![[Critical Mass]](/archives/cmlogo.gif)
![[dot]](/archives/cmdot.gif){kind=small}
February 9, 2010
![[feather]](/archives/feather.gif){kind=small}
Doing what works
A staff editorial from Sunday's Wall Street Journal:
President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget calls for a 9% increase in federal education spending, and he has famously said that the money should go to "what works" in education. So he ought to take another look at Milwaukee, where the nation's oldest and largest publicly funded school voucher program is showing academic gains.A report released last week by School Choice Wisconsin, an advocacy group, finds that between 2003 and 2008 students in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program had a significantly higher graduation rate than students in Milwaukee Public Schools.
"Had MPS graduation rates equalled those for MPCP students in the classes of 2003 through 2008, the number of MPS graduates would have been about 18 percent higher," writes John Robert Warren of the University of Minnesota. "That higher rate would have resulted in 3,352 more MPS graduates during the 2003-2008 years."
In 2008 the graduation rate for voucher students was 77% versus 65% for the nonvoucher students, though the latter receives $14,000 per pupil in taxpayer support, or more than double the $6,400 per pupil that voucher students receive in public funding.
The Milwaukee voucher program serves more than 21,000 children in 111 private schools, so nearly 20% more graduates mean a lot fewer kids destined for failure without the credential of a high school diploma. The finding is all the more significant because students who receive vouchers must, by law, come from low-income families, while their counterparts in public schools come from a broader range of economic backgrounds.
Vouchers are of course taboo among most Democrats, and Mr. Obama has done nothing to stop Congress from killing the small but successful voucher program for poor families in Washington, D.C. The Milwaukee program has survived for 20 years despite ferocious political opposition, and it would have died long ago if parents didn't believe their children were better off for it.
Early challenges to voucher programs were often done using the argument that vouchers pose a problem for the separation of church and state when they are used to send kids to parochial schools. The Supreme Court struck down that argument and upheld the constitutionality of vouchers in 2002. But sometimes it seems as if that never happened--many of the arguments I see against vouchers are about exactly the issues that the Court settled eight years ago.
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1822
Comments:
The Supreme Court struck down that argument and upheld the constitutionality of vouchers in 2002.
When did a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court settle anything? (See "Campaign Finance.") Rather than deferring to the Supreme Court (which generally only works when your audience agrees with the Court's decisions), it might be more fruitful to think about the complex political and policy issues involved in shifting funding from public to religious schools. Interestingly, in a country as secular as France (no less), public funds go *directly* to religious (and other private) schools. Now, this comes with some strings attached: the schools teach a national curriculum, are open to students of all faiths, and catechism is voluntary. In other words, there is a kind of *social pact*, involving a delicate balance of interests and priorities. It would be interesting to explore whether something like this would be possible in the US. I have my doubts. But I also have my doubts regarding opening the floodgates to funding religious schools with taxpayer money without any considerations of how to create a new consensual notion of the "public good."
Peter -- whether you like it or not, Supreme Court decisions do establish the law of the land. Noting that fact is not an anti-intellectual exercise as you suggest, but rather an exercise in pointing out the obvious to people who are participating in the school choice debate without being properly informed about it. That said, I agree that we should still think long and hard about the "how" of public money going into religious schools. For what it's worth, the parochial schools I've visited in DC--all of which were kept afloat by the voucher program, and some of which are now closing as the program is phased out--are open to students of all faiths and don't force the catechism or prayer on anyone. I've asked non-Catholic parents and kids whether the Catholic dimensions of the school are an issue for them--and they have all said no, that they don't feel they are being indoctrinated, and that what they value is the strong curriculum combined with emphasis on order, manners, rules, etc -- all the things that the public schools aren't enforcing, and that make them chaotic.
For more comparing and contrasting, there is the example of Sweden: http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/03/15/opinion/1194838660912/op-ed-swedens-choice.html?scp=1&sq=sweden%20school%20choice&st=cse
Erin,
I agree that the Supreme Court has the final say on the interpretation of the law of the land. Just because the current interpretation of the constitution allows for something, however, doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider its implications. Given how close the decision was, moreover, it seems normal that the question of the separation of church and state (or rather the question of establishment) should remain part of the debate. Supreme court decisions on abortion, campaign financing, and voting rights, have not put an end to debate on these questions, nor should they.
Peter -- I agree, as I acknowledged in my earlier comment.
