
Special thanks to Blugrass Policy Blog for directing me to this piece at the Wall Street Journal. It highlights the strength of McCain’s general philosophy on education which is choice. School choice remains the most effective means of education reform and without the influence of teacher’s unions conservatives have developed the best position.
The profound failure of inner-city public schools to teach children may be the nation’s greatest scandal. The differences between the two Presidential candidates on this could hardly be more stark. John McCain is calling for alternatives to the system; Barack Obama wants the kids to stay within that system. We think the facts support Senator McCain.
…
Mr. McCain cited the Washington, D.C., Opportunity Scholarship Program, a federally financed school-choice program for disadvantaged kids signed into law by President Bush in 2004. Qualifying families in the District of Columbia receive up to $7,500 a year to attend private K-12 schools. To qualify, a child must live in a family with a household income below 185% of the poverty level. Some 1,900 children participate; 99% are black or Hispanic. Average annual income is just over $22,000 for a family of four.
A recent Department of Education report found nearly 90% of participants in the D.C. program have higher reading scores than peers who didn’t receive a scholarship. There are five applicants for every opening.
Mr. McCain could have mentioned EdisonLearning, a private company that took over 20 of Philadelphia’s 45 lowest performing district schools in 2002 to create a new management model for public schools. The most recent state test-score data show that student performance at Philadelphia public schools managed by Edison and other outside providers has improved by nearly twice the amount as the schools run by the district.
The number of students performing at grade level or higher in reading at the schools managed by private providers increased by 6.1% overall compared to 3.3% in district-managed schools. In math, the results for Edison and other outside managers was 4.6% and 6.0%, respectively, compared to 3.1% in the district-run schools.
The facts presented by Wall Street Journal favor a break from the old model that does not work. These figures seem to echo what many eduication experts have known for years. Still, it is disappointing that Democrats remain entrenched on their position.
On recent evidence, the Democrat Party’s policy on these alternatives is simply massive opposition.
Congressional Democrats have refused to reauthorize the D.C. voucher program and are threatening to kill it. Last month, Philadelphia’s school reform commission voted to seize six schools from outside managers, including four from Edison. In L.A., local school board members oppose the expansion of charters even though seven in 10 charters in the district outperform their neighborhood peers.
It’s well known that the force calling the Democratic tune here is the teachers unions. Earlier this month, Senator Obama accepted the endorsement of the National Education Association, the largest teachers union. Speaking recently before the American Federation of Teachers, he described the alternative efforts as “tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice.”
Mr. Obama told an interviewer recently that he opposes school choice because, “although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you’re going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom.” The Illinois Senator has it exactly backward. Those at the top don’t need voucher programs and they already exercise school choice. They can afford exclusive private schools, or they can afford to live in a neighborhood with decent public schools. The point of providing educational options is to extend this freedom to the “kids at the bottom.”
It is ironic though that Obama does not take his own advice. His children attend private schools in Chicago with a tuition range of $15,528 for kindergarten to $20,445 for high school. It seems that while he asks parents of public school children to tough it out in failing schools, he himself has opted for his own version of ‘choice’.

2 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 11, 2008 at 8:02 am
Charles John
I agree with Obama, school choice in FLorida, is actually hurting the children at the bottom. Although children in failing schools can go to other schools (free in FL for public schools), the parents don’t have transportation to get them there. If the school continues to be an “F” school, it is then converted into a magnet school. The magnet school allows for better education, but since it is a lottery system, a lot of the kids that were attending that school will not be able to attend.
I think that teachers should get higher pay and more resources to properly educate children. My wife is a teacher and has to spend money out of her pocket to fill a treasure box, to use as an incentive for kids to behave. This enables her to properly educate the kids that are already being obebient. She also has to spend money out of her already low salary to decorate the room so that the children have a comforting environment to study in. If that isn’t bad enough, she has to eat her lunch at her desk because, that is the time dedicated for lesson plans.
After all of that, she gets a tax credit of $250.00 from the Internal Revenue Services.
The focus should be higher pay and more resources. My wife is the school math specialist, coordinator of the SAC program, and second grade teacher. She gets no extra pay to stay late and is coompletely dained at the end of the day.
Thank you
August 11, 2008 at 8:26 am
Progressive Conservative
I think that teachers should get higher pay and more resources to properly educate children. My wife is a teacher and has to spend money out of her pocket to fill a treasure box, to use as an incentive for kids to behave. This enables her to properly educate the kids that are already being obebient. She also has to spend money out of her already low salary to decorate the room so that the children have a comforting environment to study in. If that isn’t bad enough, she has to eat her lunch at her desk because, that is the time dedicated for lesson plans.
I think it’s disapointing that the problematic children can’t be dealt with without bribes. A free solution might be to switch the incentive to behave from positive to negative, or to remove the children from the classroom when necessary. Or sending a note home. That may be an issue of school policy.
Many educators have suggested that throwing money at schools will eventually solve the problem. This has been disproven many times over. The critical elements to a school success are a positive relationship between student, parents and schools. The best way to foster this attitude that I have heard recently is to re-align schools along economic levels. All studies show that kids whose parents are in better shape economically and/or have a higher education level do better, regardless of the school’s budget or the salary of the teachers.
On the subject of pay…If your wife’s salary was doubled, would she teach better?