A key next step in education reform is expanding school choice options for parents in the form of tax credits and/or scholarships funds. Minnesota at one point was in the vanguard of education reform. No longer the case. The blob or education establishment has strengthened its grip on government run education.
The latest example of a state moving forward is North Carolina which recently established $4200 scholarships for low and middle income kids. They also passed a number of other reforms designed to make education more accountable and responsible to taxpayers.
Scholarships for children from low- and middle-income families. The Opportunity Scholarship Act
will give students from low- and middle-income families and foster care
the opportunity to receive $4,200 scholarships to attend private
schools of their choice.
A–F school grading. A transparent school grading formula
on an A–F scale based on student achievement and growth will start the
2013–2014 school year. It will also grade high schools on graduation
rates and enrollment in accelerated coursework.
Teacher contract and dismissal language. The budget replaces
existing tenure rules with renewable two-year contracts. Top-performing
teachers will be offered four-year contracts.
Phase-out of certain teacher salary supplements and move toward merit-based pay.
Teachers and instructional personnel will no longer be paid based on
paper credentials such as master’s degrees. The state will also move
toward a merit-based teacher compensation plan, which will evaluate
teachers based on student performance and growth.
Teach for America expansion. Additional funding will be given to Teach for America to expand the size and scope of the program. Total funding will be $6 million.
Here's an interesting poll on Americans believes regarding evolution and God.
A new poll finds that a majority of Americans believe that God played a part in the evolution of humans.
A YouGov survey
shows that 62 percent of Americans believe God helped create humans.
Thirty-seven percent of those believe God created human beings in their
present form within the last 10,000 years while 25 percent believe human
beings evolved from lesser life forms over millions of years but God
guided the process. Only 21 percent believe that God did not play a part
in human evolution.
Seventeen percent of those polled were not sure if God played a part in the existence of humans.
YouGov found that more people favored having creationism taught in schools
than those that opposed.
Forty percent of those polled believe that
intelligent design – the belief that God created the universe – should
be taught in public schools, while 32 percent opposed such teachings.
Twenty-nine percent of Americans were not sure if creationism should be
taught.
The poll also found that those who say God played no part in human
evolution rose from 13 percent in 2004 to 21 percent in 2013, an 8
percent increase.
YouGov surveyed 1,000 people on July 8-9. According to its website,
YouGov is a professional research and consulting organization to help
deliver insight for political and media organizations.
Despite the continued hostility to belief in God in the public school system, a good majority still believe in Him. That He's involved in the creation of mankind. And a plurality think Intelligent Design should be taught in the public schools. I suspect many of the 21 percent who say God played no part in human evolution may still believe in God but somehow think he wasn't involved in evolution. (Not sure how that would work if he's the "supreme being" who created all things, including evolution.)
What's the solution to those who believe God shouldn't be shut out the public schools and those who do? A true, across the board choice in education system. Let parents decide. Not educational officials or judges.
There are perpetual calls for more money for early childhood programs. This year will be no different. However, the looming $4.8 billion budget deficit makes it highly likely they'll get big dollars and in fact will face cuts.
Of course there will be claims that we're putting children at risk and the only way to prevent it is more money for more government programs.
The only problem is this approach is the myopic view that government has the answer for all social ills. If we just spent more money, we'd be able to solve the problems.
Of course, that's what President Johnson said in the 1960s with his War on Poverty and Great Society initiatives. The result forty years later? Trillions of dollars spent and poverty rates aren't much better while the family is in much worse shape -- about one third of children born out of wedlock which usually means without a dad in their lives.
The latest effort to promote early childhood programs is a research study by the Wilder Research study reported on in a Star Tribune story "Kids not ready for kindergarten costs schools $113 million a year." The story assumes that early childhood programs are the answer to youth education problems.
The bias of the story is found in the sub-headline which reads, "A Wilder Research study adds to the argument for more early childhood education." But when you read the story and the summary of the research there's no basis for that assertion. The study says that student drop outs, teacher absentees and turnover, special education needs, teaching English and delinquency problems cost over $100 million a year.
Why is early childhood the answer? Based on a vague assertion from some unnamed research studies saying early childhood programs save money.
In fact, the studies I've seen suggest these early childhood programs don't have lasting effects and can even be harmful. But let's not let the facts get in the way of what we want to do.
Of course, the answer, according to the story, for the $113 million costs is a statewide, two year early childhood program costing $377 million a year for at risk 3 year olds. So let's spend three times the amount addressing a problem with a program which actually doesn't have long lasting benefits and can be harmful to kids.
According to the story writer, "The moral of the story?" is having folks other than schools foot some of the bill. Why have anybody foot the bill if the programs don't deliver and cost three times the problem? Where is logic in this?
Of course guess what the per year cost of the quality two year program for at risk kids is? $13,00 annually. What you have here is a proposal to pay people to babysit and supervise somebody else's children on a part-time basis.
The real culprit and source of the education problem costs is the breakdown of the family and the fraying of the moral fabric in the lives of kids.
What should the state do? First, realize the answer doesn't ultimately reside in government. Government needs to realize it should do no harm and attempts to take over the responsibility for raising children is not the answer. Second, an easy first step is reforming our no fault divorce system which encourages marriage break-up. (This is an issue of justice which the government has a responsibility to promote.) Third, place marriage strengthening as the center piece of all existing government social initiatives. Fourth, empower parents to take responsibility for educating children via school choice initiatives. Fifth, government officials should use their moral bully pulpits to encourage churches and private groups need to pick up the stack in promoting marriage and intact families.
I think these initiatives will have better results and get to the heart of the matter.
The Friedman Foundation has done a number of state surveys, asking parents "What type of school would you select in order to obtain the best education for your child?"
The surveys were done in Oklahoma, Idaho, Tennessee, Nebraska, Illinois and Georgia. Private schools were the choice of about 41 percent of parents. Public schools averaged about 17 percent. Home school 16 percent and charter school 23 percent.
If the market was really able to operate, the educational landscape would be much different with many more kids educated in private schools. At a savings to the taxpayers I would dare say.
Many liberal public officials, including President-elect Obama, have touted the value of public education and toed the teacher's unions' line in opposing private school choice options for poor parents.
The inconsistency, or one might say hypocrisy, of their position is they tout their concern for the less fortunate yet vehemently oppose giving poor, often inner city parents the same opportunities they enjoy -- sending their children to a private school in lieu of a poor performing, unsafe inner city public school. (And of course it should be noted that private school choice can be done in such a way that it will actually save taxpayers money in the long run.)
And their opposition to private school choice is also inconsistent with their redistributionist policies done in the name of spreading the wealth around, albeit except when it comes to helping poor parents choose the best education opportunity for their children, which is often a private school.
Clarence Page, African American, liberal columnist raises the question: will the Obama's place their kids in a private or public school?
Parenting humbles any of us who try it -- even new residents of the White House.
Choosing a new puppy? Ha! The Obamas face a much tougher public relations dilemma: Are they willing to put their school-aged daughters where daddy's political promises have been?
The education world is waiting to see whether Sasha, 7, and Malia, 10, will be sent to private school while their father continues to oppose tax-supported programs that offer a similar choice to less-fortunate parents.
The question of vouchers as an alternative to public schools crosses color lines, but it is particularly appropriate for the nation's first African American president.
Page notes that Michelle Obama's actions after the election give a clue to their intentions; she went to Washington, DC and toured a private Georgetown day school.
The inconsistency of people who argue in favor of public schools, oppose private school choice options for poor parents, and yet send their kids to private schools goes beyond Obama and other liberal elected officials to public school teachers. Now I'm sure not all public school teachers oppose private school choice but I suspect most of them do and the teachers union they belong to clearly does.
Page notes that public school teachers send their kids to private schools in significantly greater numbers than the general public.
Yet teachers unions lead opposition to such alternatives, even though studies like a 2004 Thomas B. Fordham Institute report find big city public school teachers to be more likely than the general population they serve to have their own children in private schools.
In Obama's hometown, Chicago, for example, 38.7 percent of public school teachers sent their children to private schools, the Fordham study found, compared to 22.6 percent of the general public.
In Washington, D.C., 26.8 percent of public school teachers sent their children to private schools, versus 19.8 percent of the public.
I wonder if school choice won't become a bigger issue with Obama in the White House. Hopefully, leaders in the African American community will raise their voices on the importance of giving all parents access to better schools, whether public or private schools.
