Post by Moses on Dec 31, 2005 19:33:28 GMT -5
"Scholarships" are really vouchers to support private schools
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 12/30/05
Based on the musings of Allen Barnhardt ("School choice gives urban youngsters greater opportunity," Dec. 23), it would seem that the far right has devised a new tactic for imposing vouchers on our educational system. Barnhardt refers to "scholarships," but it's clear he is advocating the use of public funds to support private schools.
Vouchers, or private school "scholarships," are a diversion from the real problems in our urban schools: class size, inadequate facilities and a lack of training for staff. Siphoning off more money to subsidize religious schools will only exacerbate the problems in the poorest of our schools.
Barnhardt suggests providing "scholarships" for the highest achievers in struggling schools and expects that these public schools should then compete for students. Even if competition would work to improve schools, which is unlikely, how could the public schools be expected to perform well if the highest achievers leave with "scholarships"?
Those who would apply a market model to public education by suggesting that competition will engender improvement are engaged in fallacious reasoning. Schools, unlike businesses, do not operate on a transactional basis with an easily determined bottom line. The singular purpose of a private enterprise is to make money, while the nation's schools provide a wide range of public benefits that go far beyond the private benefits gained by students. In many cases, the ultimate return on the taxpayers' investment is not realized until years after the "product" has graduated.
I wonder if the private schools would agree to be stifled by the draconian measures of the No Child Left Behind legislation. One of the ironies of "school choice" is that advocates would use standardized test results to evaluate schools and would ultimately allow students to attend private schools that are not held to the same standard. How willing would these private schools be to accept students with learning disabilities or other challenges? How level would this playing field be?
It is ironic that Barnhardt would invoke the name of the Rev. Martin Luther King in his misguided attempt to disrupt public education, arguably the best example of democracy still evident in our society. I doubt that King, or any other advocate for the poor and forgotten, would support legislation that would ultimately expand the already problematic divide between the haves and the have nots.
Charles Welsh
HOWELL
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 12/30/05
Based on the musings of Allen Barnhardt ("School choice gives urban youngsters greater opportunity," Dec. 23), it would seem that the far right has devised a new tactic for imposing vouchers on our educational system. Barnhardt refers to "scholarships," but it's clear he is advocating the use of public funds to support private schools.
Vouchers, or private school "scholarships," are a diversion from the real problems in our urban schools: class size, inadequate facilities and a lack of training for staff. Siphoning off more money to subsidize religious schools will only exacerbate the problems in the poorest of our schools.
Barnhardt suggests providing "scholarships" for the highest achievers in struggling schools and expects that these public schools should then compete for students. Even if competition would work to improve schools, which is unlikely, how could the public schools be expected to perform well if the highest achievers leave with "scholarships"?
Those who would apply a market model to public education by suggesting that competition will engender improvement are engaged in fallacious reasoning. Schools, unlike businesses, do not operate on a transactional basis with an easily determined bottom line. The singular purpose of a private enterprise is to make money, while the nation's schools provide a wide range of public benefits that go far beyond the private benefits gained by students. In many cases, the ultimate return on the taxpayers' investment is not realized until years after the "product" has graduated.
I wonder if the private schools would agree to be stifled by the draconian measures of the No Child Left Behind legislation. One of the ironies of "school choice" is that advocates would use standardized test results to evaluate schools and would ultimately allow students to attend private schools that are not held to the same standard. How willing would these private schools be to accept students with learning disabilities or other challenges? How level would this playing field be?
It is ironic that Barnhardt would invoke the name of the Rev. Martin Luther King in his misguided attempt to disrupt public education, arguably the best example of democracy still evident in our society. I doubt that King, or any other advocate for the poor and forgotten, would support legislation that would ultimately expand the already problematic divide between the haves and the have nots.
Charles Welsh
HOWELL