Well, the voucher discussion rumbled through the blogosphere this week. If I get the energy later, I’ll provide all the links to the best discussion. Megan and I are scheduled to continue the debate at Pajamas Media. More later.
9 thoughts on “Update on the Voucher Debate”
Comments are closed.
Apt. 11d 
Laura, one aspect of the voucher debate that I’ve never seen touched on: how hard it is to start a new school.
The pro-voucher, “let many flowers bloom” have an unquestioned presupposition that starting a new school just requires some vague impulse on the part of parents.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I can’t find the reference just right now, but I seem to recall that most new schools fail and close within 5 years of opening.
Right now, in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the biggest barriers to new-school formation is lack of suitable space.
The Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education (PEJE) has some excellent resources on starting a new school.
At the moment, NAIS doesn’t have a particular section on starting a new school, but does have a handbook.
LikeLike
Exactly–that’s a good reason to go with successful existing schools and existing models rather than leaning too heavily on charters and start-ups, who are often struggling just to get in enough students, hire good staff, meet payroll, etc. Back in the late 90s, I used to read (I think in Ed Week) about the difficulties of new charters who needed to have kids signed up before they could get state funding and hire teachers and rent buildings. But how do you get the kids if you don’t have any building, teachers, or funding? Plus, the politics of it meant that charter schools got much smaller per child allotment, even though they were dealing with very disadvantaged populations. It’s a miracle any of them have made it. I don’t know how things are in charterland these days, but that was a very rocky period.
LikeLike
great. This is the subject of my rebuttle to MM. Hopefully, PJM will publish it soon.
LikeLike
It may be that school reform has matured to the point where it’s time to move to a franchise model. Already, there are 19 or so Cristo Rey schools (those are the extended-day Catholic schools funded by student corporate internships), and dozens of KIPP schools. In the business world, going with a franchise gives the entrepeneur a certain amount of security, and maybe it’s time for the same in the school reform world (indeed, I think it’s already happening). A franchise model would take a lot of pain out of school-start ups.
LikeLike
how would it do that, amy?
LikeLike
Tapped brings an example, with a referendum being voted on today in Utah. Short version: 5400 students expected to want to use vouchers in first year — there are 4000 probable slots available; vouchers to provide $500 to $3000 — typical tuition costs closer to $8000, with per-pupil spending in public school just over $5000.
This is not a proposal that is going to improve bad schools or help out the less fortunate. Though for the sponsors of the referendum, those may be features not bugs.
LikeLike
trishka,
1. It’s easier to get people to come to Starbucks than Trishka’s coffee. Starbucks has a name, and so does KIPP.
2. There’s training and a model to follow, so there are a lot of expensive mistakes you don’t have to make yourself. You can put in a call to the central office for help when you are having trouble with something, but enjoy a lot of freedom in the day to day running of the business (hiring, firing, etc.). The franchise (with its combination of freedom and central support) has been a hugely successful model. I know a lot of people must bristle at the term and the comparison of education to food service, but it is apt in at least one point: independent restaurants, just like independent schools, are very hard to keep going, and not infrequently fail.
3. It is important for there to be more competition for parents and children. With a franchise model, you get the benefits of competition between different models without each individual school being all alone, suffering the full weight of every mistake and every bump in the road alone.
4. Arguably, the public school system is a franchise with the following features: high demand for credentials, high job security (past the early years), moderate pay, no reward for high performance, high stress, low autonomy, low sensitivity to customer need, etc. That is not a winning combination, and it would be worthwhile to experiment with that recipe and tweak it a bit.
LikeLike
It just occurred to me that it’s worth paying attention to the distinction between the lower grades and high school. In even the smallest public high school, there are dozens of classes and a multitude of teachers to choose between. A family has real leeway there to make real decisions to customize a child’s education. In the lower grades, there just aren’t that many choices available to families. I realize that the lower grades do require that children acquire a certain store of knowledge in an organized manner, so it wouldn’t be practical to provide much choice at that level. However, it seems to me that this is actually an argument for maximizing choice of school at the elementary level (since there is so little choice inside each individual school), while letting public high schools continue to offer a vast array of courses and choices. (I know Montgomery County, MD has a number of foreign-language themed elementary schools.)
LikeLike
The Utah measure was rejected by the voters.
LikeLike