SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (584103)6/19/2004 3:32:25 PM
From: Neeka  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
I like this site from Schoolchoices.org because of its direct links that provide information regarding this issue.

Religion is but one of the arguments made by opponents of school vouchers, but the bigger advantage of school vouchers is the choice it gives to students in where they choose to learn.

In this case, secularists are an ingredient in the continuing debate, not the arbiter of the law.....as it should be.

schoolchoices.org

M

School vouchers, also known as scholarships, redirect the flow of education funding, channeling it directly to individual families rather than to school districts. This allows families to select the public or private schools of their choice and have all or part of the tuition paid. Scholarships are advocated on the grounds that parental choice and competition between public and private schools will improve education for all children. Vouchers can be funded and administered by the government, by private organizations, or by some combination of both.

This page brings together some of the most important sources of evidence on the outcomes of existing scholarship programs. It includes studies of both privately- and publicly-funded programs, as well as the results of a key court case. (A more comprehensive discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of both private and government-funded scholarships can be found in the book Market Education: The Unknown History.)

Government-run voucher programs are very controversial, and they have been criticized from two very different angles. The first body of criticism alleges that competitive markets are not well suited to the field of education, and that any school reform based on privatization, competition, and parental choice is doomed to failure. A summary of these arguments, with responses, can be found by clicking here.
The second body of criticism states that government-funded scholarships would not create a genuinely free educational market, but instead would perpetuate dependence on government funding and regulation to the continued detriment of families. These arguments, along with responses are described here.

Judicial Verdicts

The Supreme Court of the state of Wisconsin ruled on June 10th, 1998, that the expanded Milwaukee voucher program--which will allow up to 15,000 children to attend any religious or other private school--does not violate either the state or federal constitutions. A link to the complete verdict follows, but please note that due to the size of the page it may be slow to load. Complete verdict.
This verdict was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but on November 9, 1998, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court announced that they had voted 8 to 1 not to hear the appeal, and thus to allow the verdict of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to stand.

Articles

An Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship Program

by Jay P. Greene, William G. Howell, and Paul E. Peterson

"This evaluation, issued by Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG), reports the results of a survey of a random sample of parents who applied for a CSTP scholarship, including both parents of scholarship recipients and parents of non-recipients. It also reports test-score results for students attending two schools established in response to the creation of CSTP."--From the report's Executive Summary.
Note that researchers from Indiana University completed a study of the Cleveland program in May of 1998 and found no academic benefits to students after the first year (not available on-line). Peterson and Greene have identified a number of critical flaws in the Indiana paper, however, which greatly undermine its credibility. Their assessment of the Indiana study will hopefully be made available here shortly.

Fifth Year Report: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program

by John F. Witte, Troy D. Sterr and Christopher A. Thorn

An analysis of the Milwaukee publicly-run voucher program by the officially appointed researcher. According to Witte, the parents of "choice" kids are virtually unanimous in their opinion of the program: they love it. Parents are not only far more satisfied with their freely chosen private schools than they were with their former public schools, they participate more actively in their children's education now that they've made the move. See the review of "The Effectiveness of School Choice in Milwaukee," below, for a note on academic achievement outcomes of the program.

The Effectiveness of School Choice in Milwaukee

by Jay P. Greene, Paul E. Peterson, and Jiangtao Du

"A Secondary Analysis of Data from the Program's Evaluation." Witte's studies failed to demonstrate any academic advantage to students in choice schools. Recently, a reanalysis of the raw data by statisticians and educational researchers from Harvard and the University of Houston found that choice students do indeed benefit academically from the program, showing significant gains in both reading and mathematics by their fourth year of participation.

Fourth Year Report: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program

by: John F. Witte

See above. Previous year's report by Mr. Witte.



To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (584103)6/19/2004 3:53:04 PM
From: Neeka  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Primary-Level Complaints
As D.C. vouchers grow more popular, their enemies will only grow more bitter.
— Neal McCluskey is an education-policy analyst at the Cato Institute. - NRO

“D.C. School Voucher Applications Fall Short," read the front-page headline in the June 11 Washington Post. According to the article, only 1,200 low-income children would be provided with vouchers through the fledgling D.C. Scholarship Program this fall, 400 fewer than the approximately 1,600 that potentially could have received funds. Reactions to the shortfall, like that of D.C.-council member and choice opponent Adrian Fenty (D., Ward 4), were sadly predictable: "It very clearly says there is not a lot of support for vouchers," said Fenty. "Where is the rush? Where is the onslaught of people who were supposed to come out and take part in this process?"

Considering the minute timeframe the Washington Scholarship Fund had to launch this brand-new program — Congress didn't authorize it until late January and the application deadline for parents was May 17 — having reached 75 percent of capacity is actually quite impressive. But that just scratches the story's surface. Buried in the Post's article were clear signs that choice is, in fact, popular with many parents. For instance, the story noted that the number of eligible students who applied for scholarships actually exceeded the 1,600 maximum. Moreover, while the number of applicants for kindergarten through fifth-grade slots fell short of capacity, the number for grades six through twelve exceeded it. And one important statistic didn't make the article: According to WSF president Sally Sachar, the total number of scholarship applications (both eligible and ineligible) was actually 2,610. Suddenly, demand for choice looks much greater.

Of course, choice opponents aren't really worried that too few parents will take vouchers. If parents don't take advantage of choice options, after all, the defenders of the status quo win hands-down; choice has been offered and nobody wants it. No, what opponents fear is that too many parents will use choice programs, even programs laboring under constant threat of eradication, hobbled by enrollment caps, and funded at levels that are dwarfed by public schools. They know what history has shown them: The longer choice programs exist, the more popular they become. They know history, and don't want it to repeat it in D.C.

Consider the nation's oldest voucher program, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP). In 1990 the MPCP started with only 341 out of approximately 1,000 slots having been filled, a much less auspicious start than in D.C. But the program was only allowed to serve 1 percent of Milwaukee Public Schools' (MPS) students, and the maximum voucher was pegged at just over 40 percent of MPS's $6,064 per-pupil expenditure. Since 1990, the MPCP has remained handicapped: Among other things, the maximum value of a voucher has never exceeded 60 percent of MPS's per-pupil spending; the program was the subject of an ongoing legal battle from 1995 to 1998; and, in 2001, the Wisconsin State Senate passed legislation that, had it become law, would have reduced the maximum voucher by 50 percent and frozen enrollment. Yet somehow, despite all the reasons for parents to steer clear of it, today the MPCP serves over 13,200 students, nearly 39 times its enrollment in 1990.

Cleveland's choice program has shown similar enduring appeal. Between 1996 and 2004 the program's enrollment grew from 1,994 to 5,098 students, despite the fact that until 2003 the maximum scholarship was an anemic $2,250 (and was raised to only $2,700 in 2003) and per-pupil spending in Cleveland's public schools grew from $7,970 to $10,889. And enrollment didn't just increase after the U.S. Supreme Court found Cleveland's program constitutional in 2002. It was growing even while the program's existence was under threat.

Naturally, it will always be irritating to hear opponents of educational freedom categorize as a failure anything less than perfection in school-choice programs. But experience has shown that, no matter how embattled or handicapped choice may be, it quickly becomes irresistible to parents — exactly what the opponents of D.C. school choice are trying to avoid. Knowing that, the rhetorical assault against the D.C. Scholarship Program is probably just beginning.

nationalreview.com