Voice For Liberty

Tag: School choice

  • Kansas, once home to education equality, now lags in freedom

    At one time Kansas played a leading role in education equality, as Topeka was home to the school that produced the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision by the United States Supreme Court.

    Today, however, Kansas lags in educational freedom and choice. The public school lobby in Kansas does everything it can to stomp out any spark of educational freedom and choice in Kansas. The two organizations at the forefront of this effort — the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA, the teachers union) and the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) — expend huge amounts of energy and money to protect their entrenched interests. Their interests, unfortunately, run contrary to the interests of Kansas schoolchildren and their parents.

    The following announcement from the Alliance for School Choice provides more information about the problem at the national level.

    (Washington, D.C., May 16, 2009) — In commemoration of tomorrow’s 55th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education, Alliance for School Choice Interim President John Schilling issued the following statement:

    “Fifty-five years ago, citizens of all race, religion and socioeconomic status were given hope that educational equality would soon come to America. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education sent a clear message that every child is entitled to equal educational opportunities.

    Unfortunately, gains towards equality have been far too slow.

    Our nation’s education system today faces one of the most severe crises in American history — a crisis that impacts families, communities, and our already-suffering economy. Despite historic increases in education spending, 5 million children attend 10,000 failing schools. One child drops out of school every 26 seconds. This year’s high school dropouts will cost our country more money than the state budgets of California, Texas, and New York — combined.

    Today, however, it is not discriminatory laws that prevent equality and opportunity, nor is it a lack of overall funding. Our educational crisis stems from the unwillingness of entrenched special interests and the policymakers beholden to them to put the interests of children first. This historic anniversary reminds us that now, more than ever, is the time to ensure that all options are on the table to help disadvantaged students obtain a quality education.

    To ensure that American children — particularly those in low-income families — have access to high quality education, we must put the interests of special interests aside and embrace initiatives that truly provide hope and a quality education to children — especially those in low-income families. School vouchers and scholarship tax credit programs accomplish these goals by allowing parents to make the best decisions for their children’s education.

    Today, 10 states and the District of Columbia offer private school choice programs. In total, 18 programs serve 171,000 children — an 89 percent increase in student participation over just five years. More Democratic legislators are joining their Republican counterparts to sponsor and approve school choice legislation than ever before, making the fight for vouchers and scholarship tax credits truly bipartisan.

    School choice is one of the most researched and studied education reforms of our lifetime. The results are clear: school choice works. Allowing parents to select the best schools for their children — public or private — yields higher parental satisfaction, increased student achievement, and improvements in public schools.

    So today, as the nation celebrates the promise of equal educational opportunity on the 55th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, we call on state legislators across the country to stand up and support school choice. We call on local leaders to protect and strengthen existing school voucher and scholarship tax credit programs. And we call on Congress to fully reauthorize the federally-funded D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.”

    Monroe School 2009-01-24 04

  • Kansas City charter school succeeds in urban environment

    USD 259, the Wichita public school district, doesn’t want them.

    The Kansas National Education Association (KNEA) — the teachers union — doesn’t want them either.

    But where they’re able to exist, charter schools usually do a good job. They often excel. And where they don’t do a good job, they usually go out of business.

    200 miles from Wichita, in Kansas City, Missouri, a charter school is doing a great job with urban children. Watch the following video about KIPP Endeavor Academy.

  • Articles of Interest

    Kansas voting, charter schools and voucher scholarships, taxes, federal budget

    Kansas Senate testimony about disturbing problems at polling place during November election (Kansas Meadowlark) Describes some problems or irregularities at a polling place in Sedgwick County last November.

    Democrats and Poor Kids: Sitting on evidence of voucher success, and the battle of New York (Wall Street Journal) “Education Secretary Arne Duncan did a public service last week when he visited New York City and spoke up for charter schools and mayoral control of education. That was the reformer talking. The status quo Mr. Duncan was on display last month when he let Congress kill a District of Columbia voucher program even as he was sitting on evidence of its success.” Charter schools and voucher scholarship programs are successful. But we don’t have them in Wichita.

    An Idea for Mr. Summers: He could pay higher taxes—if he thought that was right (Wall Street Journal) Larry Summers, the White House economic guru, earned $5.2 million last year working for a hedge fund. He’ll pay Bush-era tax rates. But this Journal editorial has an idea for Summers: “Honor your principles, and pay taxes on that income at Bill Clinton-Barack Obama rates.”

    Budget Expands Government as Economy Contracts (Congressman Ron Paul) “When the economy expands, the government expands. Worse, when the economy contracts, the government expands more. … As our mountain of debt is projected to double with the new budget, many are wondering how long our country can keep this up before serious repercussions are felt. Obviously we can’t continue down this road indefinitely. Certainly, no country has ever prospered when their public sector spent half or all of the nation’s GDP. Yet we are saddled with leadership that seems unwaveringly convinced that the key to prosperity is public spending.”

  • Barb Fuller: Feds should pay, and leave us alone

    In an op-ed piece printed in the Wichita Eagle (“Barb Fuller: Feds should facilitate, not dictate, on education,” February 20, 2009 Wichita Eagle, no longer available online), Wichita school board vice president Barb Fuller makes, indirectly, the case that the U.S. Federal government should fund education, but keep its nose out of how local school boards spend the money.

    Her piece explains that USD 259, the Wichita public school district, like most school districts, are chafing under the “unfunded mandates” that the No Child Left Behind law calls for. She concludes that “Consequently, it makes sense for immediate suspension of the current NCLB sanctions.”

    The fact is that the Wichita school district has tremendous funds at its disposal, some $13,000 per pupil per year. Board members don’t like to talk about that, as evidenced by board member Lanora Nolan‘s answer to a question at a recent Wichita Pachyderm meeting. She denied the numbers and the simple arithmetic behind a question.

    Fuller writes “The federal government should be involved in helping make measures consistent throughout the states.” This is something that she may someday wish she hadn’t asked for. Here’s what education writer Diane Ravitch wrote in The Obama Education Agenda “Despite White House press claims to the contrary, NCLB has been a huge disappointment, and its failure is not due to lack of funding. Although states are reporting impressive test-score gains, most of these ‘gains’ are inflated by home-grown, low standards. The gains on the highly respected federal National Assessment of Educational Progress have been meager since 2002. In fact, the gains on the federal test have been smaller since 2002 than in the years preceding NCLB.”

    It would definitely be useful to know whether the rising test scores in Kansas are genuine. In particular, the Wichita school district claims 11 years of rising test scores. I don’t think that people who have to deal with Wichita high school graduates year after year would think these gains are reliable and valid measures of the quality of the product produced by the district.

    In her piece, Fuller also makes the case to “not deny accountability.” This is quite an irony, as Fuller’s previous role of president of the teachers union was to do just that: avoid accountability. Furthermore, the Wichita school district’s opposition to meaningful school choice means it dodges the only accountability that will really make a difference: the ability of parents, particularly poor parents, to escape the Wichita school district.

  • Articles of Interest

    Charity, Kansas legal intrigue, Kansas infant mortality rate rises under Sebelius, taxing it all, bailouts not wanted, cap-and-trade costs, school choice saves.

    The Charity Revolt: Liberals oppose a tax hike on rich donors (Wall Street Journal) true-blue liberals who run most of America’s nonprofits, universities and charities” are worried that Obama’s plan to limit deductions for charitable contributions will cost them. This article introduces a term I saw for the first time: “New Charity State,” and it is a real danger. “Mr. Orszag [White House budget chief Peter] revealed the real agenda at work when he pointed out that the money taken from the ‘rich’ would be used to fund such Obama state-run charities as universal health care. The argument is that any potential declines in private gifts, whether to universities or foundations, will be balanced by increases in government grants paid with higher taxes — redistribution by another means. This is how Europe’s welfare state works: Taxes are so high that private citizens have come to believe it is only the state’s duty to support cultural institutions and public welfare. The ambit for private giving shrinks.” Ambit: sphere or scope, I learned.

    Who is playing politics in the Kansas Judiciary by leaking information to the press? (Kansas Meadowlark) More intrigue.

    State’s infant mortality rate rises under Sebelius (Kansas Liberty, a subscription service) “Roderick Bremby, the secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, told lawmakers Tuesday that between 1988 and 2007 the infant mortality rate increased in Kansas from a rate of 6.9 to 7.9 per 1,000 live births. Bremby said that though infant mortality rates for white babies actually decreased slightly during that time, rates for non-white babies increased greatly.” Wait … wasn’t Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius just appointed secretary of health and human services for the entire country? With this record?

    The 2% Illusion: Take everything they earn, and it still won’t be enough (Wall Street Journal) Can President Obama finance his spending plans by increasing taxes only on the rich? “Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can’t possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama’s new spending ambitions. … A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable ‘dime’ of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.”

    Some Banks, Feeling Chained, Want to Return Bailout Money (New York Times) It seems that even free money isn’t all it’s promoted to be. “The list of demands keeps getting longer. … others say the conditions go beyond protecting taxpayers and border on social engineering.”

    The Climate Change Lobby Has Regrets: Cap and trade is going to cost them (Kimberley A. Strassel, Wall Street Journal) Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, decided to go along with the government’s plan for cap-and-trade as a way to control carbon emissions. “At the time, Mr. Rogers explained: ‘If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’ll wind up on the menu.’ Duke sat, yet it and its compatriots are still shaping up to be Washington’s breakfast, lunch and dinner.” Ms. Strassel explains how now we are beginning to realize just how expensive cap-and-trade will be for consumers, and how lucrative it will be for the government: “President Obama’s auction bonanza would earn the feds $650 billion in 10 years, according to the administration’s budget estimate — and that’s a low, low, low estimate.”

    Finding room for school choice (John LePlante, Saint Paul Legal Ledger) The government school lobby says that school choice programs drain precious money from public schools. There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary: “In December, 2008, a research office of the Florida Legislature evaluated a school choice program in that state, and estimated that it saves state government $1.49 for every dollar spent. … Here in Minnesota, a 2005 report published by the Humphrey Institute stated that a majority of K-8 private schools in Minnesota charged less than the state sends to public school districts as their ‘basic formula allowance.’ The allowance is only one block of money, albeit the largest one, that the state sends to school districts. So can we ‘afford’ school choice programs? Perhaps we ought to ask the question ‘Can we afford to not have them?’”

  • Articles of Interest

    Budget woes linked to how justices are chosen (Kris W. Kobach in the Wichita Eagle). Explains how with a better method of selecting Kansas state Supreme Court justices, the Kansas budget might not be in such a mess. “The Montoy decision represented a court determined to advance judicial power and the liberal policy of limitless spending on education. Which brings us back to the current fiscal crisis. The reckless decision of the court in Montoy is taking its toll. Kansas’ current budget crisis is largely due to the extraordinary increases in spending ordered by the court.”

    Pitchfork Time (Human Events). “We are there” says Pat Buchanan about our journey down the road to socialism. The article explains.

    The Public Mischief Of Public Unions (Richard A. Epstein at Forbes). Explains the need for pension reform in the public sector. Tim Carpenter of the Topeka Capital-Journal explains the problems as they relate to KPERS, the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System in the article KPERS problems compound: Stock market, past decisions strain retirement system. “The economic recession and a legacy of costly mistakes leave KPERS with more than $6 billion in unfunded obligations to future retirees. Current contributions by employers and employees are insufficient to sustain the fund over the long haul.”

    Will Obama Stand Up for These Kids? (William McGurn, Wall Street Journal). Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has introduced legislation that will kill the Washington D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. This piece highlights two children who attend the same exclusive private school that the Obama children do, thanks to this program. “And it points to perhaps the most odious of double standards in American life today: the way some of our loudest champions of public education vote to keep other people’s children — mostly inner-city blacks and Latinos — trapped in schools where they’d never let their own kids set foot. This double standard is largely unchallenged by either the teachers’ unions or the press corps. For the teachers’ unions, it’s a fairly cold-blooded calculation. They’re willing to look the other way at lawmakers who chose private or parochial schools for their own kids — so long as these lawmakers vote in ways that keep the union grip on the public schools intact and an escape hatch like vouchers bolted.”

  • Wichita Choices Fair equals selective vouchers

    Here’s a letter that appeared in today’s Wichita Eagle. The author makes a good point. I think the answer to the author’s rhetorical question is that USD 259, the Wichita school district, believes in choice, as long as it’s choice on their terms. The choices offered by USD 259 are very limited when compared to the spectrum of opportunities children and parents have in many parts of the country.

    The Wichita school district’s Choices Fair was held for parents to select which magnet school best fit their child’s needs (Feb. 20 Local & State). The money assigned to that student will follow him to the selected school. That sounds like a voucher.

    Why does only a select group get vouchers? Why don’t all parents get to choose the school (magnet, public, private, etc.) that best fits their child’s needs? Wouldn’t this be fair?

    Are these fairs paid for by only the select group of taxpayers, or by all taxpayers?

    RICHARD A. HOPPER
    Derby

  • In voucher debate, who can we believe?

    Two articles appearing close together in the same prominent newspaper illustrate the problem in trying to make sense of school choice programs.

    These articles are Voucher plan would help sponsor, not students (February 4, 2009 Atlanta Journal-Constitution), which is opposed to vouchers, and Will School vouchers improve public education? Yes: New studies show all students’ scores rise (February 12, 2009, same newspaper).

    Here’s an example: The pro-voucher article contains these paragraphs:

    A second 2008 study, this one by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, analyzed two phases of the Milwaukee voucher program and showed student achievement increased with the availability of school choice.

    When the Milwaukee program was initially launched between 1990 and 1996, there were never more than 1,500 students using a voucher. That’s because the state forbade children from using the scholarship to attend a religious school, and the voucher amount was very small.

    After Wisconsin court rulings declaring vouchers constitutional, changes were made to the program. Milwaukee pupils were then allotted a $4,900 voucher and could apply that to a secular or religious school of their parents’ choice. That enabled more families to participate in the program.

    The New York Fed study found no effects of vouchers —- positive or negative —- on any students when the Milwaukee voucher program did not provide much competition or choice. However, once students were given larger voucher amounts, once students could choose from a variety of schools, and once public schools actually faced competition, then students using the vouchers and students who remained in public school both earned higher test scores. This study confirms a 2003 study on this topic by Stanford University economist Caroline Hoxby. (emphasis added)

    From reading this, you’d conclude that vouchers are good for all students, for both those who use a voucher, and those who don’t.

    Then, read this in the anti-voucher article:

    An ongoing five-year examination of the nation’s oldest voucher program, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, uncovered little difference in test scores between voucher recipients and their public school counterparts …

    It’s difficult to reconcile these two authors. Both pieces present additional conflicting evidence to support their authors’ position.

    The author of the anti-voucher article accuses a supporter of vouchers in Georgia of “[proposing] to dismantle public education.” If your goal is to preserve public education at all costs, then I suppose that vouchers and other school choice programs are a threat. These programs, however, don’t threaten publicly-funded education. They do, however, pose a risk to the power of the existing education bureaucracy and teachers unions, and that’s why newspaper editorialists — allies to these forces — continue to oppose school choice programs.

  • Charter school students more likely to graduate high school

    Jay P. Greene discusses a news study examining charter schools:

    The researchers look at whether attending a charter high school in Chicago and Florida increases the likelihood that students would graduate high school and go on to college. The short answer is that it does. … This study comes on the heels of positive results from Caroline Hoxby’s random-assignment evaluation of charter schools in New York City.

    Read Greene’s entire analysis of the study (and find a link to the study itself) in his post Charter School Students More Likely to Graduate High School, Attend College.