There was a study done at the time of the Columbine massacre which showed that the incidence of violence in schools was closely related to the size of the school.  I then began to do research in to other differences brought about by school size.  In schools smaller than 200, the rate of graduation for lower socio-economic groups and African-Americans is the same as for the highest socio-economic groups.  The test scores are equal, which is amazing if you consider that the at-risk children are still in school.  But the most interesting point is that there was more support for public schools. More money in taxes, more parents believing that the schools were doing a good job, more participation of the community in the schools.  It may be that the best defense against attacks on schools would be an attack on school consolidation.  (Many of the these studies were comparing small rural schools with teachers who were inexperienced and without advanced degrees, with urban schools with higher pay and higher standards, and still they kept pace,)

There is then the ``inconvenient truth'' released at EOB on last Friday about the public vs private school score on exams, and recall that on fourth grade math and reading and eighth grade math there was little difference on the tests while on eighth grade reading public schools lagged.  This suggests that contra Spellings, modest investments in public schools could yield much bigger dividends.  

$100,000,000 is hardly a rounding error compared to what we are spending in Iraq, this amount of money is not enough to budge the needle on the public/private school meter, This shrieks of election year PR aimed at the voucher folk. You spread this amount of money to "chronically failing public schools around the country" and the cumulative effect will vanish like mist. The Los Angeles School District alone has an annual budge of $7.5 billion. This amount of money doesn't even qualify for camel's nose under the tent. At best it is symbolic, but really this smacks of pandering without any real push behind it. If they added a couple more zeros maybe but this is more like a fart in a hurricane as far as impact goes.

Hey all,

OK the whole "vouchers will destroy public education" argument - I would have defended it to the death 5 years ago.  BUT, for the past 5 years I have been teaching in an inner-city jr high school and I have come to realize that vouchers are our only/last hope of saving these kids.  That is why we, who are proud to call ourselves liberals, ought to support them.

First of all, there are two separate public school systems in this country- one for the upper class and one for everybody else.  The upper class system is great. Test scores are through the roof, college acceptances come easy and violence, for the most part, is rare.  On the other extreme you have kids who can barely read, write or add in the 8th grade (I see them), the threat of violence pervades the air and those who don't drop out often graduate w/out the skills to get a job or succeed in college.

Secondly, the poor outcomes in urban education have very little to do with funding.  Yes, more cash would be nice but it won't make much difference in the end.  These schools must enforce discipline. They need to implement a curriculum that focuses on real content like math facts instead of flaky "problem solving skills". And they need to allow teachers the autonomy to present the material in the way they feel is best.

Thirdly, today's urban public schools are structurally incapable of doing these kinds of common sense things.  Administrators are often paid top dollar -$100K or more.  They don't enforce discipline because the rude parents of the rude kid will complain and they don't want to risk their fat salary. So they appease the bad kids and ignore things like dress code violations, skipping detention and the harassment of teachers.

The curriculum in these schools is often a joke.  I was once told by a math teacher that it was ok one of my 7th graders couldn't add 8+5 in her head "as long as she knows how to find the answer".  I've also heard some say reading isn't important in life.  There is a definite anti-fact, anti-content bias present in the public school system and the few teachers who believe it are the ones who get promoted to administration.  These kids need to learn real content: math facts, phonics, grammar, art history, music etc.  -not "problem solving skills" which apparently doesn't help them solve problems on the test. When these kids go and bomb the state tests, the party line is that the tests are bad.The tests aren't bad, the curriculum is and it's just showing up on the tests!

One more big problem is that many people in the public schools don't believe that these kids can learn.  I've heard more than once the term "demographics" to excuse my school's poor test scores.  They're basically saying, "They can't learn anyway, just give us more funding."

Why do I think private schools would be better?  The people who run them would be more invested in their success.  They would be more likely to enforce strict discipline and tell idiot parents, "That's the rule, if you don't like it tough!"  They would be less likely to hire extraneous administrators b/c they would only get a certain amount of money per child and have to spend it wisely.  The principal would have final say on most things so issues wouldn't have to go through 7 layers of bureaucracy downtown.  They would have to focus on teaching and learning if they wanted to stay open and attract new students.

Private schools that service poor children in the inner cities almost always have a reputation that exceeds that of the local district schools.  Who are we kidding? We can find a million reasons why vouchers might fail, but there are a billion reasons why we should try them.  Thirty years of education reform and we still have a massive performance gap between rich and poor, Black/Hispanic and White.  Shouldn't we be willing to try everything?  Who here would send their child to an inner city school plagued by violence and miserable test scores?  If not your child, then why someone else's?

Furthermore, we need to look at the public schools like one big corporation.  Many people at the top are making a fortune (over $100k a year) while teachers and students pay the price.  Why would it be wrong to take on this kind of special interest?  For crying out loud, if we're not the party of fuck-the-establishmentalism, then what are we?

In closing, I will mention that I am not alone in my thoughts.  I know several other public school teachers who feel exactly as I do.  We are willing to forgo tenure if it means more respect in the classroom and will accept more responsibility in exchange for more autonomy.  For most teachers, making a difference in the lives of kids comes first, not preserving a system that has failed so many so miserably.  

I resent the Bush plan because I don't have any evidence that they care about education.  But the report released Friday was not favorable on public education.  

Public schools, spending twice the amount of money per pupil than private schools, showed a slight advantage in fourth grade but gave it up by eighth grade.

I'm not sure throwing more money at public education is the answer(though that is what the teacher's union wants).  NYC and LA spend more per pupil than anywhere else in the country and it isn't making any difference.

The voucher play is pure PR, nothing else.

For real solutions, I say more local accountability, less hierarchy.  Of course, this creates other problems.

Look we can talk about the evils of privatization all we want. But liberals had plenty of time to improve public schools in school districts they controlled. What is the end result?? I live in Fulton County, GA which has been controlled by the Democrats for a long time. The public schools are still crap over here. If I have kids, I will not put them in these schools unless I am lucky enough to live in a neighborhood with a good school.

I support limited vouchers(not to the extent Republicans do) because I think it will actually scare more white suburbanites more than you think if a condition of vouchers includes free movement of people among public schools. Private schools accepting vouchers will be forced to accept certain number of minorities either for free or through scholarships under my plan. If a black poor kid does everything he/she should and his neighborhood school still sucks, don't be arrogant enough to say his parents should stay waste all their time reforming the school. They got jobs they need to do to earn a living. THey should have the option to find another school at taxpayers expense instead of double paying for their kids education. Some neighborhoods are just beyond repair at least for one generation. Also public school choice or a combination of that choice with a voucher system and a charter school would enable a student to experience a better education without having to leave their neighborhood.

I really think it's a fucked up system when a family has to leave a neighborhood for a better school for their kids. Why should I have to pick a house based on the school system? Why should a poor black kid be trapped in his neighborhood school? Democrats have had 40 years to show us the benefits of a public school system. What have they achieved for their black constituency? NOTHING. THey just pander. Maybe one reason charter schools have not flourished as much is because they have to cater to political whims of the community? I mean the hostility to charter schools from school boards probably scares away better potential groups who don't know how to play politics?

I am just sick and tired of the bullshit on both sides. We got right wing nuts who oppose evolution. We got the liberals who pander to the poor communities on education, but don't offer them a real way out. I was reading about some black entrepreneur who set up this school in Atlanta that has parents raving about it. If some kind of public - private collaboration is so bad, explain why our university system - a collection of private and public schools - is the best in the world?

I have seen private schools offer even poor kids a way out in some Indian areas  because they offer a better education for a reasonable cost. THe parents find it worthwhile to bypass a free school and put their kids in a decent private school that offers a reasonable educational upgrade. Too bad, private schools are only for rich kids in the US for the most part.

You do not have to accept a voucher plan blindly. But at least be open to possibilities. This is one area where I have found democrats to be as stubborn as republicans.

"The results prompted questions from foes of vouchers about why taxpayer money should go toward private schools instead of toward improving public schools."

First of all, schools have fixed costs and variable costs per student. If the voucher is limited close to the variable cost, will voucher opponents abandon this argument.

I pay property taxes. I do not have a family. Maybe, I should whine about my taxes going to schools I won't be part of?

And how much taxpayer money will they have if their mismanagement causes families to leave the neighborhood because the public school system forces them to go to their neighborhood school.

And I love this:

Oh, Republicans will use terms like "vouchers" or "personalization" to make their plans more palatable to voters, but no one should mistake what their real intention is: negating America's promise to this generation and future generations by systematically privatizing public programs.

But everyone will continue to mistake their real intention because essentially nobody is pointing their real intention out to the general public.  

Along that line, I saw the word "failure" in the title of this post and used it to justify a post of my own on the topic.