the suggestion that DC vouchers were not democratically created because they affected DC and DC does not have a vote in Congress wouldn’t just call into question the legitimacy of DC vouchers. All federal laws affecting DC would be undemocratic by this standard. This would include NCLB and other federal education legislation that Kevin praises charter schools for more strictly obeying.Well, yeah. The "taxation" in the "Taxation Without Representation" on DC license plates refers to the taxes Congress has imposed on the entire nation, including DC. Those laws, as they apply to DC, are undemocratic. But surely Jay sees the distinction between members of Congress imposing a law on everyone, including their own constituents, who can then respond at the ballot box if they're unhapy, and Congress imposing a law only on DC, the one place in America without representation in Congress. Think of it this way: a few weeks ago the DC City Council passed a law recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. How would the residents of Fayetteville, Arkansas feel if the DC council were also allowed to impose that law on them?
On the other hand, I have to admit that Jay is entirely right about this:
But I continue to be puzzled by the argument that vouchers are bad because they are less accountable than charters. Whatever regulation you believe is desirable for schools could be applied to vouchers as well as to charters.
True! I am willing to state, now and for the record, that if currently unaccountable voucher schools were, at some future point, held accountable in the same manner as charters, they would be accountable in the same manner as charters. Really, there's no escaping this sort of iron logic.
3 comments:
The notion that vouchers were "imposed" on DC, as if people there didn't want vouchers, is a bit bizarre. "Rewarded" would be more like it.
I am surprised at the lack of data used in the discussion surrounding school accountability, whether it is charter school accountability or private school accountability.
A discussion of what kind of accountability already exists for private schools that accept vouchers is rare. Rarer still is a discussion of whether or not accountability is a priori good or whether it has any causal relationship to results in charter and private schools.
Regarding accountability on private schools that accept vouchers there is a widespread myth that they are unaccountable and or unregulated. Nothing could be further from the truth. American private schools are subject to a "wide variety of laws and regulations that run the gamut from reasonable rules to ensure health and safety to unreasonable rules that interfere with school curricula." (see link below for report)
A quick review of the facts, which are all too often forgotten in this debate, finds that states like Alabama requires all private school teachers to be licensed. Eighteen states have regulations relating to teacher licensure and private schools. Indiana mandates that all accredited schools take the state test. Sixteen states require some variation of mandated testing for state accredited or non-state accredited private schools, and 10 states impose class size restrictions on private schools.
All of this information, along with all of the state by state regulations on private schools can be found here: http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/research/ShowResearchItem.do?id=10095 and here www.friedmanfoundation.org
I hope these data will help inform this discussion. It certainly couldn't hurt.
Many processes qualify as "democratic". Different processes may yield different results and may all qualify as "democratic". A majority of voters and their elected representatives may decide to leave some decisions to individuals (i.e., next week's lunch menu or, how many times must I chew my next bite of toast?). If voters' (implicit) decision to exempt some decisions from the political process qualifies as "democratic", then so is the choice to live in Washington, DC, under a school system with a limited voucher program "democratic".
Ultimately, "democracy" names a broad class of feedback mechanisms, or it is verbal ju jitsu, rhetorical oneupmanship.
"Accountability" also describes feedback mechanisms. Internal accountability mechanisms fail, for reasons described by Chubb and Moe in __What Price Democracy? Politics, Markets, and America's Schools__ (the title was later shortened by dropping the significant question), and, in abstract, by Roger Axelrod in __The Evolution of Cooperation__. "Regulatory capture" economists call it.
The most effective accountability mechanism humans have yet devised is a policy which gives unhappy customers the power to take their business elsewhere.
Post a Comment