” Reilly continued.

At least the UW is still in the state legislature’s good graces:

“I have lost all faith in both the president (Reilly) as well as the chancellor,” state Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said. “They should have fired Paul Barrows and severely reprimanded Chancellor Wiley, but neither of those actions have been taken.”

Badger Herald reports:

Barrows to return to work

UW releases report: Barrows will not be fired

Reilly reprimands chancellor in letter

Wisconsin State Journal editorial:

Uw Actions Don’t Inspire Confidence

English Teacher Jay Bullock has observations and reactions choice schools and other education issues over at Folkbum.

He’s also a contributor to Sensenbrenner Watch, a critical look at the actions of U.S. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner from WI district 5 in southeastern WI. They’ve got some great posts on Sensenbrenner’s walk-out during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on the Patriot Act last week as well as his Real ID act.

This week, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a series on the school voucher system in Milwaukee (one of the few in the nation) and what it means for students, parents and the community.

For the seven-part series, Journal Sentinel reporters visited 104 of the 115 choice schools in Milwaukee. They were denied at the remaining nine.

According to the article: 9 voucher schools deny requests for classroom visits:
Together, the nine schools received more than $3.5 million in public money to educate children this year. Because they are private, schools in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program are not required to allow members of the public - even officials of the state Department of Public Instruction, which provides their money - into their buildings. Building inspectors, on the other hand, must be allowed to enter.

The most remarkable thing about all of the research the Journal Sentinel has done might be the “questionable scenes” they witnessed while visiting some of the schools:

Academy of Excellence Preparatory School, 4340 N. 46th St., seven voucher students: Basically, an early childhood center. The first two times reporters visited, no one was there. The third time, there was a teacher with two students, a 4-year-old and 5-year-old. They were about to go to McDonald’s.

This and the other examples are an extreme, but under the voucher system, these schools are given thousands of dollars in public money to take in students that would otherwise go to public school.

Also included in the series are examples of several choice schools making gains.

The biggest problem I have with school vouchers it that, even if every choice school is doing extremely well and each student in the program is benefiting, you’re only taking them (and money) out of the public school system. This is different from the Chapter 220 program in Milwaukee that takes kids from public schools and moves them to different public schools with more resources, with a financial benefit from the school they are leaving and a tax benefit for the school they are coming to.

There is an argument that school vouchers will pressure public schools to improve, to do better when threatened with fewer students and less money. But an MPS school isn’t going to magically improve when the few resources they have are taken away. You’re not going to attract more qualified teachers this way. You’re not going to foster a community commitment to schools. You’re not going to maintain funding for “extra”-curricular classes that are really essential to a quality education that will provide a student to achieve success beyond high-school.

Congratulations to the Journal Sentinel for engaging in such an ambitious and in-depth look at the voucher system.

The Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee is contemplating the elimination of the Milwaukee’s Chapter 220 program that allows students (4,150 last year) from Milwaukee Public Schools to attend and graduate at suburban schools, where more resources are spent on each student.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

School districts that receive Chapter 220 students get as much aid per student as they spend on their own students. At the same time, Milwaukee Public Schools gets to keep three-fourths of the Chapter 220 students going to suburban districts on their books for revenue purposes.

There’s also major tax benefits for hosting districts:

Without the revenue that comes with bringing Chapter 220 students into the district, homeowners in Wauwatosa could expect property taxes to increase by about 15.5% to make up for the loss of about $4 million, according to Wauwatosa School District business manager John Mack. To the owner of a $200,000 home, that’s about $235 more a year, Mack says. There would be an additional property tax increase of about 7.2% the next year because Wauwatosa would lose another $2.8 million in revenue because of the loss of students counted under the state’s equalization aid formula, he says. [Aid is based on a three-year rolling average, meaning cuts in aid three years running for participating districts.]

As a graduate of a suburban Milwaukee school, Nicolet, I saw first-hand the benefits that the Chapter 220 program provides students. These students get a chance to study in a district that has a standard of instruction near or equivilent to that of most private schools. Without the Chapter 220 program, suburban schools wouldn’t be nearly as racially or socioeconomically diverse as they are now, a benefit of the program for students living in the district that is often overlooked.

Whitefish Bay High School senior Marcus Switzer, 18, explains the benefits of the program (from the JS article):

“A lot of (Milwaukee) high schools are not up to college-bound standards,” Switzer says. “It’s a sad fact. But for many kids, to get that type of education, you have to go somewhere else.”

Since the lawmakers in Madison aren’t willing to spend the money to raise MPS up to the standards of it’s suburban neighbors (I concede that it would be A LOT of money), they need to continue funding the Chapter 220 program to at least give a handful of kids a decent shot at a better education, especially if any of them want to claim that they support public education come the next election.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article
Jay Bullock’s post on the subject