Karen Francisco, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an article entitled Back in session: Indiana’s education brain trust. You know which way she’s going to run with this when she says:
Lawmakers are education experts, of course – they all went to school and know precisely how schools should be run.
This is maybe a corollary of Parkinson’s Law of Triviality which states, that the volume of discussion on a subject goes up as the technical difficulty goes down. The technical difficulty of good education policy is likely fairly high. But, everyone has an opinion on the classes they sat through as a kid.
Ms. Francisco highlights SB 184 which would continue to erode limits for voucher demands on public money. It provides that “a sibling of a student who is receiving a choice scholarship is eligible to receive a choice scholarship without first attending two semesters in a public school or receiving a scholarship from a scholarship granting organization.”
The ostensible reason for these vouchers is to create choices for people stuck in public schools. But, this continues the trend of providing a subsidy to those who weren’t stuck in public schools but, rather, simply want a subsidy for a choice they could already afford (and were already affording.)
The column also highlights SB 193 which would exempt Indiana from the Common Core State Standards, SB 189 which would exempt high performing districts from certain requirements – measures designed to undermine urban schools are apparently having some unintended spill over into wealthier, suburban schools.
Wow this writer doesn’t get it. The second to last paragraph highlights that she has no concept of what it costs to put a child thru a private school. They don’t want a subsidy, they want the money that is taken from them in taxes. If their child is not going to a public school then why should their tax dollars go there?????
We tax people the same for schools regardless of whether they have kids. The tax is for support of the public schools, not an entitlement for parents of students – regardless of how many question marks you use.
Teutonic doesn’t get it. Article 8 of the Indiana Constitution calls for the General Assembly to “provide for a general and uniform system of Common schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all.” The founders clearly never intended to hand a subsidy over to parents and allow them to choose schools that won’t accept all students.
Do you also believe the money “taken” from you in taxes should go only to the roads you drive on?
Ms Francisco – one plus, three minuses:
Plus: The constitutional reference is a great point in favor of your argument. It’s refreshing to see any writer reference the constitution. It would be more refreshing if the General Assembly (Kruse, e.g.) understood the document.
Minus #1: One way to achieve the Common school requirement while allowing vouchers, is to include any schooling funded by the state, whether it be in a government-owned school or a private one, as part of the Common “system”. You might counter that if a state voucher lets a kid attend Cathedral, and not all kids can attend Cathedral, that this violates the “open to all” mandate. Yet the current public school system fails (IMO) to meet the “open to all” mandate in three ways:
a) Public school populations are based on geography. Hypothetical example: A family a block west of Arlington High School, and would like their child to attend that school because it’s so close; the child however must attend Lawrence Central because that’s how the district lines are drawn.
b) IPS magnet schools iirc have admittance standards or tests.
c) A blind student is not permitted to attend their district’s school.
Minus #2: The current system you defend does not meet the constitutional mandate for a “uniform system”. Facilities in IPS are much less fancy than suburban schools – examples include swimming pools and air-conditioning. This is due entirely to racism.
Minus #3: Defenders of public schools are infinitely patient with performance of systems like IPS, of which I am a product. But the % of Arlington students who passed both parts of ISTEP is 20%. The state “system” simply does not work unless all students and their parents care about education. Children in IPS schools are no different intellectually from children in Carmel schools, but in the IPS district many children are not able to look ahead to a future in which education, as defined by the state, is important. In other words a poor black kid living around 25th and Sherman, who daily deals with gangs, crime, and poverty, is less likely to be interested in learning algebra. This kid’s outlook is absolutely rational; it is the state system of education that presupposes a universal interest in studying subjects that have little application in the student’s ‘real world’.
Just out of curiosity where in Article 8 does it say I have to pay for that school with my property tax. I see tax on corporation property listed. I see land that has gone to state hands because there are no heirs and or express purpose granted. Just not seeing where it says my property tax.
I understand where my property tax dollars go. Well most of them, not sure what the Special unit is tho?
Sorry, Bub, you don’t get to choose where your tax money goes.
The ostensible reason for these vouchers is to create choices for people stuck in public schools.
We’re just about done with the ostensible reasons for “school reform”, I think. To be replaced, as here, with moves to normalize the anti-union, anti-public education gains made in the past few years.
Was there really ever any question that the calls for a more nuanced response to high-stakes testing would begin as soon as Charter Schools, Inc. got its hands on Indianapolis and Gary schools? Or that “accountability” was going to come to a screeching halt once it reached suburban and rural districts, whose voters merely wanted to reform inner-city schools? The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting public schools with a higher and higher percentage of students with language, learning, and behavior challenges, and less money to deal with them. And, as the Good Book says, it still is news.
By the way, thanks, Ms Francisco, for quoting the Indiana Constitution on education equality, since that’s notably absent from the debate.
My wife was just telling me about a policy, apparently somewhere in France, where teachers were not permitted to assign homework as this put students at a disadvantage if they came from families with parents who didn’t give a shit. (I’m paraphrasing).
Instead, I think she said, they expanded the hours of school and required extracurriculars, homework, and the like to be accomplished during the extra hours.
That’s a step too far for me; but I guess I take the point. Children of parents with more concern — or, maybe more to the point, more time — are typically going to do better than children of parents who either don’t care or who are overextended trying to make ends meet to provide necessities.
I generally enjoy Francisco’s editorial writing. I live in the area of her readership, and my children attend public schools in a rural/suburban district that is good/not great. Uniform education is a good goal, as well as a constitutional requirement. But it’s also just not attainable. As Doug and others have noted, so much of a child’s education depends upon parental involvement, and, to an equal extent (at least once you get to high school and beyond) how much effort the child herself puts into it.
So what you look for, I suppose, is at least providing equal opportunity for success. Which, again, sounds great but is difficult in practice. Anyway, I admit to being confused, given my spot within certain demographics: should I view charter schools as Gene does — an alternative for a kid who would not get an equal opportunity within the IPS — or as some means of undermining the public school system? I’ll also admit to being ignorant/naive about the argument that a charter or private school undermines the public school system. And for what it is worth, the taxpayer issue is a non-issue for me; I’d be willing to shoulder more taxes to be used for education, and not just the education of my own kids.