In response
to the 12/6/2012 post, “The Hidden Agenda of Choice – Part 3,” a Superintendent
replies:
To the author of the post and fellow LYSer:
Thanks for keeping the discussion going. I have a few thoughts.
One, you are correct on “Fallacy #1” as it was originally posted.
It should read “soft (but real) requirements for continued
attendance of the child.”
I agree that as posted there is no constitutional problem.
Traditional public schools have to take all children within their boundaries
and there exists no mechanism to remove them for performance, attendance, or
discipline.
As to “Fallacy #2,” I once again agree with you, in part.
However, one bureaucratic entanglement charter schools are not susceptible to
is compulsory education laws. Charters can choose their kids at the
enrollment and cull them as needed. Interestingly one solution that has
been proposed in lieu of vouchers is ending compulsory education. I
support Diane Ravitch’s position on charters: charters should take and keep all
children and then we can truly determine the efficacy of the charter movement.
However, you are certainly correct in pointing out all the state
performance and monitoring data to which charters are subject. That just
goes to demonstrate that government and bureaucracy essentially destroys
everything it touches. Given a few more laws and enough time, there will
likely be very little to distinguish public charter schools from traditional
public schools. Once the door of vouchers is open, the anti-Midas touch
of government will begin to systematically destroy private education.
As to “Fallacy #3,” clarification is needed. For a traditional
public school to select students to enroll and to reserve the right to cull
them would most certainly be deemed unconstitutional, yet many charter schools
(and to be fair many traditional public school magnet programs) do just
this. I am not saying that charter schools violate the
constitution. What I am saying is charter schools get to play by a
different set of rules, a set of rules that if used by traditional public
schools would be deemed unconstitutional.
You pointed out no fallacy in “Fallacy #4.” Actually, I support
private schools. If we want them to survive, vouchers are a bad
idea. Private schools will be assimilated Borg style once they accept
public voucher money. Don’t believe any guarantees to the contrary.
Any guarantee given today in order to pass a voucher law can be rescinded at
any time in the future. The very influential Texas Association of Business
has already stated that if private schools accept public money, they should be
held to state accountability standards.
I wish “Fallacy #5” were a fallacy. It would be more convenient
if this were a conspiracy theory and I could be dismissed as a loon. The
Cato institute published a very good piece on vouchers in 1997. The goal
is an eventual total “separation of school and state.” Here is a brief
excerpt:
It is safe to say that even advocates of vouchers who are not committed
to the complete separation of school and state believe vouchers would lead to a
major contraction of government-run schooling. They rarely say so in public
because claims by defenders of the status quo that "vouchers would destroy
the public schools" still move the public to oppose reform and change. So
supporters of vouchers avoid saying that.
But when the microphone is turned off, most proponents of
vouchers would say that, under a voucher system, many government schools would
go out of business.
We have had our heads hidden in the sand if we believe this is
“conspiracy theory.” Anti-public school advocates are writing and
publishing their intentions, and vouchers are THE key to their plans.
As to “Fallacy #6,” you point out no fallacy once again. When I
wrote Pretty Lies, Powerful Truths, my solution is purely
theoretical. However, the need for charter school expansion and
vouchers could be eliminated if we simply removed the barriers to the Texas
home-ruled district law passed in 1995.
A home-ruled
district would allow many of the solutions (not all) proposed in Pretty
Lies, Powerful Truths, to be implemented.
SC Response
A significant point
of clarification and background information. In terms of compulsory attendance,
the charter school district Superintendent (and LYSer) who wrote the post to
which you are responding only serves the toughest student populations in the
state, children in residential psychiatric care and state and federal
prisoners. So out of every
Superintendent I have ever met (including you and me) he gets to say, “I
educate them all,” and really mean it.
Think. Work. Achieve.
Your turn...
- Call Jo at (832)
477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies
available on Amazon.com! http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5
- Call Jo at (832)
477-LEAD to order your campus set of “Look at Me: A Cautionary School
Leadership Tale” Individual copies available on
Amazon.com! http://tinyurl.com/lookatmebook
- Now
at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Plans (Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan Tool); PW Lite
(Basic PowerWalks Tool); PW Pro (Mid-level PowerWalks Tool)
- Upcoming Presentations: Texas Association of Secondary School Principals Conference
(Multiple Presentations)
- Follow
Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation and
like Lead Your School on Facebook
Posts
