The goal of the so-called education reform movement has never been full privatization. This is rent-seeking pure and simple.

If this expands the way its backers envision, the outcome will look a lot like Chile (and Sweden) in that it will be a three-tiered system of elite private schools that do not accept vouchers, private voucher schools that will service the middle classes and high social capital working classes, and an underfunded public system servicing the most vulnerable student populations. It will also be way more segregated than schools already are.*

Religious conservatives will of course love it, because the state will ultimately fund their very poor quality religious schools. Neoliberal fragmentation of the social continues apace...

* Democratic (Third Way) support of charter schools is based on the same flawed, utopian economic logic as voucher programs and will produce the same outcomes of segregation along class and racial/ethnic lines as well as encouraging rent-seeking behavior and the continued fragmentation of the commons.

Don't get me started about the poor quality conservative religious schools. I will never get over all the students that I had when I taught developemental studies courses in community college a few years ago and had to deal with students who had been given A's in those schools and then found themselves in developmental writing and reading classes. And sometimes math also. It was a shock to them and their parents. They didn't know how to write a basic paragraph in some instances. But they sure knew the Bible.

I have kept up indirectly with just a handful of the girls over the years...

I should have said I've kept up with just a handful of the children over the years, namely the only three girls my daughter's age who then attended that small church.

You see, then, that my sample comprised the entirety of girls my daughter's age in that small church.

Which I think you'll agree makes for a more compelling observation on my part.

:-)

A dispatch from Rahm's Chicago:

The Cagle article misses the point. It isn't that public education money "belongs" to parents, as he writes.

Parents are the people closest to the investment in their child's education. Therefore, parents are the authorities best qualified to make a decision about where their child will be educated. Parents are better qualified to make this decision, over school administrative employees who do not live close-up with the child involved.

Trinity School in Oklahoma has helped many families and most likely has prevented a number of suicides or suicide attempts. The former Walker Academy in Knoxville also helped many families in situations where the public schools were not equipped to help an individual child. Unfortunately, Walker closed during the economic downturn.

Please consider this situation from an ethical, not a political, standpoint. Your influence has a huge impact on real individuals -- children, parents, wider communities who deal with suicide and self-esteem issues. This isn't a matter of "siphoning off the 'best and the brightest'". It is a matter of accommodating individuals with realistic, caring support.

(link...)

(link...)

Tom Humphrey: StudentsFirst says voucher bill has 20 House co-sponsors

Excerpt:

The news follows on the heels of a petition delivered this morning by pastors and faith leaders containing over 25,000 signatures in favor of Opportunity Scholarships, as well as yesterday’s poll showing that nearly 60% of registered Tennessee voters support a state school choice law.

For the life of me, this supposed "60%" are not represented among any of the people I know, irrespective of their political party affiliation. I just don't get it.

I said earlier: "I haven't yet read the TN voucher proposal(s) under consideration this session but provided they're like those proposed last session they will require the participating private schools to accept as full payment just the amount the voucher provides."

I still haven't read this year's voucher proposal(s)--there's too much to read everywhere--but I did look up the Nashville Chamber's legislative priorities, including those on education issues.

On school vouchers, this:

Oppose school voucher legislation that does not provide “real choice with accountability;” support school voucher legislation that requires participating students to take the same state‐mandated tests as public school students, provides voucher amounts sufficient to cover the cost of participating schools, and contains additional design elements to ensure successful implementation.

Looks like the Chamber will be pushing for a much higher dollar voucher than Haslam has proposed in the past, then.

Don't know what these "additional design elements" they want might be. Anybody?

LNH scholarships seem to cover all tuition, but also ask parents to comply with specific regulations.

I know more than a few parents whose children have significant issues (esp. autism, but many other issues as well). Many wish that they could enroll their children in schools that could work more closely with their individual needs.

Can Tennessee do what Oklahoma is doing? Why not?

From another link: "The Lindsey Nicole Henry (“LNH”) Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program was first established in 2010, with the passage of House Bill 3393. The program is primarily administered pursuant to the requirements of Title 70, Section 13-101.2. The LNH Scholarship Program was created to provide a scholarship to a private school of choice for students with disabilities. The law allows the parent/legal guardian of a public school student with a disability to exercise their parental option and request to have an LNH Scholarship awarded for their child to enroll in and attend a private school approved by the Oklahoma State Board of Education."

Oklahoma has a list of schools approved to meet special needs, and they appear to have high quality. (If they did not, I'm sure that critics would go after this highly politicized area). The parents and children at Trinity appear satisfied (and the teachers, as well). If they can accomplish this, why can't Tennessee?

(link...)

Colorado has a full array of charter schools to meet specific needs of students with differences. Here is a list: (link...)

I appreciate Tennessee School for the Deaf and its history. I know families who are happy there. Yet, look at Colorado's Rocky Mountain Deaf School in Denver! It is bilingual. Why can't we do this also? Being bilingual at ASL opens a host of opportunities, and is great for families with deaf members who use ASL. (link...)

Most people prefer to live close by their schools. I know I preferred walking distance to our school. That is ideal...but life is not always ideal. If a child has specific needs, needs that may be life-stunting or life-threatening if they are not met promptly, it should be possible to meet both the budget and the needs, surely. Before special education was available in public schools (back in the early 1960s) I remember attending a small Roman Catholic school which included another child who dealt with cerebral palsy. He needed his wheelchair, ramps, and extra time for various activities. Everyone managed... and that place ran on a shoestring budget! There were also several children with other issues.

This is do-able. Other states are managing to meet individual needs successfully. Why should Tennessee be unable to match them in goals and successes?

That link shows that Colorado has lots of charter schools. It doesn't show that they are actually meeting the needs of students.

Can Tennessee do what Oklahoma is doing? Why not?

I just told you why not (and documented it with a link).

Yet you persist in your assertion that instead of allocating the federal monies that were originally promised to us to enable our public schools to deliver adequate special ed, we should instead allocate more state monies--even if it resulted in paying out over $11K per pupil--to enable private schools to do the job.

Why on earth do you assert a need to direct public monies to private enterprises before we even try directing the amount of public monies originally promised us to our public schools?

*

See also, Mark Harmon's column in today's paper:

Mark Harmon: Community schools better than vouchers

Among other things, such as advocating for community schools, he says:

It is also possible “edu-shysters” will enter the picture — pop-up schools heavy on promotion but actually just taking the voucher money and offering an inferior service. Private schools by definition have significantly less public oversight. The low performance scores of K12 Inc. should serve as a big warning flare for this potential.

When Mark Harmon and Frank Cagle are both on the same page against something you know it's a bad idea.

Mark wrote: "The low performance scores of K12 Inc. should serve as a big warning flare for this potential."

Speaking of which, Rep. Harry Brooks has filed HB 0004 to keep the TN Virtual Schools Act, which legislation invited the for-profit K12 Inc into Tennessee, from sunsetting June 30, 2015 and instead extend the Act through June 30, 2019--although I'm not yet spotting any companion bill in the Senate?

Meanwhile, the 2013-2014 State Report Card reflects Grade 4-8 Value-added Growth Measures for the TN Virtual School as straight F's in all four subject areas. Note that these measures represent three-year averages.

Tennesseans Reclaiming Educational Excellence (TREE) will rally on Tuesday March 3rd for a “Day on the Hill Against School Vouchers”.

Details on their website.

misses the point of per-person taxes. I no longer have children in school, but I want the property taxes I pay to Knox County to fund public education. When siphoned away as per-pupil spending in the form of a voucher for private school, that undermines the public education system that makes for a strong democracy.