Return-Path: <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g62MMbX06202; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3D2226DA.34B0C7F3@georgetown.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Albert Wat <ayw@georgetown.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FAMILY:1211] Re: Clips and Cross Posts X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-C-UDP; georgetownU-campus-4.7-08.06.2001 (Windows NT 5.0; U) Status: O Content-Length: 5263 Lines: 104 While vouchers are not directly related to this listserv, I feel compelled to respond after reading Ms. Narumanchi-Jackson's response to the voucher decision by the Supreme Court. While I certainly understand the plight of families who feel "trapped" in a poor public school system, vouchers remain a band-aid solution that has yet to prove its effectiveness. So the question for me is, do we invest all our energy and resources on this type of solution or do we really take a hard look at how we, as a people, value education (in terms of, yes, dollars) relative to other "needs" in our society and put our money where our mouth is? Here are some more specific points that I'd like to add to the conversation: First off is the separation of church and state... But let's leave that aside for now, since many people seem to think that it's much too academic a point to bring up when children are suffering. (For some reason, I don't think we would think this issue is too academic if we were talking about schools that teach the principles of fundamental Islam (or socialism, communism) to its children.) The cost of vouchers is usually not enough to pay for most private schools. So, a voucher program would allow some families to find a better school, but to borrow the phrase, leave others behind. And arguably those are the families who would benefit most. Also, the gas station analogy that the Ms. Narumanchi-Jackson uses assumes two things. (1) There's a supply of quality schools out there. Usually in urban areas where these vouchers are supposed to be the savior, there may be a handful that the public would consider "quality." They may be able to take some more new students, but they are defnitely not able to take a large number of students. (Even if the school administrators are willing, the parents there will likely put up a fight.) (2) The analogy assumes that everyone has the capacity to physically transport their kids to these better schools (as if they can just cross the street to another gas station). Again, we are leaving a lot of families behind with this strategy. The writer also thinks that we should follow the model of higher education in the US, where we essentially (at least in the more elite institutions) compete for students. I'm not sure if that's a great model either since data is showing that the rate of college attendance between tne poor and well-to-do is growing. Finally, the writer states that "*We* in adult education see the results of the current education system." I'd just like to reiterate that the quality of schools is a reflection of our national investment in education and family welfare in disinvested communities. I hope this hasn't been too much of a rant, but I just feel that any unadulterated support for vouchers needs to be re-examined. Yes, reform is necessary. No doubt. And *maybe* we need a temporary fix like vouchers or choice for the most desperate families. But let's invest in long-term solutions as well. Thanks for listening. -- Albert Wat, Program Coordinator DC Schools Project Office of Volunteer & Public Service - Center for Social Justice Georgetown University, Poulton Hall 1421 37th St., NW, 1st Floor Washington, DC 20057 Tel: (202)687-8868 Fax: (202)687-8980 Varshna Narumanchi-Jackson wrote: > Mr. Lee, > > I am pleased with the Supreme Court's decision. Unlike the public school > system, when a charter school or a private school (religious or otherwise) > fails to educate its student body, parents may choose to enroll their > students elsewhere. I have never met parents who enjoy chasing failure. > > In Texas, there has been much controversy over the performance of several > charter schools. The issues have ranged from mismanagement of funds to low > performance (of students) when measured against state-mandated standards. > These schools have either been closed and their charter revoked or the > schools have been placed under the supervision of a "master". > > Close a school because it fails to educate its student body! What a novel > idea! Teachers and administrators having to prove their worth? Astounding! > This is not the failure of the charter system: it is the intended result! > > If your neighborhood gas station charged $4 per gallon for regular unleaded > that you could get elsewhere for $2, how long would it stay in business? > Wouldn't you even feel pleased that for $3, you could afford the super > unleaded at a competitor's pump? And once you became a regular user of super > unleaded, how long would it be before you started looking at other > performance-related issues that affect your decision to keep buying super > unleaded? Isn't that what an educated consumer does? > > If we are in this business to produce an educated student, then we should > follow the example set in higher education: compete for students and > resources (including faculty). > > While it is noble to pursue policies with "the children" in mind, it is > ignoble to keep producing students bound for remedial reading and writing > classes, adult basic education programs, and adult literacy programs. *We* > in adult education see the results of the current education system. > > Thank you and have a GREAT day. vnj
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:06 EST