<p>While The DC voucher program did not get as much attention as the Planned Parenthood in the latest budget saga, Mr. Boehner delivered on his promise to fight to reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. </p>
<p>Considering the extremely small proportion of voucher schools in the country, should we start with the beginning proposal that all is well for the recipients of Special Education in the world of public education? If that would be the case, would we not have a lot fewer legal battles. </p>
<p>Further, the statement that voucher schools can reject the applications of “undesirable” students and that a public school cannot do so is a “tad” … misleading and simplistic. The reality is that, in the case of Milwaukee) the voucher schools cannot reject applicants but have no obligation to offer services for which they are not equipped. A voucher school may not discriminate against a child with special needs in the admission process or elsewhere.
However, as a private school, the school is only required to offer those services to assist students with special needs that it can provide with minor adjustments. The student can enroll but he cannot expect ALL special services. Granted, this amounts to a de facto exclusion as parents seeking such services will realize that a voucher school provides an inadequate fit. </p>
<p>In addition, it is also misleading to state that ALL public schools have to offer services to disabled students. For instance, only a few MPS schools are equipped to accept autistic students. Further, schools in MPS have the right to practice “selective admissions” through an application process. On the other hand, voucher schools cannot discriminate at the application level, and in case of applications that exceed open spots HAVE to use random lotteries. </p>
<p>However, none of these semantics will help the students that require a special education. Be it at a voucher school (and some such as Messmer do accept SpecialEd students) or a public school, the real issue is how to account for the extra cost of attending special need students. It is obvious that the great difference between the value of a voucher and the expense per capita at MPS provides a glimpse of what lawmakers and budgeters estimate a school needs to provide BASIC services. </p>
<p>Simply stated, we cannot expect a private school to deliver all the services a public school often fails to deliver itself, and at 30 to 50% of the cost to boot. </p>
<p>As far as test scores, one can expect years of debate on the validity of using one static set of numbers (annual scores) versus data that tracks the same students over time. People will forever debate if the students were from more involved families or siumply culled from the poorest and most at-risk families. Some will require that results have to be BETTER to justify choice programs, others will state that comparable results are only a part of the entire equation. with the most important missing part being the SATISFACTION of the parents oh even having a choice. </p>
<p>All in all, the voucher program, though its 20+ years of acrimonious existence has demonstrated that the interest of children are rarely at the heart of the debates. The good news AND the bad news are always amplified with such noise that they lose all context. It requires little effort to find stories that are negative or positive. All one needs to do is pcik between Rethinking Schools and consider Barbara Milner or Peterson to be credible sources, or decide to tune in to wpri.org and similar groups. In the middle of this, people such as John Witte or Howard Fuller (former MPS boss) are deafened by the activists on both side. Reports such as <a href=“http://scoter.baeo.org/news_multi_media/(PCI-24)Lies_&_Distortions.PDF[/url]”>http://scoter.baeo.org/news_multi_media/(PCI-24)Lies_&_Distortions.PDF</a> are quickly buried!</p>
<p>The saddest part is that the same people who are entrusted with the well-being and education of those at-risk students seem to be determined to do everything possible to ensure that the program will be a resounding failure. And, the same if it were a resounding success. No matter the results of test scores, parental satisfaction, fiscal savings, the service providers in our education “establishment” will never endorse, support, or acknowledge the benefits of a program that curtails their monopoly. </p>
<p>Perhaps, the same people should pay closer attention to the faces of the lucky ones who were helped by similar programs. All they need to do is use google and check the You Tube videos.</p>
<p>I didn’t know that D.C. voucher program had been revived. That may have been the best thing in this budget bill, although I am sure the Democrats and the unions probably only agreed to it because it kept the govt open. Now let’s hope this can be duplicated in other cities and communities around the country.</p>
<p>One refrain I keep hearing from some posters in this forum and elsewhere regarding why you need tenure is that it is too difficult to evaluate teachers, and we will not know how to distinguish the effective teachers from the ineffective ones. At every public school, from elementary to high school, my kid went to, it was common knowledge among the students, parents, the guidance counselors and even some of the teachers who were the best teachers. It was no secret; we all knew. Many parents requested these teachers for their kids, but it was frustrating for many of the parents because their classes were always full. Yet, despite what was clear to everyone, these teachers were sometimes the first to go when there was a reduction in force, and, of course, it was a violation of union seniority rules to reward these teachers with merit pay. It seems to me another benefit of a voucher school system may be that these teachers might actually be pursued by various schools hoping to improve their competitive position vis-a-vis other schools in the community. In such a system, they may even command higher pay if a school had the incentive to entice them and keep them from leaving. I would think great teachers could only benefit from a school choice system.</p>
<p>I am not saying that. I am saying the manager that does not document why a teacher should be let go in a tenure hearing will be the same manager that does not have adequate documentation to support who will be laid off. We will end up with discrimination and other types of law suits that can not be defended.</p>