School choice should be the civil rights issue of the 21st century. Rich people already have school choice, both because they have the ability to live in good school districts and they have the resources to send their kids to private schools. The children of poor people, by contrast, are warehoused in failing government schools. Here’s what Kevin Huffman recently said for the Washington Post.
In this country, if you are middle or upper class, you have school choice. You can, and probably do, choose your home based on the quality of local schools. Or you can opt out of the system by scraping together the funds for a parochial school. But if you are poor, you’re out of luck, subject to the generally anti-choice bureaucracy. Hoping to win the lottery into an open enrollment “choice” school in your district? Good luck. How about a high-performing charter school? Sure – if your state doesn’t limit their numbers and funding like most states do. And vouchers? Hiss! You just touched a political third rail. …We may have done away with Jim Crow laws, but we have a Jim Crow public education system. …Consider the recent results from a test of 15-year-olds around the world. Headlines noted the embarrassing American mediocrity (31st out of 65 countries in math, with scores below the international average). Even worse, our results are profoundly segregated by race. White and Asian Americans are still in the upper echelon. But African American and Latino students lag near the bottom quartile of world standards. As we think about our game plan to “win the future,” our black and Latino students won’t be competing with China and Finland – they’re on track to scrap it out with Bulgaria and Mexico.
But school choice is only part of the answer. If parents lack a commitment to education (or are not even present in the home), then even good schools won’t translate into good students. Walter Williams explains.
The public education establishment bears part of the responsibility for this disaster, but a greater portion is borne by black students and their parents, many of whom who are alien and hostile to the education process. …Violence, weapons-carrying, gang activity and student or teacher intimidation should not be tolerated. Students engaging in such activity should be summarily expelled. Some might worry about the plight of expelled students. I think we should have greater concern for those students whose education is made impossible by thugs and the impossible learning environment they create. Another part of the black education disaster has to do with the home environment. More than 70 percent of black children are born to unwedded mothers, who are often themselves born to unwedded mothers. Today’s level of female-headed households is new in black history. Until the 1950s, almost 80 percent of black children lived in two-parent households, as opposed to today’s 35 percent. Often, these unwedded mothers have poor parenting skills and are indifferent, and sometimes hostile, to their children’s education. The resulting poorly behaving students should not be permitted to sabotage the education of students whose parents are supportive of the education process. At the minimum, a mechanism such as tuition tax credit or educational voucher ought to be available to allow parents and children who care to opt out of failing schools. Some people take the position that we should repair not abandon failing schools. That’s a vision that differs little from one that says that no black child’s education should be improved unless we can improve the education of all black children. …Our black ancestors, just two, three, four generations out of slavery, would not have tolerated school behavior that’s all but routine today. The fact that the behavior of many black students has become acceptable and made excuses for is no less than a gross betrayal of sacrifices our ancestors made to create today’s opportunities.
[…] choice video shows the best way of dealing with the problems described in this post (though, as Walter Williams explains, that’s only part of the […]
[…] this blog, I’ve cited several columns by Walter Williams (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), in large part because […]
[…] choice doesn’t automatically mean every child will be an educational success, but evidence from other nations certainly suggests it means better overall performance. Sweden, […]
Unions are not legal in Texas, really — no collective bargaining, no strikes, nothing that looks like union action.
I think you’re making this stuff up. I still can’t find a TEA chart that squares with what you posted.
What does that chart show?
Spending per pupil.
For what entity?
Texas public education.
Your link to the Texas Education Agency doesn’t bear any resemblance to the chart, and your chart is unlabeled.
Go to the link.
Look under “PEIMS District Financial Actual Reports”
Click on 2008-09 Financial Actual Reports
Highlight the top line: State Totals: All Districts
Submit
Scroll Down to “Total Expenditures”
I did that for each year on the chart.
your chart is unlabeled.
I think it is:
Year on the X, Dollars on the Y. Actual spend in blue, 2010 dollars in red.
you’re $2,000 high on the low end, and about $3,000 high on the high end, for 2005-2006
I’m just going by the TEA; Texas Education Agency. If they disagree with the census, that’s more work than I’m willing to invest.
In short, we’re not overspending on education, not by a long shot.
Look. No on would object to spending 7k, or 9k or 11k, if, IF, the results tracked. That is, if you spend more you get better results. But we aren’t. We spend more and we get the same results.
I’m not even asking a 1 for 1 relationship. That is if we spend 5k and get result X then if we spend 10k we should get result 2X. I’m just sayin’ we should get SOMETHING back besides nothing.
As it is…we’re just getting more and more overpaid teachers* who consistently deliver just barely, maybe, results.
*Outstanding teachers are UNDERpaid. Crummy crappy teachers that we can’t fire because Unions care more about something other than educating our children ARE overpaid.
And Part II:
(Texas spent $7,261 per pupil in that year — you show $9,269 and $10,750).
In short, we’re not overspending on education, not by a long shot.
And then the third chart.
My previous post is being held in moderation; apologies.
Part I was:
Pino, to quote a blogger we both know of, “I Don’t Think That Word Means What You Think It Means.”
What does that chart show? For what entity? Your link to the Texas Education Agency doesn’t bear any resemblance to the chart, and your chart is unlabeled.
If that is supposed to be Texas, you’re $2,000 high on the low end, and about $3,000 high on the high end, for 2005-2006, to pick one year, according to the apples-to-apples charts from the Census Bureau.
It’s an old release, but you can wangle it to newer data
I’m not sure what you’re asking me to look at there.
Look, the point is this. We are spending more and more on public education. And the results are staying the same. I’m sure there is anecdotal evidence of some public schools out performing private ones. That’s not the trend.
My argument is that I think the State should stay in the business of making sure our children, all of ’em, are educated. I don’t think the State possesses any specific qualification that enables them to do it better than the market. In fact, the opposite is true. The fact that the State is able to create virtual monopolies is what is contributing to the poor state of our education system today.
It’s an old release, but you can wangle it to newer data — here’s an apples-to-apples comparison of all states education spending.
Pino, to quote a blogger we both know of, “I Don’t Think That Word Means What You Think It Means.”
What does that chart show? For what entity? Your link to the Texas Education Agency doesn’t bear any resemblance to the chart, and your chart is unlabeled.
If that is supposed to be Texas, you’re $2,000 high on the low end, and about $3,000 high on the high end, for 2005-2006, to pick one year, according to the apples-to-apples charts from the Census Bureau. (Texas spent $7,261 per pupil in that year — you show $9,269 and $10,750).
In short, we’re not overspending on education, not by a long shot.
Show me the increases, in constant dollars, please.
Year $ per Pupil 2010 Dollars
2000-2001 8245 10440
2001-2002 8643 10641
2002-2003 8838 10712
2003-2004 8916 10566
2004-2005 9269 10699
2005-2006 9629 10750
2006-2007 10162 10991
2007-2008 11024 11593
2008-2009 11567 11714
For the graph, go here:
tarheelred.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/texas-per-pupil-expenditure.jpg
Source:
ritter.tea.state.tx.us/school.finance/forecasting/financial_reports/FinRep_index.html
Federal aid dropped. Here in Texas, we cut spending a decade ago.
Show me the increases, in constant dollars, please.
For the same investment, we could improve public schools, probably with better results.
It would be hard to support that point. Spending on public education has increased dramatically in recent decades. Student achievement has remained flat.
If one’s goal is to restrict education to the rich, “school choice” is a good agenda.
There is an element of truth in this, however. And Dan acknowledges that above:
I attended an open house at my local charter school a couple of weeks ago. Of the 100-200 families present, I bet not 10 were “at risk families”. That is to say that if all of the kids represented by the families didn’t get into a charter school but their achievement was measured as they lugged through public school, they would out achieve their peers anyway.
By allowing only SOME choice, we run the danger of leaving our public schools filled with at risk parents.
“School choice” doesn’t work without a lot of money to make it work.
For the same investment, we could improve public schools, probably with better results. At Molina HS in Dallas, we’ve improved performance better than our competing “choice schools.”
If one’s goal is to restrict education to the rich, “school choice” is a good agenda. If one’s goal is to build our nation, investing in public schools is a quicker, cheaper and more lasting way to do it.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stand In The Gap, Dan Mitchell. Dan Mitchell said: School Choice Is a Necessary but not Sufficient Condition to Improve Educational Performance by Minority Students http://tinyurl.com/4ztjut7 […]