Parents must have choices on their children's education

[Bono]

www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/08/13/school_vouchers_georgia.html

Parents must have choices on their children's education

By LYDIA GLAIZE
Published on: 08/13/08

Although it is the first week of school, my husband and I refused to send our twins, Aaron and Abigail, to our local Fulton County high school.

With its low test scores and dangerous incidents on campus, we have been hoping and praying for a miracle to find the money to return them to private school. Over the years, we have depleted our savings, our retirement funds, used our home equity, taken extra jobs and received gifts to send our four older children to private school to escape failing public schools.
(ENLARGE)
Lydia Glaize of Fairburn is a mother of six children.
 

But as our two youngest enter ninth grade, we have hit the end of our financial road.

To read the resistance to school vouchers editorialized at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution makes us want to ask opponents if they would like to spend a day in our family's shoes.

Instead of worrying about what would happen to the public schools if vouchers were available, the moral question to ask is, what will happen to children like Aaron and Abigail without vouchers?

Two weeks ago, I was invited to a speech by state Sen. Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) in which he offered a plan for thousands of parents like me, fearful for their children's future. His vision for education reform was not the same old solution to spend more money fixing a broken education system.

Instead, he wanted to give parents of children sentenced to failing schools and all parents their own tax dollars in the form of scholarships to transfer to a public or private school of their choice. My heart was overjoyed to have a politician understand my family's need for true educational choice.

The second piece of news was just as refreshing. Johnson revealed a statewide poll in which 76 percent of Georgia voters believe parents are the best ones qualified to make the decision where a child should go to school. Take note, those of you who want to tell me that I should send my kids to a failing school for the sake of saving public education.

In addition, the two public opinion polls — one in metro Atlanta and one statewide — each showed more than 65 percent support to give children stuck in failing schools a scholarship to transfer to another public or private school of their choice.

The tide has turned, and all demographic groups see the injustice in punishing kids like mine and making them attend a school that slams the door on their future. African-Americans, whites, Hispanics, Democrats, Republicans and Independents each strongly support vouchers for kids in failing schools and for all families wanting true school choice. After decades of watching educators and politicians make excuses why they can't provide a better education in certain neighborhoods, the public is demanding that elected officials do things differently in order to bring about a different result.

A scholarship would give my children options immediately, not in 20 years, after another education-reform program may or may not work. It could either pay all or most of private school tuition. Since virtually every private school has sliding scale fees based on family income, scholarships could help all families, rich or poor. Parents don't expect a handout, just an opportunity to choose the best educational vehicle available for their children.

In Washington, D.C., a federal voucher program in place for four years has given scholarships to children in some of the worst schools in the nation, with promising results. Ninety percent of students with vouchers are reading on a higher level than their peers stuck in public schools. That tells me that if my local school can't do the job, then my children should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness because of the state of their parents' checkbook.

I have lost sleep this summer knowing my kids and others could possibly wind up at a school where their academic success and physical safety are at great risk. A statewide voucher or scholarship program would be the great equalizer, providing the same education for those who live in fancy ZIP codes with fabulous public schools and the rest of us who work but do not have the resources to choose a first-class educational opportunity.

[MODU]

While I believe that parents should have a choice, I'm not quite ready to kill off the public school system just yet.  The perks about charter and private schools are the student:teacher ratio.  If you start flooding these schools with children from public schools on vouchers, the quality of education might slip.  Maybe the best solution is for the counties to model their public school system off of what makes the private schools work, starting with building more smaller schools (not large schools with just more teachers added) with smaller classrooms.  Then lease the facilities to local companies (which private schools really are) to allow them to fill the teachers positions and be responsible for their fund raising.  They will have the advantage that the facility and maintenance will be provided by the county, a perk that private schools do not have.  That way, you have a "public school" with a competitive advantage, where they can search out/recruit qualified instructors for a controlled student population ... like private schools do.

[memphis]

In line with traditional conservative talking points, I'll point out that the woman shouldn't have had so many children that she can't afford to educate the way she wants. Take some personal responsibility

[CultureKing]

Thanks. I just threw up all over my computer after reading that article. If you want to send your children to a non-public school then it is your responsibility to pay for it. You're not entitled to a better education for just your kids as this woman seems to believe. She could have:
1) Had less kids
2) Tried to help the public school become better
3) Moved to a school district with better standards

We need to fix the public schools rather than try and segment our society which would surely lead to massive inequalities.

[Bono]

Thanks. I just threw up all over my computer after reading that article. If you want to send your children to a non-public school then it is your responsibility to pay for it. You're not entitled to a better education for just your kids as this woman seems to believe. She could have:
1) Had less kids
2) Tried to help the public school become better
3) Moved to a school district with better standards

We need to fix the public schools rather than try and segment our society which would surely lead to massive inequalities.

The society is already segmented based on a school district lottery. School vouchers would decrease that, not increase.

[A18]

In my ideal system, parents would generally be responsible for financing their children's education. But that, of course, is not our present system. Today, the state taxes the general populace in order to specially finance a system of "public" (i.e., government) schools, leaving parents who opt for private alternatives to bear a double burden. School vouchers are one means of offsetting that injustice.

I prefer tax credits, however, as they invite less government monitoring.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Here's the thing, if the government is going to be involved in children's education (at this point, I'm not going to argue for or against it), people can't pick and choose where their tax dollars will go.  I can't get a voucher on my taxes if I never drive anywhere - my money still goes toward keepin up the roads (or so they say - Michigan roads seem to never get repaired).  Taxes are taxes, you can't pick and choose where that money goes.

[War on Want]

The Public School system is a necessary part of modern society at this point. It is as simple as that. I support some small scale voucher schemes but anything more would not be wise.

[A18]

Here's the thing, if the government is going to be involved in children's education (at this point, I'm not going to argue for or against it), people can't pick and choose where their tax dollars will go.

Of course they can; provided it's authorized by law. And the question is whether the government should expand choice in this manner.

[CultureKing]

Here's the thing, if the government is going to be involved in children's education (at this point, I'm not going to argue for or against it), people can't pick and choose where their tax dollars will go.  I can't get a voucher on my taxes if I never drive anywhere - my money still goes toward keepin up the roads (or so they say - Michigan roads seem to never get repaired).  Taxes are taxes, you can't pick and choose where that money goes.

Except everyone pays taxes to ensure that children are given a proper education, it isn't as if the parents simply give the exact amount it would cost to send their child to school. This way the education of our nation's children involves the entire community and makes it so that a larger group of people have a vested interest in the quality of the schools they are helping with their tax dollars.

[Torie]

The idea of course, is that if public schools had more competition, because parents could decide with their voucher where to send their kids, the public schools would improve. Monopolies are typically inimical to quality over time.

[Ban my account ffs!]

People have plenty of choices here.

You can

1)  Send your child to public school district.  They do have some say in which elementary school they attend.  If a bus connection is not available, then the parents would have to provide transportation.

2)  Send your child to a neighboring district.  Out of a 5500 student population, nearly 500 students (this is a net total... it's more like 700 that leave the district, and 200 that come in) leave the district.  This is mostly because our district is 900 sq. miles and people on the edges of the district are closer to neighboring district schools.

3)  Send your child to a charter school.  There is one K-8 charter school, 1 7-12 charter school, and one 9-12 charter school.  The K-8 and 9-12 schools place an emphasis on global education with the elementary school placing an emphasis on French food and culture.  The other seeks to provide personal growth as well as educational experience through travelling to various places around the country/world.  Other than a $200 co-pay, most of these trips are paid for by the school.  You can canoe the Everglades, hike the Superior hiking trail on the North Shore of Lake Superior, travel to England.  This is all tied into the curriculum.

4)  You can send your child to a private school.  There are only private schools for K-8, but their academics are solid and all cost under $3000/year with scholarships available to needy families.  Nobody is turned down for inability to pay.

Why can't this be good enough?  Our public schools are still well funded and the vast majority of children still attend these schools because they offer a much larger array of classes and extracurricular activities.  My high school one of hte best music programs in the state as well as the best Industrial Technology programs as well as integration with the University and Tech college to offer college credit to advanced students.

Sure, there is always room for improvement... but the system is not broken, at least not here.  Competition is one thing.  Dismantling the public school system to prove a point is quite another.

[specific_name]

Bono, I have some agreements with you but it may be a better idea to post something other than articles all the time.

[Torie]

Snowguy, some poor kid trapped in a dead end ghetto school does not have those choices as a realistic manner. Take off their chains;  let these people go.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Many of the children that attend the local schools here live in a dead end ghetto.  (Indian reservation)

It's the schools that get them away from that.

[CultureKing]

Snowguy, some poor kid trapped in a dead end ghetto school does not have those choices as a realistic manner. Take off their chains;  let these people go.

...by taking away funding for their schools.

[A18]

By giving them the choice to go elsewhere.

There's no obvious reason to expect that, under a voucher system, government-school expenditures per student would decline. A quick Google search reveals that "U.S. public school districts spent an average of $8,287 per student in 2004" (from Census.gov). The voucher proposals I'm familiar with involve considerably smaller sums than that. Now, a complete analysis requires consideration of fixed costs, the impact of vouchers in particular districts, and so on. But we ought not assume a priori that there will be a decline.

In any event, I frankly wonder how much school-spending actually serves an educational purpose. We constantly hear of how essential funding is to education, but some actual evidence (in either direction) would be helpful.

[JSojourner]

Snowguy, some poor kid trapped in a dead end ghetto school does not have those choices as a realistic manner. Take off their chains;  let these people go.

The problem is, voucher programs do little to nothing to help the people you're talking about T.  Vouchers rarely, if ever, provide enough money to help the truly poor afford private education. They may provide some relief to lower middle class people in paying tuition bills.  But typically, from what I have seen, the vouchers finance the private schooling of middle class and even some upper middle class kids.

I am not automatically and categorically against the idea of vouchers.  But I am not seeing them help any of the nation's profoundly poor families.

I can't comment on Charter schools because just about all the charter schools in my area have closed as a result of horrendous academic results and/or mismanagement and corruption.

[Torie]

Snowguy, some poor kid trapped in a dead end ghetto school does not have those choices as a realistic manner. Take off their chains;  let these people go.

The problem is, voucher programs do little to nothing to help the people you're talking about T.  Vouchers rarely, if ever, provide enough money to help the truly poor afford private education. They may provide some relief to lower middle class people in paying tuition bills.  But typically, from what I have seen, the vouchers finance the private schooling of middle class and even some upper middle class kids.

I am not automatically and categorically against the idea of vouchers.  But I am not seeing them help any of the nation's profoundly poor families.

I can't comment on Charter schools because just about all the charter schools in my area have closed as a result of horrendous academic results and/or mismanagement and corruption.

Yes, for poor kids the voucher should pay the entire cost. Would you support that JS? I support for the moment means tested vouchers which are issued for kids in districts which have sub standard schools.  I assume you know that private schools have lower fees than the cost of education in public schools, and the cost gap is particularly dramatic in grammar school, which is the most critical period.

[Torie]

Snowguy, some poor kid trapped in a dead end ghetto school does not have those choices as a realistic manner. Take off their chains;  let these people go.

...by taking away funding for their schools.

The cost of the voucher is less than the cost of educating the kid in the public school (particularly at the grammar school level), so this will leave more money per pupil for the public schools, not less.