Winter weather photos
Madison vs. Waynesville
A look at WHIO Radio
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > September > 25 > Entry
Can Dayton pull off the “big promise?”
After studying the Kalamazoo Promise for a week, I can tell you this much:
—It’s a fascinating experiment, a great idea and, so far, already a remarkable success in many ways.
—It’s going to be a great challenge for Dayton to match its success.
The tough question for the community, and for the wealthy individuals and foundations who might fund the program, is whether the potential benefits would be worth the significant costs.
Some questions that might help them work through it:
—What is the goal?
The mere fact that the Dayton Promise is being pushed by an anti-sprawl group signals that this is as much about issues of economy and development as it is about education.
The economic dimension is important in Kalamazoo, too. Their plan has attracting smart people to move to Kalamazoo as a primary goal. Scholarships for their kids are the bait.
If Dayton also wants this — and from the initial meeting I attended it was clear the proponents of this idea do — they may have to ask themselves hard questions about whether the proposal on the table right now is enough. One import to Kalamazoo quoted in my story today says Dayton’s plan likely would not have attracted her to move the way the Michigan plan did.
If the program doesn’t motivate people to move here, is it still worth doing?
—How can the program be held to a manageable size?
Kalamazoo is about half the size of Dayton and it’s school district is about a third smaller than Dayton Public Schools. The scholarships there are available only to graduates of the public school system.
Dayton proposes a program open to all city residents who graduate high school, no matter whether they go to public or private school, in the city or not. That scope is well beyond what they’re doing in Michigan. It could mean Dayton’s Promise could have up to twice as many kids as the Kalamazoo Promise.
—What will the costs be?
Kalamazoo is estimating its costs at $10 to $12 million a year when it is up to full speed. Those are huge numbers. For a self-sustaining program, it may need as much as a quarter billion dollar endowment.
If Dayton’s program is significantly bigger, as the proposal seems to suggest, its costs could be even higher, even with the more limited scholarship amounts.
I’m guessing the expanded eligibility is designed to make the program more attractive to powerful potential funders who support charter and private schools.
Supposedly, Kalamazoo has three billionaires backing its plan. Dayton doesn’t have that much philanthropic firepower, but it does have a lot of well-heeled potential donors to call on. Keeping them all happy may require fancy footwork.
Will the eligible schools currently planned be enough?
Do all Ohio state universities have to be in the program to make is a real draw, the kind that might actually improve the economic fortunes of the city? Does Ohio State, Ohio’s biggest and best college, have to be one of the options? Should Miami University, a top state school less than an hour away, be included?
How all these questions are answered may very well determine the success or failure of any Dayton Promise.
Make yourself an unofficial adviser to the project. How would you tell the proponents of this idea in Dayton they should craft the program to give it the best chance to work?
Permalink | Comments (7) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools, Urban School Issues
Comments
By Rick
September 27, 2006 6:53 PM | Link to this
Mark, why would you discriminate against those Dayton residents who homeschool or send their kids to private schools? Don’t they pay taxes? Frankly I would oppose a program that was restricted to public schools only.By Oldprof
September 27, 2006 9:08 AM | Link to this
Chris, I suffer from antiquated delusions that, as Americans, we must all hang together or we will all hang separately. The program is unfair in my view because the child who, through no personal choice, lives just over the border in the Trotwood district doesn’t get the same benefit as her Dayton-district playmate. Why don’t all children in the nation—or at least all children mired in a low-performing school district—qualify for this sort of support? Moreover—as the editorial in DDN today points out—it’s really no substitute for government programs to promote the common good. Overall, I think we’re better off as a state and as a nation if we provide all people with a consistent basic level of educational opportunities, just as I am certain we’d be better off if governments had to set tax rates based on criteria, rather than extending cozy individual tax cuts in the false hope of luring businesses in. Make the rules precisely the same for everyone, and then we’ve got a level playing field; give everyone a solid degree of public support, and we’ll all prosper. Thanks for asking.By Chris
September 27, 2006 8:28 AM | Link to this
Old Prof, explain how the essential character of a program that offers a scholarship to every kid who graduates high school in the Dayton is bias. As the paper states, as long as you graduate from any school, live in the Dayton area, and make it into college, you receive the scholarship. Sounds pretty fair to me. Watered down from Kalamazoo, but fair.By Oldprof
September 26, 2006 11:15 PM | Link to this
Ohio State is the “best” higher education institution in the state? ha ha ha, ha ha ha, ummmmm…. About this scholarship program, my thought is that it’s good for Dayton but inherently unfair; every child ought to have an equal opportunity to grow through education. This is a private program that can be administered with favoritism (e.g., bias).By Chris
September 25, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
the main goal to the Promise initiative is to spur economic and residential growth in Dayton. The main question is if $5000 per year going to attract new businesses or residents to the city core? my hunch is no. Also, a big question is if the school systems (charter and public both) can produce quality graduates that will succeed in college?By Mark1152
September 25, 2006 9:06 AM | Link to this
The Dayton Promise should be limited to students in the public schools only. I like choice, but the public school should be the foundation for education excellence in the city. It would also keep the costs more manageable. Concerning which university or college a student could choose from, I think the program should include all Ohio universities and colleges; however, there should be a limit as to how much the program would actually pay. It’s good to emphasize for marketing purposes that the program will fully fund the tuition to certain schools; but if the student chooses a higher cost school, he/she should be free to do so but be aware that the Promise program would cover only so much of the tuition, not the whole thing. Concerning the funding for the program, I think this could become a community contribution project. Sure, the people with deep pockets should be the primary focus, but if every citizen in the region (not just in Dayton) had a chance to contribute something, I think this would generate community pride as well as be an attraction to outsiders that this community really cares about its children’s future.By Mary
September 25, 2006 7:40 AM | Link to this
As I mentioned previously, I think programs such as this could stoke the fires of runaway college costs. A more responsible approach might be to work with other groups to investigate and establish accountability of costs for a college education while assisting individual students. Otherwise, it sounds like another irresponsible, feel good, civic, marketing gimmick. Where are the smarts instead of the “bling”?