Only Newsweek, August 23/30, 2010, p. 25 talked about the Achievement Gap, reminding readers of what works not only in the U.S. but in Europe, South America, and Singapore.  Anyone in the education world who teaches can name the first factor-family circumstances.  Those not fortunate enough to have a family that makes sure of mastery in reading and math skills by age 10 are most likely to fail in school from then on.

Most in the education world can name the strategies to overcome those factors which affect low-performing students.  That’s right.  Pre-schools galore.  Rigorous standards followed through with tutoring from the early grades on.  More time in school-the number of hours and days.  Effort in teacher training in college and during the school year, i.e. don’t cut professional development in order to balance the school district budget.

Of course, in California instead of balancing a state budget so there are enough funds for student education which is the California Teachers Association (CTA) position no matter what the issue, the legislature sits back and lets the teachers unions fight it out with school districts about teacher evaluation, seniority, and layoffs that still are looming for some.

Along came President Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg to propose SB1285 which assures that urban schools with the newest teachers “would not lose a greater proportion of teachers than the districtwide average in layoff.” San Francisco Chronicle, “Seniority vs. civil rights” August 31, 2010.  Sounds like a good change, teachers having struggled with the idea of seniority vs. students’ rights to have strong teachers for a long while.

Few are happy with CTA on the issue of evaluation and seniority, but doesn’t this bill throw one more stone at the wall, given the lack of a balanced state budget and funds from RTTT.  Who is the bad guy and who is the good guy in this standoff?

Now a radio program produced by American Radio Works examined how Chattanooga Public Schools in 2000, well before No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and RTTT was available, looked at achievement in reading and math and took steps.

Be aware, from the start the school district was lucky to have the Benwood Foundation and The Public Education Foundation with lots of money to support steps taken.  The school district was fortunate to have an abundance of test data from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System to answer why 9 of 20 Chattanooga public schools were so low on the achievement scale.  Yes, it is similar to the system used by the Los Angeles Times recently that is causing a huge ruckus and that is analyzed on the front page of The New York Times, September 1, 2010, “Formula to Grade Teachers’ Skill Gains Acceptance, and Critics” by Sam Dillon.

To make change happen, there was a long fight with the teachers union, but eventually it came out that firing poor teachers didn’t help students do better, increasing the professional development and standards for good teachers did help.  In the documentary the strategies that improved student success were learned right away, e.g. pacing of lessons, knowing the material and how to teach it; and long term, e.g. working as a team, analyzing what helps students learn, teaching each other, using mentors.

Though not as strong as the Chattanooga Public Schools on the hill where family circumstances help, student success continues to improve in the valley, the whole point of “turn around.”

Which tells anyone in the education world to beware of the cost of resistance to change.

State testing news hit the paper August 17, not that teachers at my school were worried.  Our district does not have designated low-performing schools, and I don’t even teach at the strongest school in the district.

The day after we received student scores on the yearly California Standards Test (CST), the third grade teachers were basking in smiles. Third graders moving into fourth grade had done extremely well, 2 students were below basic, none were basic, the rest were proficient and advanced-about 80 students altogether.

I teach fourth grade, so it was lucky for me, but at the same time, I now know that my strategies for teaching must treat high-achieving students, not low performers.

The main difficulty for fourth grade students is the change from a class of 20 third graders to a class of 30 or more students and one teacher.  It takes a good month before the students have learned to support each other while working.  The first month is spent teaching student behaviors more than teaching curriculum.

Over the weekend I read in the August 22, 2010, San Francisco Chronicle editorial by John Diaz about teachers unions fighting with the Los Angeles Times about evaluating teachers using a statistical method called “value-added.”

From what I’ve read, the idea is to look at the effect of a year of teaching on student test scores.  Of course, this statistical measure depends on students who have scores from a previous year that can be projected to continue for the current year and then see the actual score received.  Teaching for the year is the “value added” and a teacher can receive a number (just like a student) to show how well he or she did.

I hear the rumble in the head of any teacher who knows all the variables that can affect scores aside from what the teacher is doing in the classroom.  No wonder the teachers unions are looking askance at this statistical measure.  Even the article’s discussion of the variables and how the “value-added” measure accounts for them leads to more questions than answers.  Go to the latimes’ article “Grading the Teachers” to find out more.

Get real.  Many Los Angeles schools are doing well.  But the schools that hit the headlines are so dysfunctional that it doesn’t take the money used to disaggregate student scores by teacher, flash it around to parents who for the most part are more concerned about the behavior of students in the school rather than test scores, and then say “see.”

In time I can understand using students’ scores as one aspect of evaluation of a teacher’s work.  The truth is each school community and each school district must have a defined program continuously supported by the school board.  Then a teacher can be held accountable so they are fired because of a measure of student test scores.

In my small district in which parents support their students-some call it hovering-the problem is only to keep scores up.  The union has been supporting the staff so that the primary grades manage to keep the 20 to 1 ratio and the district shaves off money from other budget lines.  We may have furlough days, but not one teacher was laid off because of lack of money.

Who would guess that the intervention specialist at the school used DonorsChoose.org and grants to get <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –> 10 iPod Touch instruments for her students?  I’m going to do what she did.  The applications are endless: reading fluency checks; math games from remedial to enrichment; stories not available in the library that can be read aloud to a student.

Or that our worry would be about the new principal and changes in office staff at the school-how to support the new principal and still spend time on high curriculum standards?

Colorado elementary school

The State Board of Education voted August 2 to accept Common Core Standards on a contentious 4-3 vote.  The vote broke along party lines, with the exception of Vice Chair Randy DeHoff (R-South Denver metro), who supported adoption.

Arguments against standards did not address the benchmarks themselves.  Opponent Peggy Littleton (R-Colorado Springs) argued that CCSSI is a “takeover” of education by the federal government.  DeHoff and other board supporters said the standards address the challenge of educating Colorado students to compete for jobs across the nation and the world.

Standards created independently of the federal government

The standards were not developed by the federal government.  They were written under the auspices of The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Other education groups, including the National Association of State Boards of Education, joined in.  Teachers added input and direction.  (Myths and Facts about CCSSI)

DeHoff said that standards opponents in Colorado have not directly attacked the benchmarks themselves because they are closely aligned to current state guidelines.  The CCSSI project allows states to adjust up to 15 percent of the standards to accommodate local needs.  (See standards k-12 by subject)

Local school districts will implement the standards based on the State Board of Education’s vote.  But according to the Colorado constitution, education is the responsibility of local school boards, not the state or the federal government.

Money has strings

With funding resources so low at the local and state level, however, local school boards are relying on federal dollars to backfill missing state dollars (Colorado budget cuts to education). The recent federal allocation of $10 billion to help local schools stay staffed up is critical to Colorado school district budgets.  Without that money, additional cuts over $200 million across all Colorado school districts would occur this year.

Once an entity above the local puts money into the education pot, that entity wants some say over the use of the money.  Colorado helps local school districts at about a 60/40 ratio.  Since the state started massive contributions to local schools in the 90’s, it’s demanded more and more authority over school districts.

The federal government at this point is much less invested in individual school districts.  But the federal government has given dollars now to help schools through the recession.

The bottom line is that money talks.  School districts in Colorado lost absolute control of local education when the state moved in with funding and added many requirements for that funding.  The federal government added more requirements when it contributed its funding.

These issues obscure whether the standards are any good.  Funding public education has taken on the quality of putting together a billion piece puzzle without a picture as a guide.  The puzzle box is titled “Who heads public education?”  As it turns out, the picture is of Medusa with all those snakes.

Proposition 13 became California law in 1978 and, slowly but surely, funds for schools, school districts, county districts, community college districts, as well as the State Department of Education and teacher credentialing services have dried up.  The current sum makes one think of California raisins rather than golden oranges.  This reduction in funds doesn’t count the services for local municipalities that disappear as this post is written.

As the recession has gripped California, the last bit of money has been sucked from the orange rind.  Besides trying to revise sections of the Proposition 13 statute (see last week’s post 8-4-10), here are the changes the state has turned to in order to balance the state budget and also provide the least possible amount-the floor compelled by CA Proposition 98-to support public education.

First, the amounts that the state had contributed out of its revenue to equalize funding for each local education agency (LEA) has been reduced.  California schools provide education dollars at 30% per student below the national average.  The student/teacher ratio is 37% below the national average.  In fact, schools in California have 30% fewer teachers for 6+ million students.

Second, in order to stretch dollars the state has negotiated to make federal Title I monies and state monies assigned to programs like Quality Educational Investment Act (QEIA) more flexible.  Originally QEIA was designated by CA SB 1133 in 2006 to provide $3 billion over 7 years to support schools serving low-income families, special needs students, and English Language Learners.  Not any more.

Third, the state has scaled back the amount of yearly formal testing.  For example, some special needs students are not tested.

Fourth, the state has authorized school districts to shore up their budgets by digging into a higher percentage of its reserves.  In addition, furlough days have been negotiated with the teacher’s unions which decrease salaries, but also avoid lay-offs.

Fifth, the state has revised its rules for curriculum adoption.  Formerly, every seven years new textbooks were designated for schools.  In 2008 this provision of the education code was halted.  No new science or social studies books were chosen.  Even with the changes identified by the Common Core Standards adoption, textbook purchases will be on hold for an indefinite time.

Next, the deferred maintenance budgets for school district buildings have been revised and the monies can be redirected to support other needs.  In addition, surplus property rules for a district have been changed to bring in money.

Last on this list, a suggestion has been offered to have multiple districts create an education finance district in order to increase the chance of passing a parcel tax.  The complications are numerous, but be prepared to read about it in the newspapers if California’s budget problems aren’t resolved soon.

In 2008-2009, the state revised three times before a balanced budget, ripe for spoilage, was signed.  This past year 2009-2010 the budget was fought over until September.  By now funding deferrals that force borrowing by education entities leave a higher number of districts at risk of insolvency–oranges dropping to the ground.  What then?

A detailed report on the crisis in California school finance can be read in Edsource’s January 2010 report Budget Cataclysm and its Aftermath.

For the CCS, California can accommodate Algebra I in the 8^th grade and few of the English/Language Arts standards need reworking.  As of Monday, August 2, 2010, the California Board of Education finally adopted the standards.  Now to implement procedures and allow time to make sure school district personnel, not only teachers but principals and administrators, have the resources to use the standards to improve academic achievement.

Which brings us to the old Proposition 13 that has done its worst to bring down our schools.  Not only is every local municipality stretching its few property tax dollars to cover services, so also are schools.

Things are so unstable that legislators are finally looking at revisions of some aspects of the legislation passed by voters in 1978.  Never fear, your grandmother’s property will not be touched.  She will still only feel an increase of 2% on the tax she currently pays based on the 1% assessment of her property’s value 35 years ago (in 1975) as the law states.

Legislation to fund school budgets in California is “complex, irrational, and inequitable” according to the Getting Down to Facts Project report.    Still, looking at the news in 1978, 38% of the voters believed the state could absorb the 40% estimated reduction in tax revenue.  Voters were sick of high tax liabilities without an increase in their ability to pay, just like today when wages were stagnating well before the great recession.

Simply put, the answer over time has been to assess fees for every municipal service, set bond and local utility or parcel tax proposals, and authorize a plethora of special assessment districts such as flood control and drainage.  These tithes supplement the minimum funding for schools and provide funds for local municipal services.

But in 2010 with a $19 billion deficit in the state budget and nothing agreed to by the legislature and governor as of this post, here are two possibilities to increase funds for municipalities and schools.

In December 2008 Senator Joe Simitian offered SCA 6 (amended several times) to change the 2/3 provision of Proposition 13 and make 55% needed to pass special tax legislation.  Such a change would improve the chances that local parcel tax measures written for specified school purposes would pass.

This change is difficult.  Recently Californians for Improved School Funding tried to collect enough signatures to put an initiative similar to Simitian’s bill on the November 2010 ballot and failed.

Assembly member Tom Ammiano has offered AB2492.  It revises how property tax is calculated on commercial properties which by 2009 benefited far more than any voter understood in 1978.  Though never talked about during the campaign, the Jarvis-Gann proposition was devised to serve commercial properties far more than homeowners.  For example, in Los Angeles County, 1979 commercial property taxes were 47% of the total, while in 2009 taxes from commercial properties were 30%.

The assembly bill changes how ownership of a commercial entity is defined.  It refines the circumstances under which a sale occurs and reassessment must be made.  Revising this section of Proposition 13, while complex, would close an estimated $7.5 billion corporate tax loophole for the benefit of local municipalities as well as local schools.

Another way to reform the commercial property loopholes is called “split roll” by which residential homeowners’ tax assessment remains as is, but commercial properties are assessed at 1 ½% and reassessed more often.  Provisions in the reform offer +65 owners breaks and low-income family breaks, applicable to landlords of rental housing.  Lenny Goldberg hopes to bring a ballot initiative up for the 2012 elections.

Either of these proposals will bring more budget control to local districts and still protect individual taxpayers.  Most important, revenue sources will be made evenhanded and help the state overcome its budget debacle.

What do we hear in the news?  Unnamed students and adults didn’t know that the colonists were fighting the British in the Revolutionary War.

A highly-esteemed 6th year principal in a Vermont school was replaced in hopes that a change would bring much needed Race to the Top money to the state.

The Washington, D.C. school superintendent has fired about 300 employees, including 241 teachers.  The news reached California July 24, 2010, but never fear, plenty of new teachers have already applied and been interviewed.

The DC superintendent is a graduate of the Teach for America program, the how-to model written about in Atlantic, New York Times, shown on PBS to prepare graduate students for teaching.  The new teachers receive lots of support and supervision to help them succeed in the short 2 years they pledge to teach at a low-performing school.  However, for any principal looking for long term success, teachers moving in and out of a school is the worst problem for an urban site.

Online in The Bay Citizen, July 23, 2010, “Emeryville Schools as a Model” by Gerry Shih described a plan to replicate a tiny school district’s successful improvement of reading and math scores on state tests in a moderately large, financially stressed, neighboring school district.  A strong superintendent with the ability to rally the families and businesses in a city with wide disparity in income and education may be able to improve reading and math abilities-a goal long out of reach for most students in Oakland.

In this blogger’s opinion, lost in the media’s latest news is the recent adoption of common core standards by 29 states as of July 27, 2010.  Right now in California, argument is going on about California’s highly-regarded rigorous standards, including introducing Algebra I in the 8^th grade, compared to the core standards designed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative up for voluntary adoption by each state in the union.

Other than a refusal to adopt something new a la Alaska and Texas, criticism is useful to list.  Valerie Strauss‘ blog and Daniel Willingham, University of Virginia, remind everyone that Common Core Standards are not the magic dust that will make schools better.  First in any teacher’s mind is equitable resources needed to make the revised standards teachable.  Curriculum may need to be overhauled; teacher and administrator professional development needs to be provided; and time to revise lesson plans.  Not to forget that any state reform needs accurate data for rigorous comparisons of how the standards are implemented.  That means a lot of time spent on revising the assessments used by each state before any changes to teacher evaluation will be accepted.  Last, speed of improvement must be realistic-this blogger knows it takes years of determined collaboration to improve reading and math ability for a school full of students who enter unprepared for academic learning.

On the other hand, the advantages are worthwhile.  According to the Fordham Institute July 21, 2010, the English/Language Arts (ELA) standards are more clear and rigorous than 37 states’ current standards and more rigorous than 39 states’ math standards.  Higher Ed groups know that common standards will help college admissions, currently flailing at the mixture of applicants.

Rapid adoption of the standards means that the criticisms summarized above must be addressed just as rapidly.  Which means MONEY and while Race to the Top has been an unprecedented impetus to assert change, money will not be distributed equally among school districts that need the most help.

This sounds like wishful thinking, but one hopes over time a student entering a Los Angeles, California, school from another state will sit down and pick up what the fifth grade class is learning about the army George Washington and the colonial militias defeated.  No guessing, no “oh yeah, that’s what I meant,” every student’s hand shooting up, even the new child’s hand waving.

If only the California Superintendent of Schools could climb Mt. Shasta-the local Mt. Olympus– to ask an oracle to speak with Athena, Goddess of Wisdom, dispose of nay-sayers with a swat of the sword, and snatch the Golden Fleece in order to save teachers from lay-offs when school begins-for some as soon as the second week in August.  The closest any state will come to finding the Golden Fleece is to win Race to the Top funds in the second round of federal grant disbursement.

If you were the Oracle what would you suggest to states in order to bring short term support for schools?  Remember, California alone has 6 million students with 174 districts financially distressed (San Jose Mercury News, July 5, 2010).  It is 44^th lowest in dollars spent per student, and somewhere between 45-50th ranking in number of students per teacher-depending on how the ratio is determined.  No one option will be a magic cure.  Soon, all sources of funds for the state must be equitably reallocated.

Here are some options collected from various blogs, news articles, and reports.  The list emphasizes saving money.  Which options also do no harm to students and curriculum?  Suggestions were found in articles collected by Edsource.

Large school districts shorten the school year calendar, increase class sizes and lay off teachers.  The money saved supports the program left.  This is already happening.

Halt any facilities improvements to public schools, e.g. solar panels which initially cost a bunch although they save money over time.

Pass more parcel taxes to make up for lack of property taxes.  In the Los Altos area, one parcel tax to continue benefits to the high school district was passed in June and 2 more are proposed for the November ballot, one for the elementary district and one for the community college district.  The thought is that homeowners are more likely to support taxes for schools close by rather than taxes frittered, supposedly, by the state.  If only legislation would pass designating a 55% majority instead of a 2/3 vote.

How about the governor’s fix?  End the elected position of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and his/her department.  Only keep the governor-appointed position of Secretary of Education.

Drop sports from the budgets of the University of California and State University.  Lots of money saved to support liberal arts and engineering.

Finally, in February 2010 the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) distributed a proposal to reform unfunded school district mandates which eventually must be paid by the state.

Some mandates serve a purpose and are fundamental to the education of students, such as protection of student health and provision of essential assessment and oversight data.

Otherwise, the abundance of mandates legislated over the years should be eliminated; the reimbursement process simplified; or a different far-less-costly process designed to achieve the objective.  An example of a mandate to be eliminated is the requirement to submit physical education data which is already collected during financial audits.

It is estimated that this one reform measure could save the state $350 million or more a year and instead be used to address school needs that have statewide interest, produce results, and are worth the cost.

Here lies one substantial piece to reform school finance.  It may not be the Golden Fleece but surely a  Golden Apple is waiting to be picked up.

Colorado revenues will take big hit with three initiatives
The ‘three blind mice‘ attack state revenues, already low from the recession and other constitutional amendments, in novel and imaginative ways.

• Proposition 101 will cut $2 billion+ in car fees, income tax and phone bill rates. The vehicle ownership fee will plummet to $2, cutting funds directly out of school budgets.
• Amendment 60 will cut local school property taxes by 50%; the state will have no money to backfill the loss. The amendment will also override previous local elections in which citizens voted to exempt themselves from the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) effects. Most inventive, citizens will be able to run elections to reduce their mill levy.
• Amendment 61 will prohibit the state from using any debt for any reason. All capital expenses will have to be paid with cash, upfront. School districts that borrow from the state at 0% interest to cover payroll in the months when property tax collections are low will be prohibited from doing so. The school year in those districts would have to run from March to November when property tax dollars are highest. Winter will be the new summer.  (Colorado Blue Book on Amendments and Propositions)

Public school funding tanks since 1988
Colorado’s per student funding has dropped steadily in comparison to other states since 1988. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Colorado was $1397 below the national average in per-student funding in 2007, before the recession. In its 2010-11 budget, the Colorado legislature gouged out $354 million in prek-12 cuts, or $400 to $500 per student. 2011-12 looks no better, and may be worse.

Colorado Higher Ed funding 48th in the country
The legislature now allows state colleges to increase their tuition up to 9% per year to offset the state’s 48th ranking in per capita spending, which has plummeted to $159/year. Neighboring state Wyoming spends $709 per capita, New Mexico $581 per capita, Nebraska $404 per capita, Kansas $360 per capita, and Utah $296 per capita (State Higher Education Executive Officers, SHEEO). Even Mississippi substantially exceeds Colorado’s spending at $372 per capita.

Cheap car registration or very high college tuition for CO?
Voters face a huge choice in 2010. If the initiatives pass, the state will not be able to continue its school construction projects in the rural areas of the state authorized by the legislature. School districts will not be able to do capital improvements without cash on hand. There will be no more physical improvements to the University of Colorado medical facility and no money for more construction at any state college or university.

On the other hand, vehicle registration will be really, really cheap and Colorado will have no new debt.

USA Today (6/7/10) had a brief synopsis of reports saying that black students have moved to suburban schools in the Dallas, Texas, area.  Hispanic students have filled their places in the Dallas school district.  Another example of families who have become knowledgeable and made decisions to help their children.  Such a demographic move has happened many times all over the country and stands for one reason it is difficult to stick to the same old program forever.

The New York Times (7-3-10 “World Focus Is Gaining Favor in High Schools” by Tamar Lewin) described the International Baccalaureate (IB) program favored in several high schools as an alternative to the more common Advanced Placement (AP) programs.  The IB is a rigorous model to capture the attention of students who may want a balanced curriculum in a small group setting that also impresses college admission officers.  The emphasis is on philosophies worldwide, not separate academic subjects like AP courses.  Interesting that the article did not describe the variety of high schools across the nation that have instituted the IB model for many years, like California’s San Jose High School with many Hispanic students and some Denver schools with an IB program from upper elementary to high school.

The Nation (6-14-10) brought out its education issue “A new vision for school reform” with fact and opinion by a number of well-known education writers.  For this blog writer, the most unsettling conclusion came from Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University, who, in her view of the legislation in the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) emphasizes “competition and sanctions as the primary drivers of reform rather than capacity building and strategic investments.”

Perhaps the despair of the teachers unions, both AFT and NEA, is the outcome of the quote above.  At their recent combined convention in New Orleans both union presidents seemed vexed about charter schools, teacher evaluation, and anti-union comment mainly made by conservative legislators.  The vote in the House of Representatives to commit $10 billion more dollars to reduce teacher lay-offs and other delays in school budgets, but the US Department of Education’s unhappiness in taking money from Race to the Top funds to pay for it, infuriated the unions.  See The New York Times “New Tension in Obama’s Ties to Teachers” by Sam Dillon, 7-5-10.

Closer to home, San Francisco is in the process of closing a middle school and overhauling 9 other schools, all hit by California’s determination to transform its low-performing schools-the good thing about the federal reform effort.  If only the school transformations will emphasize Darling-Hammond’s “capacity building and strategic investments.”  See San Francisco Chronicle “S.F. to shut school, overhaul 9 others” by Jill Tucker (7-3-10).

Now what about the litigation sent to court by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Los Angeles in February and by the California School Boards Association et al (CSBA) in May, also known as Robles-Wang vs. California?  The ACLU suit was to hold off Los Angeles teacher lay-offs in low-performing schools, and the CSBA suit was written to force the California legislature to restructure school funding to finance the requirements of education legislation.

Nothing has happened since the May 13, 2010, injunction in Los Angeles (see 6-2-10 post).  The California Assembly is proposing a California Jobs Budget which will stave off shortages in school funding for a year and still make up the $19 billion state budget shortfall.  We’ll see how long it takes to pass this year.

Colorado public elementary school

The National Education Association (NEA) as well as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have written passionate criticism of vouchers.  A group called School Choices founded by Andrew J. Coulson defends them.  A number of educators defend them, including Charles Murray from the American Enterprise Institute in a New York Times article on May 5, 2010, “Why Charter Schools Fail the Test.”  It’s a play on words as studies have shown that the majority of charter schools do no better on state tests than traditional public schools, but in his thesis there are many other reasons why charter schools and vouchers are the best “school choice.”

Vouchers have been legislated in a number of Midwest school districts and famously in Washington, D.C.  However, the legislation permitting a 5 year field test of vouchers for D.C. school children was not reauthorized by Congress in 2009.  Only students already in school receive vouchers until they graduate and no new vouchers will be paid for with federal monies.

Why is it such a ‘hot’ issue?

Most people in the education world define the ’school voucher,’ (AKA ‘education voucher,’ or ’scholarship’) as “a certificate from the government that a parent can apply to tuition at a private school.” (see Wikipedia)  At first the vouchers were not valid for a parochial school because of the Constitution’s separation of church and state.  Of course, the “school choice” advocates did not like that exception.  Now the rules for use of vouchers vary.  In states like Wisconsin the courts allowed vouchers to be used for parochial school fees.

The theory is that families paying for a private school also pay taxes to support public school systems.  Those families look at vouchers as a way to offset their costs.  On the other hand, opponents, especially teacher’s unions, say vouchers undermine the public school system because taxes for vouchers are like paying subsidies to private schools.

What else has happened?

In the 1960’s, vouchers were valued in the South as a way to continue segregation.  Only white children obtained them to use at one of the many private schools that popped up at the time.  One voucher claim is that these certificates help low-performing students move to a school that isn’t failing.  A number of studies don’t confirm that proposition.

All of these policies were based on economist Milton Friedman’s free market theories that built a following especially in the 60’s.  He thought competition between private or charter schools (since 1992) and public schools would improve every school’s academics and cost efficiency.  Friedman’s line “the freedom of private enterprises to experiment” is music to the ears of those who love the business model for schools.  In fact, many school choice proponents emphasize the competitive market ideal that vouchers would foster in every feature of schools in the United States, although most private and parochial schools aren’t set up as businesses.

NEA and other groups make a case that privatizing schools allows for even further inconsistency in what is taught and learned.  They advocate consistent standards for students.  Also, the unions see further economic, racial, ethnic, and religious divides in the country if some students get vouchers and others don’t.  NEA and ADL both discuss the elitist strategy of subsidizing private school tuition rather than using every penny available to improve education for low-income students.

It is alarming how the issue of providing ways to get into a school other than public school is gaining traction.  In California, recent legislation altered the education code so that it fits with federal guidelines designed to provide help to improve schools.  The bills authorized a raise on the cap for school charters.  In addition, SBX5 4 allows students to move into another school if the school they attend is persistently poor-performing.  Next, someone in the legislature will introduce a bill to provide actual vouchers, defeated once before, but one never knows.