Online NewsHour: Education Vouchers Forum -- September 10, 1996

THE RIGHT REFORM?

September 10, 1996

Forum

NewsHour Backgrounders

Former Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and American Federation of Teachers President Al Shanker debate the school choice and other reforms.
Education Secretary Richard Riley and William Bennett discuss the politics of education reform.
Bob Dole expresses his support of school vouchers in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.
Clinton discusses his views on education reform while addressing the graduating class at Princeton University.

Outside Links

The American Federation of Teachers is working to limit the school vouchers movement.
The Center for Education Reform continues to work for a broader voucher system.
The National Education Association, the largest teacher's union in the country is vehemently opposed to any public support of private schools.
As schools open around the nation and the election season heats up, political debates have turned to the country's education system. Bob Dole has made the "school choice" a central message in his platform. He proposes a system of vouchers which would subsidize private school for all those who want it.
President Clinton has come out against the proposal saying it would divert funds away from public education. He has been joined by various teachers' unions. The National Education Association have said, "Despite the fact that the American people clearly do not want their taxes given to private schools, the critics of public education continue to put forward voucher proposals and initiatives in state after state, as well as in Congress. Vouchers are little more than a thinly disguised attempt to destroy our country's public schools. They represent a real threat to America's commitment to educate all young people. "
Supporters of the voucher system say that it amounts to a public scholarship to help families pay for the best education possible. Bob Dole announced his support for school choice in his acceptance speech, saying "I plan to enrich your vocabulary with those words you fear - school choice and competition and opportunity scholarships - all this for low and middle income families so that you will join the rest of us in accountability, while others compete with you for the commendable privilege of giving our children a real education. There is no reason why those who live on any street in America should not have the same right as the person who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue - the right to send your child to the school of your choice."
Our Forum asked: Should a school voucher system be implemented? Should parents receive a voucher in order to select a better school for their child? Is there a way to improve public schools and provide support for those parents who want to send their child to a private institution? Will vouchers provide an opportunity for lower income kids to get a better education or is it simply a way for the wealthy to avoid supporting local public schools?
Our Forum guests were Tim Sullivan of the Center for Education Reform and Bella Rosenberg of the American Federation of Teachers. The Center for Education Reform (CER) is, according to its mission statement, "an independent, national, non-profit advocacy organization providing support and guidance to individuals nationwide who are working to bring fundamental reforms to their schools." The American Federation of Teachers is the second largest teacher's union in the United States and affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

A question from Amy Pelsang of St. Marys, GA:
My school of choice for my children happens to be homeschool, which, I guess, could be considered a "private school." Does this voucher system include those who homeschool?
Bella Rosenberg responds:
There have been various voucher systems proposed over the years, and, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't included home schooling. Senator Dole has said nothing about home schooling in his Voucher proposal. The partial exception to this that I know of concerns an effort to form a network of home-schoolers, call that network a "school," and attempt to get public monies available for public charter schools for that "school." That was in Michigan, and the court did not allow it. I believe that was a wise decision, both for the public and for the home-schoolers.
Tim Sullivan responds:
Whether Sen. Dole's proposal would include home-schooling would be a matter addressed in whatever (if any) legislation is introduced to codify opportunity scholarships. There is, however, nothing that, would inherently prohibit the use of such scholarships for homeschooling...it's all just a matter of how the law might be written.

Tom Lilly of Owensboro, KY:
Didn't I recently read where school vouchers are a success in Wisconsin?
Tim Sullivan responds:
Yes, you did read that school choice was a success in Wisconsin. A study released at the beginning of August, by Paul Peterson of Harvard University, found that "students enrolled in choice schools for three or more years substantially out performed, on average, a comparable group of students attending Milwaukee public schools." This study went on to conclude that if the success of the Milwaukee program could be achieved for all minority students nationwide, "it could close the gap separating white and minority test sores by one-third to one-half." (You should also note that Mr. Peterson's study refutes previous studies which, in looking at the Milwaukee program over the short-term, had indicated no discernible improvement in learning.)
Bella Rosenberg responds:
Yes, you did read that "school vouchers are a success in Wisconsin" -- but don't believe everything you read. What you're referring to is a recent "study" of the effectiveness of a private school voucher program for low-income students in Milwaukee, which has been in operation for five years. That "study," by Professor Paul Peterson and others, is the first to challenge a four-year evaluation of the program that has been conducted by Professor John Witte. Witte found that in each year of the voucher program the low-income students who got selected into the participating private schools did no better in math and reading than a comparable group of low-income students in the Milwaukee public schools. (That's hardly a surprise. Every study that has ever looked at public/private school differences has found no difference in student achievement levels once you take family background into account.) In contrast, Peterson says that in years 3 and 4 of the voucher program, the low-income kids in the private schools soared ahead in achievement. Witte's study has been available to researchers for years and has withstood their scrutiny. Peterson released his "study" to the media and voucher advocacy groups first, and only after the headlines blared were researchers able to examine it. Quite a few of them have commented publicly on that "study" now, and they've all demolished it. No headlines. Here's a small sample of their criticisms: Peterson failed to control for differences in family background and ability- when he does, in a table he does not report, his "private school advantage" disappears; about 2000 kids have participated in the program, but Peterson's results are based on a high of 110 and a low of 63 students, and he never tells you how many were in the private schools and how many in the public schools; Peterson looks at only 3 private schools, even though a low of 11 and a high of 16 have participated -- and he never talks about the 4 that went out of business, 3 of them under a cloud of financial and educational scandal (the head of one school, for example, was just arrested). We'd all like a "magic bullet" to solve our educational problems, but vouchers miss the mark. The answer? Discipline and rigorous academic standards. Not a headline grabber, but it works.

A question from Roger Kerr of Stamford, CT:
Has a version of the voucher system ever been considered where the voucher can only be used at public schools? If it has, why hasn't it gained more support? If not, why not? It seems to me that this would inject competition among our public schools, helping them to improve in the same way that supporters of the current voucher proposals want, while at the same time keeping the integrity of today's public school systems.
Bella Rosenberg responds:
Vouchers for use only at public schools are more commonly called public school choice systems. It's widespread now in school districts and enjoys a lot of support. Public school choice usually operates within a school district, however, rather than between districts (though there are exceptions). Why? Primarily because of the very unequal per pupil spending levels among districts. That means a district that spends a lot per pupil is not too eager to accept a pupil from a low-spending district and have to make up the difference in cost. School finance is a whole other, important subject .... Public school choice has worked pretty well, but it's important to remember that it needs a framework of high academic standards for all schools in order to make a difference. How you reach those standards can be flexible; academic rigor shouldn't be. We already have enough of schools competing for students on the basis of the sports experience they can offer rather than the quality of their education.
Tim Sullivan responds:
Public school choice exists in many states around the country but has not worked as well as it might because of some very practical limitations, the most prominent of which is, that the schools many parents would choose can only take so many students. It does provide opportunities for some, however, and that is a step in the right direction.

A question from Tom Weise of Clovis, California:
I have two quick questions with respect to the school voucher initiatives: 1) What quality control systems will be put in place? The California initiative that was voted down two years ago stated that anybody who had 15-20 children would be eligible for the vouchers. There was no "quality" control.
2) The number one difference between private and public schools is student/teacher ratios. Wouldn't a push to lower class sizes serve the purposes espoused in Dole's campaign speech?
Tim Sullivan responds:
Your first question, concerning "quality control" assumes that there is quality control now, which is not always the case. Irrespective of that issue, however, we offer two points. As in the answer to Amy Kerr, legislation can be drawn up in any way legislators see fit and rules promulgated to ensure adherence to the letter and spirit of the law as adopted. The second point also relates to Amy who would, undoubtedly, argue that the quality of her children's education is equal to that of children in more traditional school settings. The point is that quality education is predicated more on what parents and communities demand for their children than it is on anything else.
As for your second question, simply reducing class size would not solve all the problems many parents feel exist in many schools: deficient curricula, low standards, poor learning environments, etc.. At the bottom line, if education reform issues, are viewed as efforts to help parents do what they feel is in the best interests of educating their children, instead of as single, system-wide solutions then many ideas, including reducing class sizes and providing opportunity scholarships, are all in order.
Bella Rosenberg responds:
1) You put your finger on a crucial issue, Voucher initiatives have been silent with respect to quality control (and making sure that public dollars are publicly accounted for). That means anything goes. After all, the state can't say yes to publicly funded voucher dollars going to a Catholic school but no to a cult school; both quality as religions, and the state can't pick and choose among them. The same goes for saying yes to a reputable independent school with a track record and no to a Ku Klux Klan or Farrakhan or fly-by-night entrepreneurs' school; you can't "discriminate" that way. So the only way the public could find out what was happening with their dollars is if the state sets up a whole new bureaucracy to monitor private and religious schools. That would cost more money and also breach the independence of private schools and the wall between church and state. America's founding fathers and the architects of our public school system were very wise in creating the system we have (though it needs improvement). Vouchers would be rotten for all concerned: public, private and religious schools, the public, and our democracy.
2) Yes, private schools do tend to have lower class size -- and lower class size is something parents want very much for their children, with good reason. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Senator Dole and other private school voucher advocates to call for lower class size in public schools. That would cost some money, and they want public dollars transferred to private schools and to students whose parents can already afford to send them there. Every survey of the American public and parents shows that they oppose vouchers and instead want their public schools improved-- and what they want, first and foremost, is better discipline and higher academic standards (as weft as lower class size). They are right to want these things because those are the reforms that work and these reforms are not that difficult to put in place. But instead of responding to the public' s interest, Senator Dole and others propose vouchers for the few and have the audacity to call this failed experiment education reform!

A question from Tiffany Reed of Williamstown, MA:
These voucher initiatives seem to indicate a real degradation in the idea of a community. Don't we all have a responsibility to educate the children of our community? I have no problem if you want to remove YOUR child from the school, but I do have a problem with YOU taking even more money out of an already depleted public school coffer. Why should I feel any different about this issue?
Bella Rosenberg responds:
I couldn't agree with you more. Now more than ever, we need to repair the institutions that. bind us -- like public schools -- rather than break apart into separate, competing enclaves. Sometimes it seems that the people who talk the most about traditional values are the ones most intent on tearing those values apart. Our public schools have held together communities and the diverse people of our pluralistic democracy for almost 200 years. They need improvement, not abandonment.
Tim Sullivan responds:
There is no question that one of the primary endeavors of society is to strive to provide for the common good, and no one is suggesting that school reforms, including opportunity scholarships, be provided to the detriment of public schools.
Although reform opponents would have you believe otherwise, these are not either-or issues. They are, as expressed to Mr. Weise, a matter of trying to help parents do what they feel is in the best interests of educating their children. Yes, we do all have a responsibility to educate the children of our community, but that pales in comparison to the responsibilities parents have in struggling to achieve, that same end.
Why should you feel any differently? I can only suggest that as you respect and appreciate government's role in achieving a community's goals for its children, that you also respect and appreciate that government has an equally important role to play in helping parents achieve their goals for their children.

Additional Comments
Donald N. Nelson of Larchwood, Iowa
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion concerning the school voucher proposal. I am the elementary principal of the West Lyon Community School, Inwood, Iowa. This is a public school system. I support the school voucher proposal. I support it because I think it will put the private school in the same ball park as the public schools. Why the private school would want federal money is beyond me. First, the federal government would have control of the private school systems. Don't forget that the federal government money would not come without the same regulations as it presently does. The government is not going to give its money without the same strings that the public school presently have. Second, if the private schools have to follow the same rules (equal education for all, desegregation, must educate all children no matter the handicap, must educate those who are discipline problems and not send them to public school, multi- cultural, non sexist education, drug education, sex education, alcohol education, safety education, etc.) we would be happy to enter into competition.
D.W. McCarthy of Lake Havasu, AZ
I am a teacher. I know that taking more money away from public schools is wrong. The laws don't provide for immediate funding for the number of students actually in a school. Public schools are the mercy of their state legislature, which mandate more and more programs and remove more and more funding. I am a member of NEA. The main reason is the protection I get from the arbitrary treatment we get from school officials and administration. Teachers have no power, folks. We cannot change things; we are allowed. Special interests abound in public schools. In my state athletics have top priority. There are always new games to play. Every year there are more duties and time wasting things to do.
Karen Silver of Bronx, New York
I think the idea is profoundly dangerous. First of all, a quality public education is a right of every child in the United States. If we beg off in favor of private education, we are walking away from the commitment and from all the children of this country. Let's work on restoring the basic-skills focus that made the American education worth getting in days of yore--before teachers had to be moms and social workers. If we can return to the real source of self-esteem, which is mastery of something difficult, we will have done what the schools are for. I am really uncomfortable about the way multiculturalism is administered while I'm totally in favor of its aims: to show every child how precious he or she is, no matter where he/she came from. Only a child with a sense of self will be able to walk through some of the streets these kids confront. But we have to do more than just glaze them over: our kids need solid meat and potatoes, which means real standards, real expectations. It means that the public schools must compete with private schools for good teachers who respect their students. That is why I don't favor vouchers. Ultimately, they are destructive.
Allan Moses of Brenham, TX
Every American parent should have the opportunity to procure the best possible education for their children. Not only the elitists of this nation, like the President (who has enough money to afford to send his daughter to a private school) but every parent should be able to make informed choices to pick the best public or private school for his or her child. Then they will not have to be subjected to the smut, drugs and other obscenities that so many public schools are plagued with.


Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.

PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.