...vouchers aren’t really accountable because even though they were democratically created, subject to oversight and renewal within 5 years of creation, and mandated (unlike charters) to participate in a rigorous random-assignment evaluation, they don’t have the word “public” in them.I'm sorry, but democratically created? Really? This is how Jay chooses to describe the voucher program that was imposed on D.C. by Congress, that passed the U.S. House of Representatives by exactly one vote, i.e. the one vote that we don't have?
And let's dispense with idea that charters and vouchers are on any kind of equal footing in terms of accountability. Charter schools can be shut down by the D.C. charter board for low performance, and a number of them have. Charters schools have to administer a panoply of D.C. state tests and are subject to labels and consequences under NCLB, just like regular public schools. Private schools taking public money through voucher programs, by contrast, have always assiduously avoided being subject to same level of public scrutiny imposed on public schools, in D.C. and elsewhere. In addition to overall marginal results, the evaluation Jay cites doesn't include results by school. It doesn't even include the names of the schools.
Vouchers are a simplistic, unworkable version of a perfectly reasonable idea: giving parents educational choices and opening up public education to competition and innovation will improve outcomes for students. Over time it's become clear that those goals are best accomplished in the context of non-profit organizations working under a regulatory regime that leaves sufficient room for innovation and new entrants while maintaining accountability for results and controlling who gets to participate--i.e. charter schools. There's just no evidence that a freewheeling private sector approach will work, either in terms of response or outcomes--see Edison Schools, R.I.P. Why people like Greene continue to beat the drums for an obsolete policy idea is beyond me.
1 comment:
See Jay Greene's response here: http://jaypgreene.com/2009/05/14/the-negative-de-sarcasticizer/
I'd also point out that it is untrue to suggest that there's "just no evidence" that vouchers work in terms of outcomes. As the recent DC study shows, confirming several previous random assignment studies, vouchers do work -- they benefit at least some students and harm no one. Indeed, there are more voucher studies showing positive effects than there are charter studies, which means that if you're concerned about "evidence" of "outcomes," you should support vouchers over charters, not the other way around.
Post a Comment