School Vouchers
What exactly is the great debate behind a school voucher offer for the use of private education and the positive offerings for the students that are able to take advantage? Schools are designated by the district that one lives in. Everyone knows that there are various areas such as high income and low income areas that make up the population of a city. Because of the school designation by district, many in lower income communities feel that children are short changed on education due to the belief the lower income area schools are not of the same caliber as the other area schools. Add in the equation of private schools and there is another distinct difference perceived in regard to public education versus the private education establishment.
…show more content…
So, would the opportunity for these students to attend a private school benefit them in the long run and strengthen their chance for success? Utilizing vouchers offers parents the option to move their children to high-performing schools, improve test scores, lessen segregation problems, and most important improve student achievement. Vouchers are thought to generate competition between the private and public sectors. Competition would generate innovation and improvements that evolve the systems to retain students and secure funding. In the article by Christopher Lubienski and Peter Weit, The Effects of Vouchers and Private Schools in Improving Academic Achievement: A Critique of Advocacy Research, they note, “despite the rhetoric coming from many policy advocates, the overall results reflected in the research do not provide the compelling support for voucher programs that many expected to find” (448). The duo states that overstated, flawed methods were found in research used by advocates for vouchers to propel their cause for the program. In their research they find that public schools achieve high marks when compared to private when student background is considered. “The most common way of measuring a school's quality is in terms of its effectiveness in raising academic achievement” (Lubienski,Weit 454). While the research comparison shows private schools providing higher achievement scores, one cannot get a realistic picture of true achievement because of the variance in the students’ backgrounds. They found that controls needed to be used to eliminate skewed data based on affluence and unique organizational governance. Data from a National Education Longitudinal Study published in 1988 reflected that, “Catholic and independent private schools outscored public schools, although the differences in two year mathematics achievement growth between public schools and other school types were not statistically significant” (Lubienski,Weit 457). The private schools out performed under the current data collection, but there were substantial differences between the scoring of the private schools compared to the Catholic schools. The Catholic schools surpassed the independent private schools. The data was reexamined with controls for affluent, educated factors and found no achievement advantage for private schools. “Accounting for selection effects, they found evidence of a slight, but significant, negative private school effect for math and science achievement in religious schools relative to public schools,—except for urban minorities who benefited from religious schools—while secular private schools offered a substantive advantage in these subjects” (Lubienski,Weit 458). Much of the data cited in this article presented by advocates for vouchers is disputed by the fact that many of the higher scores are attributed to a smaller class size and not the lack of an educator’s ability to convey a lesson, as well as biased controls. Lubienski and Weit point out that smaller class size is an effective alternate for achievement. The stance on competition is disputed citing the competition between charter and public schools in Michigan had a negative impact on the public system that only worsened as the competition increased. Most advocates are not using peer reviewed findings and again present misrepresented data according to the findings of Lubienski and Weit. Most claims of satisfaction were based on the simple power of having the right to choose regardless of the outcome or actual improvement. “…Most families who are eligible for voucher programs or other forms of school choice elect not to participate. Also, many who are awarded vouchers choose not to use them, or soon return to public schools— seriously corrupting the integrity of comparisons across groups” (Lubienski,Weit 476). Additional burdens of transportation and services not offered by private schools parents often feel their child is more advantaged in the public system. Voucher participation was found to be on a small local scale that did not represent the overall school system factually. Paul E.
Peterson’s article, A Choice Between Public and Private Schools: What Next for School Vouchers, clearly outlines a pro-voucher system and feels the program would be a strong catalyst for breaking the viscous cycle of poverty, criminal element, and dependence in urban and minority areas. The topic of religion has been a strong catalyst for opposition of inducting such a program. The Supreme Court, in 2002, declared voucher programs to be constitutional (Peterson, 5). Peterson debunks the idea of societal division due to the religious aspect or vouchers for private schools and feels that is more of a myth. There is a choice between religious and secular schools and therefore the choice of the two showed no discrimination in favor of or against a religion because the parents have a choice as to whether they chose to send their child to a particular school. His article was published in 2003 and at that time four states are represented in the article as having established voucher …show more content…
programs. Peterson points out that voucher programs are geared towards assisting low income, minority families that are at a disadvantage and served least by the current public system. His focus is here because it is said that a white family can choose their school by moving to a better area whereas an African American family does not have the means to do so. From a survey Peterson notes that, “45 percent of whites (as compared with 22 percent African Americans) consider “the quality of public schools” when deciding where to live” (6). Since the pool of educational choices is small for these families to choose from, Peterson notes that expansion through vouchers allows those affected families a benefit through choice, choices for education friendly environments, smaller schools, and smaller classes. Peterson found in his evaluations of voucher programs that African American students scored higher on standardized tests in comparison to public school students. Notably, in New York, African American students, “…after three years, [ ] scored roughly 8 percentage points higher than African Americans in public schools-nearly a two grade level improvement” (Peterson, 6). It should also be said that the New York public schools have twice as much funding per student than the Catholic schools do. Parents were favorable to their choice for private schools observing that there was more homework and more communication from the schools. Private school parents report their schools having fewer facilities and programs than those of the public system. Yet, they still report a high level of satisfaction. Peterson found in his evaluation, the lack of programs and facilities still did not hinder the African American students from showing improvement. In regard to the competitive balance and funding, the article explains that some instances showed improvement in the public area due to the school districts taking measures to increase test scores to avoid losing students to a voucher program. Funding from the state is mostly based on a “follow the child” method that he explains as the more students in a district, the more money that district receives. If a student leaves for another district, the money will “follow the child”. Local money stays where it is collected regardless of the movement. In the case of Milwaukee’s program, “per pupil expenditure for public school children increased by 22 percent between 1990 and 1999, rising from $7,559 to $9,036” (Peterson, 8). This was not totally in part of vouchers, but shows that public systems do not suffer when a voucher program is available. In conclusion, both parties represent opposite side of the voucher debate. While Christopher Lubienski and Peter Weit set out to discredit the findings of the studies, one has to wonder if the controls they are so focused on breaks down the data to the point of there really not being anything to measure. Is their basis for there being no difference in academic achievement supported by watered down facts that really are no more valuable than the original data stated in favor of the program? Paul E. Peterson’s opinion takes the studies and evaluations at face value and he elaborates off of them, the same studies that Lubienski and Weit contest. However, his studies seem to be biased in the area of race. While he states in his article there was no significant impact on whites or latino students in the area of Dayton and New York, he does not tell if the race ration in comparison was equal or higher to each group. His article presents itself as more of an advocacy for African American educational benefits more so than advocacy for better education for all students. I was a little troubled by some of the articles I reviewed on this subject matter.
Many were more focused on pushing a political agenda or ranting regarding the religious aspect of allowing vouchers to be used at a religious school. Since there are only a handful of states participating in a voucher program, I feel the data does not cover the full scope of what benefit the vouchers may or may not have. Every region in my opinion is different. I feel you have to look at the nation as a whole, taking all demographics in to account, to determine potential success of a program. Each municipal area has to have industry to have a strong tax base. Rural areas do not have such and rely on the taxpayers to make up the funding. Larger cities such as Southaven and Olive Branch, for example, have a better school system due to the funding put in by Desoto County and those cities. This is in part based on taxes collected from the industry and commercial taxes. Tate County, much more rural, does not have industry to support additional funds for the schools. They do not have the nice new buildings, nor do they have the advanced curriculum or programs that Desoto has. Some of their schools have K-12 or 7-12 where other larger city areas have middle schools to accommodate grades 6-8. In the instance of Memphis prior to the merge, they have a huge industrial base and received more money than Shelby County, yet Memphis City Schools could not even keep their facilities operational. With a
dominant African American population in that city, did they not deem it necessary to invest properly in the futures of those children as Paul E. Peterson claims should happen? I do not see how a voucher program would help them in the long run. I think vouchers would help to give gifted children a chance if their school did not offer programs to help them with subject matter they excelled at. With that being said, I think vouchers are a band-aid. Everyone that argues for a voucher program is wanting to push their kids to something they feel is better, essentially running from something is bad. I think the local and state governments need to evaluate the schools, their educational offerings, use of space and student base and make proper adjustments to correct the wrongs of past leadership on all levels including within the schools administration. I do have to agree with Christopher Lubienski and Peter Weit when they said, “the use of voucher studies to address academic performance in public and private schools is problematic and inappropriate”, the use of vouchers period is inappropriate for a “fix” (478). Just as the claim is made that the broken schools systems cannot support the current student base or its’ issues, the voucher system would be flooded and over time will feel the same burden leaving everyone standing at square one all over gain.
So, would the opportunity for these students to attend a private school benefit them in the long run and strengthen their chance for success? Utilizing vouchers offers parents the option to move their children to high-performing schools, improve test scores, lessen segregation problems, and most important improve student achievement. Vouchers are thought to generate competition between the private and public sectors. Competition would generate innovation and improvements that evolve the systems to retain students and secure funding. In the article by Christopher Lubienski and Peter Weit, The Effects of Vouchers and Private Schools in Improving Academic Achievement: A Critique of Advocacy Research, they note, “despite the rhetoric coming from many policy advocates, the overall results reflected in the research do not provide the compelling support for voucher programs that many expected to find” (448). The duo states that overstated, flawed methods were found in research used by advocates for vouchers to propel their cause for the program. In their research they find that public schools achieve high marks when compared to private when student background is considered. “The most common way of measuring a school's quality is in terms of its effectiveness in raising academic achievement” (Lubienski,Weit 454). While the research comparison shows private schools providing higher achievement scores, one cannot get a realistic picture of true achievement because of the variance in the students’ backgrounds. They found that controls needed to be used to eliminate skewed data based on affluence and unique organizational governance. Data from a National Education Longitudinal Study published in 1988 reflected that, “Catholic and independent private schools outscored public schools, although the differences in two year mathematics achievement growth between public schools and other school types were not statistically significant” (Lubienski,Weit 457). The private schools out performed under the current data collection, but there were substantial differences between the scoring of the private schools compared to the Catholic schools. The Catholic schools surpassed the independent private schools. The data was reexamined with controls for affluent, educated factors and found no achievement advantage for private schools. “Accounting for selection effects, they found evidence of a slight, but significant, negative private school effect for math and science achievement in religious schools relative to public schools,—except for urban minorities who benefited from religious schools—while secular private schools offered a substantive advantage in these subjects” (Lubienski,Weit 458). Much of the data cited in this article presented by advocates for vouchers is disputed by the fact that many of the higher scores are attributed to a smaller class size and not the lack of an educator’s ability to convey a lesson, as well as biased controls. Lubienski and Weit point out that smaller class size is an effective alternate for achievement. The stance on competition is disputed citing the competition between charter and public schools in Michigan had a negative impact on the public system that only worsened as the competition increased. Most advocates are not using peer reviewed findings and again present misrepresented data according to the findings of Lubienski and Weit. Most claims of satisfaction were based on the simple power of having the right to choose regardless of the outcome or actual improvement. “…Most families who are eligible for voucher programs or other forms of school choice elect not to participate. Also, many who are awarded vouchers choose not to use them, or soon return to public schools— seriously corrupting the integrity of comparisons across groups” (Lubienski,Weit 476). Additional burdens of transportation and services not offered by private schools parents often feel their child is more advantaged in the public system. Voucher participation was found to be on a small local scale that did not represent the overall school system factually. Paul E.
Peterson’s article, A Choice Between Public and Private Schools: What Next for School Vouchers, clearly outlines a pro-voucher system and feels the program would be a strong catalyst for breaking the viscous cycle of poverty, criminal element, and dependence in urban and minority areas. The topic of religion has been a strong catalyst for opposition of inducting such a program. The Supreme Court, in 2002, declared voucher programs to be constitutional (Peterson, 5). Peterson debunks the idea of societal division due to the religious aspect or vouchers for private schools and feels that is more of a myth. There is a choice between religious and secular schools and therefore the choice of the two showed no discrimination in favor of or against a religion because the parents have a choice as to whether they chose to send their child to a particular school. His article was published in 2003 and at that time four states are represented in the article as having established voucher …show more content…
programs. Peterson points out that voucher programs are geared towards assisting low income, minority families that are at a disadvantage and served least by the current public system. His focus is here because it is said that a white family can choose their school by moving to a better area whereas an African American family does not have the means to do so. From a survey Peterson notes that, “45 percent of whites (as compared with 22 percent African Americans) consider “the quality of public schools” when deciding where to live” (6). Since the pool of educational choices is small for these families to choose from, Peterson notes that expansion through vouchers allows those affected families a benefit through choice, choices for education friendly environments, smaller schools, and smaller classes. Peterson found in his evaluations of voucher programs that African American students scored higher on standardized tests in comparison to public school students. Notably, in New York, African American students, “…after three years, [ ] scored roughly 8 percentage points higher than African Americans in public schools-nearly a two grade level improvement” (Peterson, 6). It should also be said that the New York public schools have twice as much funding per student than the Catholic schools do. Parents were favorable to their choice for private schools observing that there was more homework and more communication from the schools. Private school parents report their schools having fewer facilities and programs than those of the public system. Yet, they still report a high level of satisfaction. Peterson found in his evaluation, the lack of programs and facilities still did not hinder the African American students from showing improvement. In regard to the competitive balance and funding, the article explains that some instances showed improvement in the public area due to the school districts taking measures to increase test scores to avoid losing students to a voucher program. Funding from the state is mostly based on a “follow the child” method that he explains as the more students in a district, the more money that district receives. If a student leaves for another district, the money will “follow the child”. Local money stays where it is collected regardless of the movement. In the case of Milwaukee’s program, “per pupil expenditure for public school children increased by 22 percent between 1990 and 1999, rising from $7,559 to $9,036” (Peterson, 8). This was not totally in part of vouchers, but shows that public systems do not suffer when a voucher program is available. In conclusion, both parties represent opposite side of the voucher debate. While Christopher Lubienski and Peter Weit set out to discredit the findings of the studies, one has to wonder if the controls they are so focused on breaks down the data to the point of there really not being anything to measure. Is their basis for there being no difference in academic achievement supported by watered down facts that really are no more valuable than the original data stated in favor of the program? Paul E. Peterson’s opinion takes the studies and evaluations at face value and he elaborates off of them, the same studies that Lubienski and Weit contest. However, his studies seem to be biased in the area of race. While he states in his article there was no significant impact on whites or latino students in the area of Dayton and New York, he does not tell if the race ration in comparison was equal or higher to each group. His article presents itself as more of an advocacy for African American educational benefits more so than advocacy for better education for all students. I was a little troubled by some of the articles I reviewed on this subject matter.
Many were more focused on pushing a political agenda or ranting regarding the religious aspect of allowing vouchers to be used at a religious school. Since there are only a handful of states participating in a voucher program, I feel the data does not cover the full scope of what benefit the vouchers may or may not have. Every region in my opinion is different. I feel you have to look at the nation as a whole, taking all demographics in to account, to determine potential success of a program. Each municipal area has to have industry to have a strong tax base. Rural areas do not have such and rely on the taxpayers to make up the funding. Larger cities such as Southaven and Olive Branch, for example, have a better school system due to the funding put in by Desoto County and those cities. This is in part based on taxes collected from the industry and commercial taxes. Tate County, much more rural, does not have industry to support additional funds for the schools. They do not have the nice new buildings, nor do they have the advanced curriculum or programs that Desoto has. Some of their schools have K-12 or 7-12 where other larger city areas have middle schools to accommodate grades 6-8. In the instance of Memphis prior to the merge, they have a huge industrial base and received more money than Shelby County, yet Memphis City Schools could not even keep their facilities operational. With a
dominant African American population in that city, did they not deem it necessary to invest properly in the futures of those children as Paul E. Peterson claims should happen? I do not see how a voucher program would help them in the long run. I think vouchers would help to give gifted children a chance if their school did not offer programs to help them with subject matter they excelled at. With that being said, I think vouchers are a band-aid. Everyone that argues for a voucher program is wanting to push their kids to something they feel is better, essentially running from something is bad. I think the local and state governments need to evaluate the schools, their educational offerings, use of space and student base and make proper adjustments to correct the wrongs of past leadership on all levels including within the schools administration. I do have to agree with Christopher Lubienski and Peter Weit when they said, “the use of voucher studies to address academic performance in public and private schools is problematic and inappropriate”, the use of vouchers period is inappropriate for a “fix” (478). Just as the claim is made that the broken schools systems cannot support the current student base or its’ issues, the voucher system would be flooded and over time will feel the same burden leaving everyone standing at square one all over gain.