People's Choice nominees
Christmas Shop closing
Rally for jobs held in Dayton
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > June > 13 > Entry
Voucher spin vs. reality
There’s an interesting contrast in today’s the Dayton Daily News between the political spin and the on-the-street reality on the issue of vouchers. And I enjoyed how one genuine parent voice brought some real clarity to the question of whether Ohio’s statewide voucher program is off to a great start or a disappointing start.
My stories in today’s paper focused on the sparse number of applicants for the statewide voucher program, which launches this fall.
Even after House Speaker Jon Husted, R-Kettering, pushed through expanded rules that in March more than doubled the number of eligible kids to 46,000, the final tally was just over 2,500 applicants for 14,000 vouchers.
The first pro-voucher response I got was an email from the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation in Indianapolis. Milton Friedman, the famous economist, first proposed the idea of school vouchers and his foundation is the strongest voice advocating the concept nationwide.
The Friedman folks helpfully sent some talking points out to Ohio’s pro-voucher crowd with a rebuttal to any media suggestion that the 5.5 percent initial participation in the voucher program is a small number. The group ran a list of other programs and showed initial participation was:
- 0.7 percent in Milwaukee
- 0.3 percent for Florida McKay scholarships
- 1.7 percent in Washington, D.C.
- And even smaller in less similar tax credit programs in other states
A short time later, I got an email from The Buckeye Institute in Columbus pointing to an opinion column by its education policy director Matthew Carr, which had taken Friedman’s comparisons and turned Ohio’s low participation into a media conspiracy. Here’s an excerpt:
During the last few weeks, newspapers across the state have been writing up the enrollment tally as “only� or “just� so many takers of the 14,000 vouchers made available by this program. The use of such pejoratives is both misleading and inappropriate.
Still reporting for today’s story, I spoke to Jon Husted, the chief voucher proponent in the legislature. Husted had also clearly read Friedman’s talking points, echoing the same themes. Husted said participation was not bad, although he quickly noted a second enrollment period had been established over the summer. He argued that the program would grow as more parents learned about vouchers and even hinted the program could be HELPED by smaller numbers, saying:
“One of the failures of some charters schools was they grew too fast.”
Finally, though, I reached Jana Moody, a Dayton parent I had talked to over several months who very much wants to apply for a voucher. Moody’s kids already attend private schools. Moody said she made a huge financial sacrifice to send her kids to private schools because she was dissatisfied with the public schools.
Moody helped organize other private school parents who called lawmakers and advocated for expanding the voucher rules so those who already made the tough call to shell out for private schools could also apply. That effort failed despite support from Husted, who said there simply wasn’t support in Columbus for going that far with vouchers.
What was Moody’s view of the 5.5 percent participation in the voucher program?
She said when she heard the news it made her feel sick. She was shocked at how low the number was and was certain all or most of the vouchers would have been used if parents who already made the leap to private schools had been allowed to apply.
Already this morning I’ve received three emails from other local parents echoing her comments.
So is the voucher participation low? As someone who tracked the issue pretty closely for the past year, I thought it would be much higher.
But the program was hampered by several factors:
- First, the rules changed in the middle of the game when lawmakers expanded eligibility in March. So for months, parents had one message about eligibility only to get another message later on.
- Second, the rules are complicated and don’t make it very easy for parents. To apply for a voucher, a student must first apply and be accepted to a private school (which means paying application fees, etc.) and then the SCHOOL must submit the actual voucher application. It’s not a simple process.
- Third, I think Husted and others are probably right that it will take time for people to really understand the program and learn the ropes of applying.
But there’s no doubt 5.5 percent participation and as much as 11,000 unused vouchers has to be a disappointment for those favoring this reform.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: Charter Schools and School Choice, My Favorite Posts
Comments
By Oldprof
June 15, 2006 9:30 AM | Link to this
Mary, the voucher complaints came from parents whose kids go to private schools. Charter students don’t need vouchers; charters don’t charge tuition, they run on state subsidy (inadequate in any case). And if tax dollars are given to any school, by grants or vouchers or any means, then the legislature and the state boards get to control that school’s curriculum according to our finest American standards. One huge problem with charters was not enough oversight—maybe it still is a problem, time will tell. But overall, most parents don’t have the time nor knowledge to make informed decisions among all these options, so what are the options for, really?By Mary
June 14, 2006 7:15 PM | Link to this
So why can’t the private school parents quickly reapply to public school, then quickly reapply for vouchers. Also how was word passed on to parents about the availability of the vouchers. So many times, things like this including PSEO, are supposed to be explained or passed on by the schools that have subtle and not so subtle ways to suppress the information. Old prof’s definition of public school system needs to be more open minded. Charters are now part of the public school system by some definitions.By Jeffrey J. Mims, Jr.
June 14, 2006 8:18 AM | Link to this
The Ohio constitution supports a thorough and efficient system of common (public), schools and a high-quality set of education opportunities for all students. Charter schools, vouchers, more unfunded standards, and excessive testing are diversions from Ohio’s unconstitutional school funding system. These diversions are cruel and confusing to parents and students. Further, they drain already limited dollars away from the constitutionally-mandated system of education.By Oldprof
June 13, 2006 11:11 PM | Link to this
Friedman is another reason that economics is called “the dismal science”. We may be better off if educators did economic theory rather than vice versa. Higher education has had vouchers (commonly known as Pell Grants) for decades now, and they’ve done nothing to improve access, reduce overall costs, or encourage competition—in fact, they’re one of the programs most open to abuse by dishonorable profiteers who collect the grant money for tuition and then fail to deliver a quality education. One last thing—if the public is going to pay for a school, then it becomes a public school; I want a voice in what liturgy is taught in those places if they take my tax dollars!