Low-Income Students Receiving Vouchers Make Reading Gains
A new study measuring the success of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the nation's only federally funded voucher program, is reigniting a debate about whether vouchers can help raise achievement among low-income students.
The study, which was conducted by the U.S. Department of Education and released last week, compared the performance and satisfaction of District of Columbia students who received vouchers to attend private schools against students who remained enrolled in regular public schools. It found that overall, the voucher students were at least three months ahead of their public school peers in reading but performed at similar levels in math.
Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, hailed the report's findings as evidence that vouchers can help struggling students achieve. He and other Republicans have called on Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to push for reauthorization of the D.C. program. Funding for it is slated to end after the 2009-10 school year.
"The U.S. Department of Education has confirmed what we've been saying all along—when parents are given a choice, and children are able to attend safer, higher-performing schools, achievement and satisfaction will rise," McKeon said in a statement.
Duncan has said he doesn't want to create a disruption for the students currently enrolled in the program but believes the program should end because it has not had a significant positive effect on students from the lowest-performing schools. The report says that the particular subgroup of students who received the vouchers after attending schools deemed "in need of improvement" did not make notable gains in reading or math.
The voucher initiative, which was created by a Republican-controlled Congress in 2004, has served more than 3,000 students. Students receive up to $7,500 a year for tuition and other fees to attend schools that participate in the program. A Senate committee is expected to hold hearings later this year on the fate of the program.
Tell us what you think about vouchers. Should kids attending low-performing schools receive vouchers to attend private schools? Or should those tax dollars be spent to improve public education?
Tags: public schools | education | school vouchers | Arne Duncan
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (2) | Print
Reader Comments
Vouchers are a great idea
There a multitude of reasons voucher programs are beneficial - especially in areas where the public schools are failing.
1. They give children a way "out" of a school where they're crashing and burning, and it offers them access to a much better education. The kids are the ones we're most concerned about.
2. They free up some space in public schools, so that teachers have a little more freedom to work with the kids who are left.
3. The tuition at public schools is generally less (often MUCH less) than the amount the state pays per head for public school students. Throwing MORE money to public schools isn't going to make them better. (Out of the entire nation, I think DC pays the most per student, and they've had horrible education problems.)
4. Vouchers don't hurt public schools anyway. As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), the public school system still gets the leftover money - that is, the money above and beyond the $7500 voucher given to the child. Therefore, the public schools are getting money for a kid they don't have to educate.
5. Competition breeds excellence. The added competition that voucher programs offer can encourage public schools to focus on improving their teacher population and methods. Many (most?) public school teachers are really quite dedicated, and some are absolutely amazing! But, I've known other rotten teachers who should have been canned years prior. Individual teacher really make a huge impact on how kids learn or don't learn.
Vouchers are simply a great idea. DC needs to keep the program.
education
The reason why i think "improving public education" in the USA won't work is because of the way we deal with things. For a crappy teacher to be fired you'd have to bend over backwards and stick your own foot down your throat before it could even be considered. All you're doing by increasing public school funding (in some cases) is increasing the pay of the crappy teachers rather than creating incentive to get better, and if you build nice buildings, most likely you'll just give crappy teachers a nicer lounge to slack in. Some of the best schools don't have state of the art labs or anything, and if you go to schools around the world, what makes their system superior to the US system is not better facilities, but often (simply said), better teaching. Which is sad. USA has some of the BEST teachers in the world (and that is why the best of the best are in the USA), the PROBLEM is that the average of the USA is among the worst. The amount of crappy schools in the US is too large to simply improve via tax dollars, you can't fire 60% of teachers and restart (impossible because of unions). All you can do is motivate them to try harder. How?
I say vouchers. If the school sucks, the students will leave, and if enough students leave, the school will shut down and the teachers will simply be out of work. The good teachers will find work elsewhere, the bad ones will have trouble finding work and probably will leave the field. For every bad school shut down, you will at the same time weed out the bad teachers, but at the same time strengthening the schools that remain (because the good ones will be hired elsewhere and become an asset where they end up working). Those who were once lazy will now have a reason to work hard. Which perfects the capitalist model. We CANNOT go without unions (abuse of employees will result if we do), but unions protect the bad apples as well (which is reasonable because they're supposed to do everything they can to protect the people's rights). But that takes away a bit from the market system because if there is no fear of losing your job due to lack of performance, why perform at all?
Though i personally think you probably somehow make the voucher system work with the public system as well (allow enrolment no matter where you live, that way you make public schools compete with one another for students as well, wiping out the bad ones and strengthening the good ones instead of letting private take all the good stuff you can give that a shot).
If you have a rebuttal go ahead and give a hoot, debating is the first step to fixing things
advertisement
