send to a friend | print | comment
The path to real school choice
by Adam Lang
I have been an advocate for increased school choice options for a very long time. This year, state Senator Anthony Williams has done a lot of work to raise the profile of this cause, and for that I thank him. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of confusion on the role of school choice as well as the role of public education, as can be seen from a recent blog post on this site. Contrary to what some people argue, advocates for school choice aren’t being selfish or petulant, but are trying to get results.
First, let us address public education. It is a safe assumption that an overwhelming majority of people supports the idea of government helping facilitate an educated populace through thinks like public education (it is even protected in the Pennsylvania State Constitution). This does not mean the mechanism has to be government run schools. The Pennsylvania Constitution specifically says “efficient system of public education.” This is a very important concept to keep in mind when we want to talk about education. The goal is to deliver an efficient system for everyone, not to enshrine organizations.
Second, we need to agree on what goal we are trying to achieve. I believe the goal is to have a system where everyone has equal opportunity to succeed and thrive and not where everyone has an equal result. We can’t be afraid to allow children the opportunities to surpass their peers and we must avoid the scenario where students are held back by some that need additional support. We aren’t making widgets in a factory. We are educating people and everyone is different.
Third, we need to accept that even without charter schools and vouchers, school choice already exists—the people with the ability to move will choose to go to better schools and the people without that ability remain where they are dependent on whatever is provided. What we need to add to the system is a dynamic by which people who can move don’t have to for better schools and people who can’t move get the same powers of choice.
Next, we also need to identify what school choice is. It isn’t just about getting into schools that have higher rates of students going to college. It is also about the choice of curriculum and safety. It allows students to go to math and science schools, art schools, language immersion schools or schools with low rates of violence. It would also allow parents to afford schools for special needs children, like for autism.
This leads to the question: How do we implement school choice that helps the public schools as well as the public? For all of its blemishes, the solution could very well reside in Philadelphia if we choose to embrace what works.
The format I have been proposing is as follows:
•The base of the public education system is to have public schools. This insures there is always an option for a school to be attended.
•Expand the successful magnet school system, but with a twist. Setup several regional magnets, as opposed to district wide, that require a period of prior enrollment in the public school system. This will give options to residents of under-served neighborhoods as well as encourage middle class families to invest in their neighborhood school.
•Allow charters to exist within the public school system to increase the amount of options.
•Allow vouchers to private schools at a rate less than what the district spends per student on the public schools. This increases competition and choices while supplying a cost savings to the school district.
The above approach to school choice is geared in a way that improves upon all the aspects of public education that we hold important without degrading into the tired argument of “if we only had more money.”
This is an opportunity to address public education in a way that is about looking for results and not determining the quality of your education based on your address and income.
The writer, a Republican ward leader and activist in Philadelphia, is chairman of the policy group Reform League of Philadelphia.
May 18, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Leave a Reply
pa2012.com blogs
Red in a Sea of Blue
Purple in Pennsylvania
The Latest from @pa2012 news
More UpdatesStay connected with pa2012.com:
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Tammy Alonso
May 18th, 2010
Adam -
The details you offer here are nice – and in line with what I and others who are opposed to your basic premise have ourselves suggested – but the important ones seem to be left out.
Where is the money going to come from to establish all of these new educational opportunities? You vaguely mention at the beginning of your piece that “government run schools” don’t need to be the answer. So, are you implying that these schools should be private enterprises, and that public tax money should be used for them? I thought those on your side of the aisle were opposed to the idea of tax money being funneled to private entities. Hasn’t that been the argument against the bank and auto company bailouts?
Even if the solution continues to be “governemnt run schools” – and like it or not, that is the definition of public – suggesting that tax money should be used to support those things you agree with while demanding that none be used for those things that you oppose, is still petulant and selfish, no matter how you cut it.
And just for the record, you state that public schools should continue to be the base of the public education system, although I have no idea what that means since the definition of “public” seems to change throughout your argument, and I’m not sure exactly who it is who will be left with the “option” of whatever “public” schools are under your plan, but for the sake of argument, I’ll assume that agree with the basic premise that there should always be a public option. Doesn’t it follow, then, that there should also be a “public option” for something so important to the basic well-being of the American public as, say, healthcare, and that vouchers should be available to those who can’t afford the necessary treatment that they and their loved ones need?
Adam Lang
May 18th, 2010
The problem with your argument seems to be that you are more intent on trying to point out someone being a hypocrite as opposed to trying to discuss actual solutions. There is no reason why a discussion about education has to involve bailouts and health care unless your intention is to not really talk about education.
First, as far as money. Gov. Rendell wants to increase funding to public education by $350 million. There is no reason why some of the increased funding can’t go towards a voucher program. Also, since a voucher program would be at a per capita rate less than current expenditures, the public schools will have more per student to spend. As for charters and magnets, they are public schools, so there is nothing magical about their funding.
Second, in regards to “government run schools”, I am showing that public education does not mean it has to be public schools. We can be flexible with solutions. As for your question about them all being privately run, I no where made that comment or even broached the topic of how public schools are administered.
That seems to have addressed all your education related questions.
NO ONE
May 18th, 2010
CAtholic schools aRE THE BEST, tHE STATE SHOULD STEP IN TO Save them aND KEEP TUTITION LOW