Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:55:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: school choice revisited

> From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
> Subject:      school choice revisited
>
> Hi, y'all.  I know we've been over this topic a little bit already; now
> that school choice is part of both campaigns, I wanted to bounce some ideas
> around.  Excuse the length :)
>
> As Brett's clippings verify, both Bush and Clinton have school choice plans
> .  I've been following some of Al Shanker's commentary; he's raised a
> couple points that argue against both plans.  Because Bush's plan includes
> choice among private and public schools, a couple arguments apply only to
> his plan.  They are (1) private schools actually don't perform any better
> than public schools when family background is taken into account (this
> comes from the National Education Assessment statistcs); and

   There is a private school in the Midwest where urban children are
   doing better than they were in the public school.  Exploring this
   assertion further, why don't private schools fare any better.  I
   thought they would since the teacher/student ratio is lower.  Also, the
   quality of teachers might be better since the private school's existence
   depends on delivering a good education.

>(2) according
> to Shanker, the most likely outcome of parents using vouchers to help
> defray the cost of private education is simply an increase in the cost of
> that education.

  This is a guess and not a known fact, much like my gut feelings about the
  effects of the laws that Hillary wants to implement.

>
> Shanker further presented a case against choice among public schools --
> this obviously applies to both Bush and Clinton.  He pointed out that, for
> the most part, choice among public schools will be exercised *within*
> school districts (mostly because of problems of access, I think).  The
> problem here is that all the schools within a district are "run" by a
> single supervisory board (the school district).  He argued that this type
> of management structure *decreases* opportunities for diversification among
> schools within a district.

   He also ignores a part of the proposal that would give more indepenence
   to the teachers of each school.  Sure, the Board may oversee the
   school's but it would not be involved in micromanaging them.  This
   would allow the teachers to structure their curriculum, some public
   schools have some gifted and intelligent teachers.

> He backed this idea using the analogy of the
> owner of multiple franchises -- he claimed that such an owner would benefit
> more from having several mediocre places of business than from having a
> single really good place (does this analogy work?  anyone?).  He concluded
> that choice without a restructuring of the education management system just
> wouldn't do the things it's supposed to do.

   see above
>
> I thought of another reason why choice might not be such a great idea.
> Others have probably figured this out, but I don't recall hearing it
> anywhere.  In my experience, and from what I've read, community support is
> one of the most critical elements in a school's success or failure.  It
> seems clear to me that choice, if really exercised, would erode the base of
> community support for a school.  I'd attend a lot fewer PTO meetings and do
> a lot less volunteer work if I had to drive 20 miles to get to the school
> my child attended.  If my daughter were in school elsewhere, I'd have no
> reason to help out at the neighborhood school down the street.  Assuming
> that my attitude were representative, then both the neighborhood school and
> the school my child actually attended would suffer.

   Number one, to lend your argument validity you must assume that your
   daughter would not go to the neighborhood school.  This may not be the
   case, but I will assume that to be true.  It is true that community
   support is important and I thought that educators were complaining that
   there isn't enough support.  Those that are involved and care would most
   likely remain involved even if their child did not go to the neighborhood
   school.  It is sad that your commitment would depend on how much of an
   inconvenience it would be for you.  Isn't that selfish?  Do expect me to
   believe that you would not be involved if you had to drive 20 miles?
   Hopefully you do not live in the country side and your child's school
   isn't 25 miles away for her sake.  And why wouldn't you be involved in the
   local school helping out and hoping that parents in the other town do the
   same.  Maybe a sign up sheet could be established where someone where your
   daughter goes would help your daughter's school if you help the local
   school where the other person's son attends.  That might be a solution,
   although I myself would travel.

> Does that make any sense?  What do y'all think?

   How's that.  Sorry for the barbs but I want you to understand how your
   last paragraph cam across.

> Kerry

Carl--------+  Our National Motto: In God We Trust
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU