Results show Wis. voucher students test poorly

[teach1st]

Results show Wis. voucher students test poorly
Washington Examiner, 3/29

Students who received vouchers to attend private or religious schools in Milwaukee performed worse on statewide reading and math tests than their counterparts in public schools, according to test scores released Tuesday that could play an integral role in whether the program expands statewide.

The results, released by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, show that while scores statewide are improving, voucher students are nowhere near their public school counterparts — even in the Milwaukee public schools they left.

Currently, only low-income students in Milwaukee can receive a voucher from the state. Gov. Scott Walker wants to expand the program to all of Milwaukee County and phase out the low-income qualifying ceiling. Some Republican lawmakers are talking about making the program statewide, arguing the option should be available for students unhappy in public schools.

But the scores may make it harder for supporters to make their case.

More

[Tansy_Gold]

1. Yay! A two-fer!

1. Give tax money to some private/religious schools

2. Keep the lower class kids uneducated


'Cause the kids of the rich will still be able to go to quality private schools that don't take none o' them "charity" kids.



TG, TT

[dkf]

2. Celebrating low test scores is kind of sick.

That is how twisted this has gotten.

[noamnety]

3. Low income students test lower than a full cross section of students.

Shocking news!

[teach1st]

4. From the article

The test results show that for all grades, 34.4 percent of voucher students were proficient or advanced in math compared to Milwaukee public schools' 47.8 percent average and the 43.9 percent average for low-income Milwaukee public schools students. Statewide, 77.2 percent of public school students scored proficient or advanced in math.

On reading scores, 55.2 percent of voucher students were advanced or proficient compared with 59 percent of Milwaukee public school students. Among Milwaukee's low-income public school students, 55.3 percent proficient or advanced. Overall, 83 percent of public school students in Wisconsin hit those marks.

[noamnety]

5. So reading is the same

and math is about 9.5% lower than their peers. A difference, but not a huge one.

There are apparently reasons the voucher students chose other schools. I sometimes wonder with these OP's if people are saying that the only measure of the quality of a school is its test scores, or if they think there might be other things of value besides standardized testing happening in schools.

Regardless ... wouldn't it be awesome if education advocates spent as much energy trying to resolve the 26.7% gap between Milwaukee students and Wisconsin students as they did focusing on the 4.8% gap between low income voucher and nonvoucher students within the city? Sometimes I think we overlook the big issue because if we did confront it, we'd have to acknowledge and address some ugly truths about our education system that politicians - and more importantly, the rich - aren't willing to speak about.

[teach1st]

6. My point as OP

My point in posting the OP is that by using the measurement that the current crop of school reform advocates prefer - standardized test scores - there is no benefit to vouchers. The study in the OP is not only study that shows that. Similarly, studies show that charter schools are not the panacea that public education critics want them to be.

Public schools, in general, aren't the problem, so moving students from them probably isn't a solution (as the test scores might show). Taking money from those schools in support of private schools doesn't solve the problem either. I'm not very familiar with Wisconsin schools, but going by my experience as a teacher in a low-income school, the problem is societal. Drug abuse, poor parenting, crime, poverty, all affect learning. Certainly there are measures that schools and teachers can take to improve learning under such conditions (and we have been implementing those measures for the at least the past five years). But we can't fix the underlying economic conditions that affect learning.

I think parents take vouchers to move their children to schools with better conditions. I also think the money would be better spent to improve conditions in inner-city schools.

By the way, the 9.5% math gap is significant, in my opinion.

[noamnety]

7. The real issue is that to fix the problem

we have to move money from the rich and middle class neighborhoods to the poor ones. And we know that's not going to happen. So a blanket statement that we "ought" to improve conditions in inner city schools is an empty statement.

Ideally, yes of course we should do that. But the people who influence elections will not allow it to happen. Am I right? So that's off the table as a solution. Not for philosophical reasons, but because of reality.

I know a hell of a lot more people protesting charter schools than I know protesting laws that prevent poor kids from being able to go to a rich school - even though that's where the real disparity lies. I know a lot more middle and upper class white people protesting charter schools than I know middle and upper class white people protesting the exclusion of Detroit students from their middle and upper class high schools. We like to exclude people from a quality education based on zip codes, which is code for excluding based on race and income.

We all know getting rid of the existing charter schools isn't going to fix the inequalities in our schools. And I think most of us know that inequality isn't just the result of the home life of the students.

[teach1st]

8. Sounds good, but...

One thing that happens with vouchers and charters and choice is that the students in the impoverished areas and whose parents are involved enough to fill out applications, and who are able pay for transportation to another zip code (some systems provide transportation) get to use the vouchers. This flight of students with involved parents can leave the inner-city schools in even worse shape.

The solution? Close down inner-city schools? Vouchers? Is that ultimately the same thing? Should we support vouchers which arguably cause inequities because the politicians aren't willing to fix original inequities?

Ideally schools should in the neighborhood. Choice didn't work so well in my district. Focusing resources and good teachers where they're most needed, along with a limited choice might be working better, although it seems to play hell with diversity in many of our schools. It's too early to tell.

[noamnety]

9. "Ideally, schools should be in the neighborhood."

"Poor kids should have to go to school with other poor kids, rich kids should get to go to school with exclusively rich kids."

Does that idea promote equal education for all?

[teach1st]

10. Nope

That's why I said "ideally."

Most voucher programs don't solve the very intricate problem of ensuring economic diversity, and they can bring with them a host of other shortcomings. Focused resources, magnet and innovative charter schools can be a part of a strategy to help maintain diversity within a society that tends to magnify inequality.

[noamnety]

11. That's the problem I see.

The insistence on neighborhood schools by definition enforces economic segregation at the least, racial segregation also in many cases.

The best recipe I've seen for promoting diversity at charters is to locate them just outside the border of a poor district. That way they are easily accessible by the poor minority students and the middle class white kids aren't deterred by location from going there. If you locate a charter in an underprivileged urban city you may or may not get a better quality education there - I don't think charters inherently equal a better - or a worse - education. But you for certain will deter kids outside the city from attending (unfortunate, but true).

I'm not saying that's the only solution or a full solution; it's not. But a cycle of all city dwellers getting a substandard education is bad for the city. Getting some of the residents into more equitable schools can help raise the education level within the neighborhood. It's a shitty sophie's choice - leave some behind or leave all behind. I see those are our only two options for the next couple decades at least. Economic disparity is increasing, not decreasing, and as long as there is an insistence on excluding poor students from middle/upper class schools based on residency, the educational disparity will continue to increase - which spirals into yet more economic disparity between neighborhoods.

[teach1st]

12. Good points!

You make some good points. I'm going to disagree with vouchers being the best way to revitalize city neighborhoods (unless, the vouchers are much more tightly controlled than they are now), but I can agree with you that any of the choices are tough.

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion!

[noamnety]

13. I don't see vouchers as a solution at all

because that transfers more public tax dollars into private hands, so for that reason it keeps adding to the disparity. I was more talking about public charters, I strayed from the topic a little. The criticisms of neighborhood schools is a pet issue for me because I'm in such a segregated area, the insistence on restricting kids to schools in their neighborhood reads as classism, racism and pro-segregation here.