Funding schools or funding education?
Yesterday we shared with you the article, “A parent’s right to choose,” from The New Dominion Magazine. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be taking a look at the various arguments made by opponents of parental choice in education - namely the VEA.
The article states, “The VEA opposes public-school-choice initiatives, Boitnott said, instead preferring to see resources are put into individual schools “so that they can be successful, and kids can achieve.”"
We’ll agree with Ms. Boitnott (head of the teacher’s union), in part. We also want schools to be successful and kids to achieve. That’s the easy part. Who doesn’t want that? But to use this as an argument against school choice? That just doesn’t make sense.
Ms. Boitnott argues that “resources” should be put into schools - and by resources we are guessing she primarily means money (based on her other comments). Here is where we start to disagree with her position. Should our focus be on funding “schools,” or on funding “education?”
Now some will argue that they are one and the same or that we’re just splitting hairs. But there is a difference. As taxpayers, what are we investing in with our hard-earned money? Do we want to be simply investing in a bricks and mortar school, or would we rather be investing in a child’s education? I think most people would believe that education is the goal. We want well-educated students who can grow up to be successful, productive members of society. We want a highly trained and qualified workforce to run our businesses and build our economy.
Yet somewhere along the way we seemed to lose sight of that, instead allowing politicians, bureaucrats and unions to convince us that the debate should be about schools, not education. You’ve heard the arguments. Ms. Boitnott does not disappoint here again arguing “But until and unless the Commonwealth of Virginia is able to fully fund public schools in the way that they are required to do by the Virginia Constitution, there is no wiggle room for allowing taxpayer dollars to go toward funding or supplementing funding for private-school educators, because their first and primary responsibility is to the children in the Commonwealth of Virginia’s public schools...”
Again, for her it’s all about the public schools, not about education. (This isn’t really surprising because her primary concern is to protect her union members.) But shouldn’t our “first and primary responsibility” be to ensure every child has access to a high quality education that meets their needs?
Opponents of school choice are fond of using the Virginia Constitution to try and prove their point, yet the Constitution has this to say:
The General Assembly shall provide for the compulsory elementary and secondary education of every eligible child of appropriate age…
While it also establishes a public school system, it is clear to point out that the state has an obligation to provide an education for all students- not simply a public school.
But back to Ms. Boitnott’s first argument about investing in schools to make them successful and help students achieve. Perhaps she should take a look at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s research on the relationship between money and academic results. For the 15th straight year:
The Report Card on American Education clearly shows there is no correlation between educational dollars spent and student achievement in our traditional public school system.
While states continue to invest more and more dollars into existing public schools, they are receiving no added return on their investment. So the VEA’s argument seems to be rather flawed from the start.
So next time a politician or a bureaucrat starts telling you that they are “for education,” ask them what they really mean. Are they really for education- for ensuring every Virginia child has access to a quality education to give them the best opportunity for success- or are they really simply for the existing public school system and preserving the status quo?
ALEC: “State education rankings released for 15th straight year, again show spending does not correlate with student results”
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has again released their Annual Report Card on American Education. And yet again they have found that spending does not correlate with student results.
State education rankings released for 15th straight year, again show spending does not correlate with student results.
February 3, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C.—A majority of students in American public schools failed to meet proficiency levels in fourth- and eighth-grade mathematics and reading, and SAT and ACT scores stagnated, despite decades-long increases in public-school spending, according to a new report by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
Using nationally recognized test results, the ALEC Report Card on American Education ranked the 50 states and the District of Columbia accordingly, one being the best and 51 the worst. Minnesota placed first in the unique ranking, Washington, D.C. last.
“The Report Card on American Education clearly shows there is no correlation between educational dollars spent and student achievement in our traditional public school system,” said Andrew T. LeFevre, author of the report and executive director of the Pennsylvania-based REACH Foundation. “At some point, state policymakers must ask themselves if more of the same is going to produce a different result.”
