DCist: Schools Roundup: Heads in the Sand Edition

OldPosterKnownAsCranky

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:39:39 -0500

But Rachel, here's the key issue: Is less than 2 years sufficient to make a final determination as to the program's effectiveness? We're one year into the Rhee chancellorship. Have test scores improved? Nope. If this time next year test scores have still not improved, is that sufficient time to pull the plug on the whole thing? And here's another key thing: My understanding is that vouchers are paid with federal appropriations, meaning there's no cost to DC taxpayers. Free money! Is the anti-voucher group's hope that that federal money will simply be re-routed into the $1B entity that is DCPS? So, my view is that if we're getting free money for this, that kills the argument that this is "costing" DCPS money. Plus, I don't think there's been enough time to really gauge this program's effectiveness. Finally, all the parents I have seen quoted discussing the program absolutely love that it takes their kids out of DCPS. The fact that far more people are applying for vouchers than there are available vouchers shows the continuing strong support for these among poor families who are sick and tired about being sick and tired of DCPS sucking and failing their kids. I see Norton's goal of killing the voucher program as nothing more than her sucking up to the teacher's unions that hate these types of programs for the same reason many hate charter schools - they lose their monopoly on public education and have to share suckling at the taxpayer teat. I really hope Norton hears an earful from District residents that will be screwed by the ending of this program. Not that she will really care since she's delegate-for-life Norton.

Reid

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:32:14 -0500

Personally, I think Norton shouldn't be against the vouchers for the simple reason that if the program is revoked, there'd be 1,900 more kids in the DCPS without a cent more in money. The vouchers were always "found money", they never took a cent away from the DCPS budget. All they do is lower the costs. Even people against the vouchers admit that what they really want is more kids in the DCPS. With Rhee finally closing unnecessary schools, the unions see this as a last chance at forcing the DCPS to remain bloated.

Rachael Brown

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:05:09 -0500

Old Poster - good points re: factors influencing the achievement gap. However, on vouchers, my understanding is that the parents who were polled about vouchers were either people who had received the vouchers or people who had applied for vouchers and not received them (who made up the study's control group). So naturally the parents who got vouchers were happier than those who had also wanted them and weren't chosen. That being said, I'm not sure that what parents want should necessarily trump what data shows about student achievement. Others may disagree, but it doesn't strike me as a balanced situation to say, on one hand, there's no real growth for the students, but on the other hand, parents like it. As Rhee said above, it's not about making adults happy. It's about making sure kids learn. Here's a link to the Post editorial supporting the program, for those who are interested, and this is Norton's response.

OldPosterKnownAsCranky

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:22:24 -0500

Also, while I empathize with the high school kids seeing that data that showed how badly they did, why were they shocked? Had they missed the never-ending drumbeat of news on how badly DCPS does? The quoted student is right - if they went to an actually functional school, their academic deficiencies would be recognized, acknowledged and dealt with. Instead, with DCPS they just keep on advancing up the grade levels and graduate while being functionally illiterate. The other student asks why they are so far behind. It's a combination of things: generational poverty, delinquent parents, peer pressure, pathetic teaching environment, no academic support system, and a political environment that for decades was content with the status quo.

OldPosterKnownAsCranky

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:18:48 -0500

The Post also had an editorial slamming Norton's efforts to kill the voucher program. I don't know what to make of the Dept of Ed stats - on the one hand, there's been no huge improvement, although there has been improvements in subgroups; on the other hand, the program has been in effect for about 2 years and is wildly popular with parents. The teachers union hates vouchers, but parents love them (and 99% of recipients are black or Hispanic). Catholic schools obviously have a self-interest in supporting vouchers since the majority of recipients attend Catholic schools. But again, parents love the program and demand far outweighs supply. I take offense with Norton's snide remark that the parents are all befuddled and that's why they support vouchers. That's pretty douchey of her.

angrypenguin

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:31:09 -0500

Man. That PDF contains some stuff.* Impressive, considering how much of it had to be learn-by-doing and how much was just dealing with legacy issues. *Stuff /= garbage. Please, I don't need Gary the No Trash Cougar pointing a gun at my head until I recycle the pdf.

monkeyrotica

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:25:00 -0500

That's one scary goddamned mascot. I'd give anything for Gary the No Trash Cougar to show up with a gun, yelling "Give a larbage! Throw out your garbage!"

IMGoph

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:22:48 -0500

can we please, please, please keep al sharpton away from dc schools. that's all i want for christmas—i'll even give you my two front teeth