Obama is dead against school vouchers and dead for public schools. McCain supports expanding school voucher programs, as he should since this is in the best interest of the country. Pouring more money into public schools is championed by the left but as a tax payer I'm not exactly thrilled with how the money I'm already giving to public schooling is being spent. Throwing good money after bad doesn't seem like a good idea, even if that money is earmarked for teacher salaries and the like.
Instead of increasing teacher salaries in urban school districts why not give urban youth the option of attending better schools? Not every state has open enrollment. Often one's school is determined by their address. If a student is in a crummy school district -- which are more common in poorer neighborhoods -- and if that student does not have the choice of attending another school then we're basically setting the kid up for failure.
Instead of giving $1400 per student to each school (or however much schools get per student) why not give that money to the student in the form of a voucher to be used on the school of his or her choice? The market will quickly sort out which schools are best, teachers will be compensated in turn, and the worst schools, public or otherwise, will be forced to either a) improve or b) shut down. Eliminate bad schools, replacing them with better schools, giving every student the option of attending the best schools -- this sounds pretty nice. As Steve Chapman points out, it's essentially the same model of the US university system, considered by all to be the best in the world.
Why not try it with public schools and vouchers? If Obama is really the candidate of change, the bold candidate resistant to toeing the party line, why is he so resistant to trying a new idea to solve an old problem?
Conservitive Obama, Progressive McCain
Posted by Joel at 7/24/2008 12:38:00 PM
2 Comments:
In theory, that sounds great, but the reality is that only children with attentive, proactive parents will have the slightest chance of benefiting from the voucher system.
I hail from Warren, a suburb of Detroit, Michigan, where vouchers were recently considered as a realistic answer to Detroit's horrific school system. The problem with this band-aid solution is that the schools that suck the worst are generally surrounded by other school that suck pretty bad too. This means that kids taking advantage of this voucher system would have to be bussed or driven at least 20 miles to go to a school that would provide them with any real opportunity for success.
So, because the voucher system would take money away from the public fund that pays for things like buses, how would poor kids (especially in areas with shitty public transport or how are to young to ride the bus alone)get to these suburban schools? The fact of the matter is, they wouldn't. The voucher system would only really benefit the middle class families that can afford the steadily rising gas prices involved with sending their kids to another city.
Best case scenario, urban schools receive the same inadequate funding they've always had and the 'market' continues to increase the divide between the white middle class and the black urban poor.
There's no quick fix to America's education problem. And while I, as someone who has no interest in having children, hate to see my money wasted as much as the next guy, you can't send teachers to the front lines without the supplies they need and expect to see a more educated electorate in the future.
The issue here sounds like public transportation, which I agree should be better funded than it is now. The lack of adequate transportation shouldn't be the roadblock to a better education nor should it be reason enough to squash alternatives to a failing system.
Post a Comment