- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,580
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The flaw in this is thinking it's all about money. More money = good schools and less money = bad schools (and vice-versa)? This is clearly not true. Schools with the same level of funding can have vastly different outcomes. Some schools improve their outcomes without any change in funding and some schools decline in the same situation. Some very wealthy schools (state or private) can suffer specific problems and some very poor schools can still find ways to excel in specific areas.
The factors that lead to good or bad outcomes from schools (measured and real) are wide and varied and focusing on a single one (such as funding) alone is destined to failure. If a school is (or appears to be) doing poorly, someone needs to get off their backside and find out why (all the whys) and work on addressing them. Some of them can't be addressed of course. One of the biggest factors in a schools outcome is the fundamental abilities of the children who join them and the support (or lack thereof) from the parents. Of course, it could be suggested that one of the hidden aims of vouchers is to deal with this by pushing the academically weak children of disinterested parents to one side.
Vouchers won't solve the problems of "bad" schools. They'd probably make some of them much worse for what little they might improve elsewhere. Without an active desire to improve all schooling for all children that isn't going to happen. With that desire from enough people, tricks like vouchers shouldn't be necessary at all.
The rationale is that if the money follows the child instead of being provided to the school, the schools will be forced to compete to get those children. And if parents are seeking the best education they can find and afford for their children, that competition will require all to provide the best education they are capable of providing. Those unable to do so will close as they should. A school doing a crappy job of educating kids simply should not continue.
Ohio, for instance, has one of the strongest voucher and school choice programs in the nation, and they currently rank I think 5th in the nation in the quality of their education. Are some kids still falling between the cracks? Yes they are and they are aware of that and they are addressing it, but kids were falling between the cracks under the old system too. The fact is that allowing school choice in Ohio has significantly improved the quality of education over all moving the state from the middle of the pack to the upper tier in the pack, and they continue to edge up on the list. I am guessing that if the people Ohio were to put it to a vote today, they would not choose to go back to the old system where the government dictated where the kids would go to school.
And I am not thinking it is all about the money. But nevertheless, it does require money to keep a school open and pay the administrators and teachers who staff it. Make them have to compete to get that money, and I bet you'll see a lot better performance from them. And if they simply aren't able to compete, they shouldn't be in education in the first place.