Posts Tagged ‘school choice’
- In: Brain washing our children | Breaking the Collective Bargaining Union holds on states | Education | Regaining our moral standards | Subverting America by Uri Bezmenov | taking back our schools | Taking back our schools | teachers unions in politics | The Fight Back | Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker
- Leave a Comment
Governor Scott Walker like Cristie of New Jersey is another governor to watch and hopefully learn from. Walker is a fighter like Christie but lacks the new Jersey in your face attitude. In fact, he is a gentleman at all times; a gentleman who stands firm for his beliefs. He battled the teachers unions over their contracts and so- called “right” to bargain (read that riot and strike and clutter up state buildings while calling in sick from their jobs). With that issue working it’s way thru the courts he has now taken on the teachers unions and failing public schools over the school choice issue. He will win I have no doubt.
Is he perhaps the “sleeper” Republican who will come out for the Presidential run at the last minute? Pair him up with Bachmann and I think we have a winning team. Both are fighters who will stand firm for their beliefs but both are professionals in their dealing with opponents regardless of what they are subjected to. BB
by Kyle Olson
School choice is on the move in Wisconsin, at least in
The state Assembly has approved a bill that will increase the number of voucher students in Milwaukee, and increase the number of private schools they can choose from.
But an idea recently suggested by Gov. Scott Walker, to spread voucher opportunities beyond Milwaukee to Green Bay, Racine and Beloit, received a cool reception from Senate President Mike Ellis, as well as several other Republicans.
Ellis also questioned a reform, embedded in the governor’s budget proposal, that would lift income restrictions from voucher programs so all families would be eligible to participate.
That leads me to wonder if some Republicans, once committed to the concept of public school reform, have lost their nerve in the face of obnoxious union rallies and recall efforts.
I also wonder if Walker might have received a more positive response if he had targeted the entire state for voucher eligibility, in the same manner as Indiana. Only expanding to three cities may not sit well with legislators from areas that would not benefit.
School choice is best for all families and students. Every child is unique, and parents are best equipped to choose a school that fits their needs.
The state of Wisconsin provides a certain amount of money for every K-12 student in the state. What’s wrong with letting parents spend that money at the school of their choice?
Walker sought to build momentum for school choice expansion with his keynote address to the National Policy Summit of the American Federation for Children in Washington, D.C. last week.
He focused on the idea that all students have the right to equal access to a quality education.
“Every kid, no matter where they live, no matter what their background, no matter what their parents do for a living … deserves the opportunity to have a great education because they each have limitless potential,” Walker told his audience.
“We have 100,000 kids that we serve in the city of Milwaukee. Roughly 20,000 go to choice schools but that means that 80 percent of our families are looking at some other option and the majority of which are (using) public schools … many of which fail to live up to the standard we expect for each and every child in that community and in our state.
“We fail as a country, we fail as a nation, we fail as a society if any of our kids slip through the cracks. We have to make sure every single one of them have the same opportunities we’d want for our children and grandchildren.”
Walker referred to studies that show Milwaukee children in the voucher program are 17 times more likely to graduate from high school than their counterparts in Milwaukee public schools.
“If you look at the kids who come into the Milwaukee parental choice program, they more often than not come in (with lower learning levels) than kids in the Milwaukee public school system. But in the end, one of the most important outcomes is that they’re 17 percent more likely to graduate by the time they’re done.
“One of our greatest challenges is keeping kids in the system all the way to graduation … It used to be that just graduating was enough to get a job, but these days you’ve got to have a two-year or four-year post-secondary education component just to get a job in our society. If you’re not making it through graduation you’re going to be another statistic.”
Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers’ union, is trying to recall several Republican senators from office and destroy the GOP majority in the chamber.
The union’s president, Mary Bell told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that research “does not support broadening choice.”
I believe the only research that matters is the research conducted by the parents of every individual student in Wisconsin and America.
If they find a school that fits their child’s needs – be it public, public charter, private or religious – they should have a right to use their share of state money to enroll their child in that school.
Somehow our society has been blinded into thinking that government-run schools have an exclusive right to K-12 students. State constitutions mandate that governments provide an education to every student in their jurisdiction. That does not mean those students have to attend government-run schools.
By providing the means for students to finance an education, the state has met its constitutional responsibility. At that point the state should step aside and let parents decide where that education will take place.
As far as I can tell, the only reason for enforcing geographic school boundaries is to provide a guaranteed clientele, and guaranteed jobs, for unionized teachers. That’s not a very good reason to keep any kid trapped in any school that’s not meeting his or her needs.
Scott Walker seems to understand that. The union doesn’t and it’s unrealistic for us to hope otherwise. Will legislative Republicans?
Leaders should be going bold in their attempts to save children from failing public schools. This is not the time to be pussyfooting around, making sure the adults aren’t offended by reforms that put the interests of children first.
by Rebekah Rast
Upon learning that average per pupil spending in the public education system is $9,000, recent Rasmussen poll takers overwhelming stated their dissatisfaction with the return on their investment.
It’s hard to blame them. Per pupil spending on education has tripled since the 1960s and increased 138 percent since 1985, but test scores and academic achievements remain stagnant and unchanged.
Noticing this trend, taxpayers and parents have found other options—an alternative to the status quo. Americans are used to variety and choice and thought the education system should offer nothing less.
“In our society choice is something we’ve all been used to,” says Jeff Sands, senior manager of school development for Northeastern and Central California for the California Charter Schools Association. “Now you can find schools that fit your needs and styles.”
The charter school movement has grown to 4,600 schools serving more than 1.4 million students nationally.
Charter schools have been a welcomed change for taxpayers, parents, students and those states and local governments who have adopted them.
What makes charter school different than public schools?
For one, it gives parents more options of where to send their child. Also, charter schools have more freedom from the many regulations of public schools. Charter schools allow students and teachers more authority to make decisions. Instead of being accountable to rules and regulations like public schools are, charter schools are focused on the students and academic achievement and upholding their charter. (One big reason for Charter Schools being free from all the rules and regulations is the lack of administration pencil pushers who make up all this nonsense in order to justify their jobs! Every school system in the country could cut their administration staff by 50% and never miss them! BB)
“Charter schools are much more flexible in their spending and methods,” Sands says. “They can go with longer days and weekends. You could have a school with a strong focus on languages or arts or agriculture. You can use methods and interactions where the main focus is not on the results, but the results happen anyways.”
If charter schools are such a welcomed change, then why are 10 states still opposed and fight against letting them in?
When parents do not have a choice of where to send their child to school, they can become stuck in a union-run, public school monopoly that has no incentive to better itself. The only group that benefits from this design is the teachers unions.
“About 95 percent of charter schools are non-union,” says Mike Antonucci, director of the Education Intelligence Agency (EIA). This causes a lot of opposition from teachers unions.
“Unions lose members,” says Antonucci, whenever a new charter schools opens. “Every teacher in a charter school means one less union member and unions want more money. This can put a dent in union’s bottom line.”
Sands agrees and adds, “Charter schools have lots of resistance from unions and school boards.
Despite the strong opposition from unions and school boards, many charters are doing very well and opening new schools each year.
Since California approved a charter school law in 1992, it has seen a steady increase of new charters opening. Sands says last year more than 100 new charter schools opened their doors to new students and teachers.
As new charter schools open around the country providing new opportunities for students and parents, teachers also benefit from school choice.
“As testing becomes so core to school districts, teachers end up having to all teach the same thing at the same time—the whole objective is good scores,” states Sands. “This puts undue pressure on educators and removes them from the decision-making, professionalism of teaching. It is becoming very scripted.”
Charter schools give teachers opportunities to think outside the box, try new learning techniques and cater to children’s individual needs and wants. It would seem that this kind of freedom would be a welcome change for an educator—especially at a time when states are forced to trim their budgets often cutting programs and pulling funds from school districts.
If a charter does not live up to expectation or meet its requirements, then like all businesses, the charter would cease to exist. “Offering the best products and customer interaction is at the core of any charter school,” Sands comments. “Many of them understand that they are a nonprofit and have to do smart business.”
Charter schools face more responsibility and accountability than the public counterparts, but they also offer much greater opportunity.
In a free-market, choice fuels competition and produces quality and distinctive products. A growing dissatisfaction with public schools does not mean all public schools are bad and that all parents and students are ready to up and leave for a charter school. It means there is a need for choice and competition.
“Charters are not intended to replace public schools, they apply pressure and competition,” Sands concludes. “The objective is not to privatize education but to compete to make all schools better.”
Posted May 9, 2011on:
- In: AFT American Federation of Teachers | Barack Obama | Big Labor Unions | Brain washing our children | Breaking the Collective Bargaining Union holds on states | communist | Constitution of the United States of America | Education | Ineffective Government Programs | Ineffective Government Programs | laws and regulations--stupidities | NEA National Education Association | Obama admistration | Obama and ethics | Obamanation | Organizing for America (Obama) | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | public service employees | Redistributing wealth | Regaining our moral standards | SEIU Service Employees International Union | States revolt | Subverting America by Uri Bezmenov | taking back our schools | Taking back our schools | teachers unions in politics | The Fight Back | US in Revolt
- 5 Comments
The Progressives are pushing hard for their take over of our schools and our children’s minds. Education of children is rightly a parents duty and right. This is why education MUST BE LOCAL! When the Texas Text Book Selection committee outed the Progressives in determining what content would be in Texas text books it was a loud and clear call for the Progressives to become more aggressive (read this: underhanded!). (You may want to look this battle up because the video was a fun watch as the Progressives finally just left the meeting.)
The following article gives background on what is happening now and some push back. Be sure to read carefully the Related Articles also. these are your kids and our future. Please don’t allow them to be lot any more than they have already been compromised and brain-washed. It is up to ALL parents to demand the right to choose the schools their children attend and not to be herded into what the bureaucracy either national or local dictates to us. School choice and vouchers are the answer to a free and good education. BB
Posted by Neal McCluskey
Remember several weeks ago, when the Albert Shanker Institute released a manifesto calling for the creation of detailed curriculum guides to go with the national standards and tests being pushed and pulled through the back doors of states across the country? Apparently, that was the last straw for a lot of education analysts and policymakers, especially folks like Williamson Evers of the Hoover Institution (and Bush II Education Department); one-time Fordham Institute state-standards evaluator Sandra Stotsky; and Foundation for Education Choice senior fellow Greg Forster. Those three, along with a few others, organized a counter-manifesto being released today, a 100-plus signatory reply which, according to the group’s press release, declares that:
- These efforts are against federal law and undermine the constitutional balance between national and state authority.
- The evidence doesn’t show a need for national curriculum or a national test for all students.
- U.S. Department of Education is basing its initiative on inadequate content standards.
- There is no research-based consensus on what is the best curricular approach to each subject.
- There is not even consensus on whether a single “best curricular approach” for all students exists.
These points certainly sum up many of the major problems with the national standards drive, a drive that has been shrouded in half-truths about “voluntary” standards adoption; shorthand pleas for federal coercion; and what appears to be a camel’s-nose-under-the-tent strategy to ultimately impose a detailed, de facto federal curriculum. There is more to the problem than the summary points above cover — for instance, the Constitution gives the federal government no authority whatsoever to meddle in school curricula — but for a consensus-driven document, this new and desperately needed cannon blast against national standards is very welcome.
For a great explanation of why the anti-manifesto ringleaders did what they did, check out Greg Forster’s entry on the Witherspoon Institute’s blog. He hits lots of important points — especially that nationalizing curricula is a surefire way to fuel all-encompassing social strife — and I would quibble with only one thing:
My own view is that the root of the problem is the government monopoly on schools. Governmental monopolization of the education of children guarantees that all our religious and moral differences will be constantly politicized. School choice, in addition to delivering better academic performance, seems to me to be the only way to end the scorpions-in-a-bottle cultural dynamic and create space for shared citizenship across diverse religious and moral views.
But that’s an argument for another day.
Here’s where I think Greg is incorrect: Choice is not an argument for another day. It is the argument for this day.
Until all parents have real, full choice they will have no option but to demand that higher levels of government force intractable lower levels to provide good education. It won’t work — thanks to concentrated benefits and diffuse costs all levels of government are dominated by teachers’ unions and administrators’ associations that will never let tough accountability and high standards rein – but it is all that parents can do absent the ability to take their children, and tax dollars, somewhere else. That means choice is essential right now, because it is the only way to take power away from special-interest dominated government and give it to the people the schools are supposed to serve. In other words, it is the only option that will actually work, obliterating the special-interest hammerlock, imposing accountability to customers, and when coupled with freedom for educators unleashing competition, specialization, innovation, and constant upward pressure on standards. In other words, it will do all those things that national standardizers emptily and illogically promise that their reform will do, and much, much more.
Government Study Confirms: DC Vouchers Improve Graduation Rates. this is the program Obama is insisted on cutting!
Posted June 25, 2010on:
Obama is bowing down to the teachers unions by taking the action to cut the scholarship program for Washington DC low-income students. It is a mere $7,500 voucher and half of what is spent per pupil in the DC public schools. The scholarships are given out by lottery and I saw this lottery taking place on Stossel Show FOX BUS. The auditorium was packed with parents begging for the vouchers. After all the winners were called parents of children who did not make the program were crying and angry and feeling hopeless because this voucher was to them their children’s ticket out of the ghetto.
According to an evaluation released yesterday by the US Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) has “significantly improved students’ chances of graduating from high school.” The same study finds that “parents had higher satisfaction and rated schools as safer if their child was offered or used an OSP DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) scholarship.”
With these dramatic success indicators, it must be no surprise that DC DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) OSP is the only federal education program that the Obama Administration is intent on killing.
That’s right. Students who used their voucher to attend a school of their parents’ choice had a 21 percent higher graduation rate than those who were eligible for a voucher but were not offered one in the lottery process. DC DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) is a federally-funded program that provides scholarships up to $7,500 to low-income families in Washington, DC – a pittance compared to DC Public School spending. (DC Public Schools spend almost twice this amount per student and the school graduation rate is abysmal. The crime rate in the DC schools is the second highest in the nation. So why would the Obama Administration cut a program that is cheaper, safer and better!?? BB)
With these undeniable effects on graduation rates for low-income kids, why did Congress vote to kill DC DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) last year? Why can parents no longer choose a school that they find to be safer and offer a better environment for their children?
DC kids and parents have been begging President Obama – who himself attended private school on scholarship – to support them since he took office. But so far, the Obama Administration has cut the program by millions of dollars and disallowed new students to enter the program.