Thread: School Vouchers Upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court

I live in Florida where the voucher war is full blown. Here in the Sunshine State, if a school has a failing grade two years in a row, the students are able to receive vouchers to attend a private school if they are admitted. The grades are based on FCATs, and other demographics.

I don't teach in a public school setting. My child does not attend public school. The private religous school I do teach at will not be accepting the vouchers.

Having said the above, I feel that parents ought not have to stand aside and watch their children receive a poor education. If tax dollars are not being used in a way that educates their child properly, parents should have the right to take that money and put it in a place where they will be satisfied with the results.

This is a topic where there does not seem to be much fence sitting. There are strong views on both sides.

I am (currently) a public school teacher and I deplore the emphasis on test taking. With this being said, I would also like to say something about school demographics.

Some schools - like the one I will be teaching in for this coming year, are in low-income areas. Many of the students come from broken homes. Some of the children also have parents who are either drug addicts or alcholics.

Given the fact that some of these children go to bed hungry - and some children even wonder where they'll be sleeping that night - I question the rationale that labels the local public school a "poor school" or one that is even at risk because of low test scores.

Schools located in low-income areas have lots of inherent problems ... and throwing money at them - or giving parents tax vouchers - won't change the fact that many of these children live in totally wretched environments.

How can we expect students to learn if they're hungry? How can we expect them to show any academic interest if they don't have a home to live in?

I wish George Bush's "no child will be left behind" initiative included economic stimulus packages for the local neighborhoods.

Teachers in these schools can't do their jobs alone.

Parents need to learn how to parent. Parents need to take responsibility. Children need to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and cared for. Their parents need job training programs and better employment opportunities - lest their children "follow them" in a downward spiral of hopelessness and poverty.

I don't mind working in an inner-city school ... but I don't want to be characterized as a poor teacher or to have my school labeled a "poor" institution simply because our students come to class with tremendous social needs.

I do agree with everything that you say. There is so much more that what meets the eye going on in schools these days.

I am not a fan of the emphasis that is put on standardized testing. Especially all the classroom time that is taken to prepare for and administor them.

In the county that I live in, the "School Report Cards" were published yesterday in the newspaper. It supports some of what you said. The elementary schools located in more affluent areas received much higher grades than the schools on "the other side of the tracks." This also applied to middle schools. It wasn't as much of a factor for the high schools. None of the schools got an "F", but there were a few "D" grades.

So, if all of the schools get the same amount of money per student to spend, and everyone teaches the same curriculum what makes the difference?

Are the teachers better in different schools? (I don't think so.)

Are some parents able to offer their children more oppurtunities like computers in the home, books, and educational toys? Do they get a jump on other students becasue their parents have more money? (Maybe)

Are some parents overwhlemed with single parenthood and working long hours just to put some food on the table? Are there many parents out there that do not know how to or understand the need to emphasis the importance of education to their children? What side of town do they live on?

Even within the same county, teachers are not starting on level ground. Some spend the year digging kids out of the holes, just to get them to the point they can teach. They deal with things in greater quanities than their counterparts on the more affluent side of town. Like the drug addictions and other things you mentioned.

So then what is the answer to make sure all kids get the education and the oppurtunities that go with it that they deserve? Will economic stimulas packages help?

I agree with all of what you said about parents needing to learn how to set the example for their children. There are so many parents that want to bring up their chidren well, but just do not know how to do it. The most important job you can ever have does not come with a step by step handbook.

All of this takes time. Nothing changes right away. In many cases it will take years to fix everything that can be fixed.

What do we do during the time that the changes are taking place? Will vouchers help fill the void, or take away much need money? Should parents that really do care about their child's education and do all they can to help, but can't afford to live somewhere else just stand by and wait for the changes? Or is their child still receiving a good quality education despite the ratings?

David, the last thing I would think about you is that you are a poor teacher. That goes for any teacher in an inner school school or a school that has been labled with poor performance ratings. Just the opposite is true. You have my upmost admiration and respect. I am sure that the students in your classes have received a wonderful education despite any performance ratings the "higher ups" have given your school.

Whoops - sorry Kim. I didn't mean to sound so defensive - nor did I even think that you were implying that I was a poor teacher.

I was just trying to make a point about school demographics - that despite the best intentions of everything a school can offer - some children will fail to measure up simply because there is no support at home. In all too many cases - there is literally no physical home ... or as previously described - the home enviornment may be totally wretched.

I understand that "in theory" the purpose of having vouchers is to help make public schools more competitive ... but I worry about the children. Having the opportunity to go to a "nice school" is something positive that the government can offer - but it still doesn't make up for the impoverished homes that these children have to return to.

I wish there was something we could do to improve the home environments.

(sigh)

Hello again, David. Haven't been here in awhile.

I've had some of the mixed feelings about vouchers that you mentioned. Yes, I agree, that parents need to have choices. A monopoly is never good (didn't Bell telephone prove that?!) no matter who or what you are talking about. But I, too, grow weary of the term "failing schools," when it is society that is failing and NOT the schools. I guess it's just easy to make the schools and teachers the fall guy.

We cannot help nor have much influence over the homes or the environments that some of our students come from. Yes, I know that is a worn "excuse," but it's one that has some credibility to it. I remember that in the at risk school where I taught for five years, better than half the parents didn't finish school themselves. At PTO meetings, the faculty and students outnumbered the parents. The only thing they would come out for were basketball and football games and then ONLY if the teams were winning and even then not with any consistency. The attitude was pretty simple: "My daddy works in the mill. My granddaddy did too. So will I. What I gotta know this stuff for?"

My husband and I purchased a home in an area because of the school district alone. I think that has to be part of your consideration if you are going to raise a family and pick a place to live. :?