One Utah

In the discussion below yesterday’s post about vouchers, a rough consensus seemed to emerge that if vouchers could be truly targeted to help low income families it would generally be a more positive and acceptable reform. There are still huge problems with using taxpayer money to support religious institutions as well as overall problems with vouchers (the link Richard included to PFAW’s report on vouchers is a good resource for looking at many of the problems with vouchers), but let’s take that off the table for the moment an instead focus on what seems to be the central concern:

What reforms would really help students? What reforms would and could actually be created to benefit poor and working class families?

Charter schools (which are public schools) seem to be located in middle class communities and are more likely to attract middle class (and wealthier) students. In addition, many middle class families possess sufficient resources to afford private schools (although it can require financial sacrifice for them). In addition, middle class families can afford to hire tutors or after school programs to improve their student’s performance; in addition, middle class parents are more likely to have sufficient education to assist with their children’s homework. Wealthy families of course can opt for private, public, boarding, out of state, international or even private tutors.

Working class and poor families, however, are often limited in their options. Charter schools don’t seem to open in working class neighborhoods. Private schools are beyond the financial reach of most working class families. Lower income students are more likely to lack access to computers and less likely to have parents who are college graduates. In addition, many poor students (especially as they reach high school) must work after school and on weekend. In general, research also shows that poor students have lower academic performance in general than do their middle and upper income peers.

Schools in lower income areas contribute to lower academic performance. The facilities themselves are generally older, in worse condition and have fewer amenities.

It seems to me that if we as a society are dedicated to guaranteeing all students a quality education, the first step should be guaranteeing equal access and equal educational opportunities to all students. That means, for instance, upgrading facilities in poor and working class communities, supporting programs like Head Start (which has a track record of unparalleled success), and assisting schools in working class communities to create and sustain programs with academic excellence. Creating a charter school in Rose Park would probably do more for more students than a handful of vouchers that not every private school will accept and that won’t cover the tuition at a private school. Going into rural Utah and creating college prep programs in their high schools will serve more students than will a handful of vouchers they can’t use Because the nearest private school is 100 miles away in Salt Lake. School within a school programs (wherein the same building houses a “regular” and a charter school) could also work in rural Utah.

In addition, free school breakfast and lunch programs can greatly assist students. A hungry student doesn’t learn terribly well and school breakfast and lunch are, for many students, the only regular meals they eat; a few years ago, our State Legislature refused to instituted a school breakfast program arguing that such a program would harm families (I about fell over when that talking point first emerged among our legislative majority - worse still they said it with a straight face).

In addition, we should institute programs to assist poor families in attaining greater economic security - a living wage and access to affordable health care spring to mind as two key areas of potential improvement.

Working class families are not uninterested in education, they often lack the resources necessary to support their children - i.e. time and money. I’d rather use taxpayer dollars to create an after school program partnership between a local church and school than use those dollars to fund a private religious school. Follow me here; the local church is part of the community; an after school program, which might include PE and art programs (I’ve heard of a church that created a summer arts program during which students produced plays) will do more to build the community and help students and cover the gaps in public schools than will sending students across town to a private school. In addition, a community based program, staffed and supported by people in the community, connects students with their communities and allows for mentoring occur. It seems like a far more productive way to empower communities to grow, thrive and create and sustain social capital than sending the best students away. It can also provides greater accountability - local schools could provide curriculum for after school programs meaning the curriculum meets minimum standards.

We have to find ways to improve teacher’s pay. Teachers are far too important to pay them starvation wages and attacks on the UEA and NEA serve no purpose other than to harm the very people we are supposedly trusting to educate the next generation.

I’m not suggesting any of these reforms is necessarily easy. The main appeal of vouchers is how easy they are - throw some money at the problem and hope it goes away.

This entry was posted Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 9:56 am and is filed under This Blog, Utah Pollution, Vouchers. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.