Nonexistent Vouchers Already Producing Reform
By J. C. Bowman
Even though vouchers for full educational choice is hardly more than an idea in most places, the very threat is already producing reforms. Child-centered funding, or vouchers, will allow the child's education dollars to follow the child to any school, public or private. This freedom will force the public schools to improve. After all, the purpose is not to provide choice for rich folks, as they already have school choice. Affluent families can afford expensive homes in nice neighborhoods and/or private school tuition. Most school choice proposals have originated to help the kids trapped in poor-performing government run public schools. Children in well run, high-performing public schools will be happy to stay, even if offered a choice.
In Florida, all public schools are graded "A" through "F." The grade criterion includes academic achievement, discipline, safety and graduation rates. Their state legislature had the foresight to allow any K-12 student who attends a school that receives a failing grade for two years in a four-year period the option to attend a public or private school of their choice. In 1999, 800 students were eligible to receive a scholarship under the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Over 150 students left failing public schools, yet most students selected to attend higher achieving public schools. In 2000, not one Florida public school received a failing score. On Oct 3, 2000 the Florida State District Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the state's opportunity scholarship program for children in failing schools.
But the government education bureaucracy fights to the death any choice proposals, the mere threat of vouchers is already producing reform. Coalitions of government school supporters have been formed around the nation, not with the idea to improve education for students in failing schools, but to fight the possibility of vouchers allowing these students a chance to escape from their particular situation. Teacher unions have finally started talking seriously about reducing discipline problems and disorder in government run schools. Only when their own jobs have been threatened have they been significantly concerned with safety and student achievement.
In Albany, New York, a wealthy lady named Virginia Gilder offered every child at the worst public school, Giffen Elementary, a privately funded voucher to attend a private school. Every child! What happened? About 20% of the children left, including the PTA president's child. Were the kids left behind worse off? No, because the school replaced the principal, two assistant principals, and reassigned 12 of 40 teachers. Education at Giffen Elementary improved for the children who opted to be "left behind." The New York Times keenly observed, "In their overhaul of Giffen, city school officials seem to have inadvertently bolstered a central argument of vouchers: that they foster competition and thereby force public schools to improve." The head of the Albany NAACP stated, "[Gilder] made them take a look at what was happening, or not happening, at Giffen, and take actions they may not otherwise have taken."
The argument of "children left behind" is a weak excuse, at best, for continuing funding of any failing school. We must remind ourselves that the money spent on education is for children, not a school nor a system. We need to fund education of children, not school districts. Scholarships for all should be completely non-discriminatory. With our current system, the poor and minorities get trapped as hostages in poorly performing public schools. Even those few children such as those in Albany, New York and Florida benefited from school choice, where the schools had to improve to keep all students from deserting to available options. In Milwaukee, the public schools now guarantee that the children in their system either reads by third grade or they will provide a tutor because of the competition form school choice.
Some of our Tennessee schools range from abysmally mediocre to atrocious. Many, on the other hand, are excellent and have nothing to fear from free choice. Why do we have to picket and produce massive political will to force the bad ones to improve? Do you have to have to beg and plead with the local grocery store not to sell bad meat? Do you have to picket Saturn to build better cars? Of course not. Competition, whether it is between companies or schools, encourages a higher quality of goods and services.
Only children who want to remain at a specific school should have to do so. Freedom means if you are unsatisfied at one place, you have the choice to go elsewhere with your money. The time has come to give all parents and their children their money and either force the schools to improve or let the children go to better schools. Choice is the American way.
John C. Bowman is President of Children First Tennessee/Children's Educational Opportunity Foundation of Chattanooga. He is the former Director of Research for the Texas Public Policy Foundation. From 1992-1998 he served as Director of Government Relations for the Professional Educators of Tennessee. He also served three terms as vice-president of the National Association of Professional Educators. His experience also includes over a decade as a teacher in public schools.