California Conservative

Since I began promoting school charters and vouchers last March, I have heard five main arguments against the program.

• They don’t work.

The National Education Association’s (NEA) war on competition (vouchers & charter) stems from their need to direct millions of tax dollars away from classrooms to Democrats who empower union leaders. But the common thread among failing voucher and charter schools is that they are funded far beneath public schools.

For example, the NEA-affiliated Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) rails against Milwaukee’s failing voucher schools, but hides the funding disparity.

The Milwaukee Public School (MPS) system serves 95,600 students with an annual budget of $1.15 billion/year, or $15,690/year per student. The MPS’ voucher school program serves 14,000 students with an annual budget of $83 million, or $5,928/year per student.

The Cleveland (Ohio) Municipal School District (CMSD) also comes up short. When the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) reported the failure of school vouchers in Cleveland, they didn’t mention that CMSD’s $8,000/year per student budget or that vouchers were funded, “up to $5000/year per student” (which often means much less). These numbers aren’t current, for CMSD posted their most recent budget from their 2000/2001 Annual Report.

Like the cynical landowner who belittles a sharecropper’s shack, the teacher unions under-fund charter and voucher schools and then blame the effort as a bad idea.

• Teachers aren’t paid well.

With half or less than the budget of their parent school district, this is the common penalty for excellence, but not the rule. For example, Fenton Elementary Charter School pays its teachers and principal more than their union counterparts in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), although it only receives half of the $18,431/year per student that LAUSD is budgeted for. Fully funded vouchers and charters will attract good teachers with better pay and resources for students and parents. Fenton Elementary succeeds despite the deliberate financial challenges that LAUSD places on them.

• Tax dollars shouldn’t be spent on religious schools.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that tax revenues can fund religious schools. Although teacher unionists abhor the idea of secular taxpayers funding parochial schools, they don’t care that America’s faithful majority have wasted billions of dollars on unionists who have intellectually crippled millions of American children. This issue is as settled as Row vs. Wade.

• Private schools can refuse admission to undesirable students.

As I wrote here, public schools refuse admission too. But if voucher and charter schools were fully funded, entrepreneurs would be well funded to accept hard-to-place, gifted, or special education children. Schools should be able to establish standards and cultures conducive to learning. Parents and students should adhere to campus standards or find more appropriate schools. Vouchers and charters would give students and school administrators more options.

• Vouchers and charters threaten the survival of America’s public schools.

Restaurants that poison their guests are closed and reckless airlines are grounded. Since California’s taxpayers have wasted billions of dollars and harmed millions of children throughout the past thirty years, shouldn’t public school bureaucrats expect something more than increasing revenues? Vouchers and charters don’t threaten public education, they hold substandard public schools accountable. Public schools that excel will survive and those that do not should be replaced. When John Adams first proposed the liberal education of our youth, he never envisioned the drop-out factories that California’s public schools have become. With only a fraction of school funding reaching the classrooms and half of the students leaving school without an education, failing schools should be allowed to close in favor of schools that succeed.

The NEA opposes vouchers and charter schools with these talking points:

• There’s no link between vouchers and gains in student achievement.

This Rand study shows links of success, despite the grossly under-funded voucher and charter schools.

• Vouchers undermine accountability for public funds.

Despite repeated requests, the LAUSD has refused repeated requests for audits and transparency. Independent schools are easier to audit than multi-billion dollar bureaucracies. And if private schools fail, parents can place their children in competing schools, including public schools. Many private schools are accredited by state agencies and students are less likely to fail or drop out. The NEA’s argument about fraud, waste, and abuse are tantamount to OJ Simpson complaining about violent crime.

• Vouchers do not reduce public education costs.

Although LAUSD wastes the $18,431/year per student revenues received, the vast majority of private schools charge much less. Check your local private schools if you doubt this.

• Vouchers do not give parents real educational choice.

Parents can choose between private, charter, and public schools. As I wrote here, public schools already discriminate against children whose parents often do not have the resources for alternatives. Fully-funded charter and private schools deliver those choices.

• The public disapproves of vouchers.

Although the NEA wants us to believe that we don’t want choice, they don’t tell us of the hundreds of millions of embezzled tax revenues they’ve laundered through their unions to convince voters that vouchers are a bad idea. Vouchers don’t kill public schools, but give parents a real choice. If LAUSD offers excellence, parents would line up to attend. If not, parents would and should go elsewhere.

For more information read:

Brookings Institute: Voucher Q & A
Hoover Institute: Issues & Arguments on Vouchers
RAND Corporation: Vouchers & Charters (2001)
Cato Institute (1994)
Rethinking Schools Online
School Choices - Issues & Arguments on Vouchers
On Public Education (.pdf version here)
The Lost Generation
How does opposing teacher salary incentives for high job performance help children?
Teachers Union’s Dirty Little Secret
K-12 Brainwashing
Educational Biases
Old-timers rewarded, while young punished
Extending Teacher Tenure
Ari Kaufman on Poor Eco-Education in Schools
Indoctrinating the Third Grade
Education Indoctrination, Environmental Style
AJ Kaufman’s Essays on Education

RELATED:
Bored of Education: No New Ideas From
California School Supe Candidate
Moron Education
Education: On Vouchers
LAUSD: Confronting The Beast

–

Clark Baker is a senior contributor* to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is an author, a filmaker, a father and a retired LAPD officer. And he’s currently running for a seat on the California Assembly.

You may read more of Clark’s work here and regarding his campaign here (Scroll down). For more, visit JoinClark.com, the official campaign website.

Technorati Tags: California, Los Angeles, LAUSD, Education, Vouchers

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 31st, 2006 at 7:14 pm and is filed under Author: Clark Baker, California, Clark Baker for Assembly, Education, Los Angeles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.