Chavous: Students Must Come First

Today's post comes from AFC's executive counsel Kevin P. Chavous:

 

One of the biggest stories in the news today is the Georgia cheating scandal.   Public schools in Atlanta, Georgia have fallen under pressure as evidence has surfaced showing that school administrators may have altered standardized test scores to make it appear students performed better than they actually did.

 

By altering the test scores, students did not win.  Only the schools and school districts “won” (that is until they got caught).  In fact, Retired district superintendent Beverly Hall was praised by U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan for her work in turning around these poor and minority schools.  She was even named 2009 National Superintendent of the Year by the American Association of School Administrators.

 

According to Hall’s indictment for racketeering, “Principals and teachers were frequently told by Beverly Hall and her subordinates that excuses for not meeting targets would not be tolerated.”   To meet these “targets,” teachers were allegedly asked to gather the students’ test sheets and change incorrect answers.  These formerly failing schools were now outperforming the wealthier suburban schools, and the school officials were being touted education reform heroes, showing that a school can be turned around from within. 

 

“Our schools desperately need to be fixed,” wrote The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson in a column about the scandal.  “But creating a situation in which teachers are more likely than students to cheat cannot be the right path.”  I couldn’t agree more.   These Atlanta administrators touted themselves as “education reformers” but as I have said time after time, no school district has ever reformed itself from within.  Real education reform comes as a result of external pressures through educational choice.  

 

By providing families with access to educational options, parents have a choice in their child’s education.  Through options such as tax credits, scholarships, vouchers, charter schools, and traditional schools, families have a say in their child’s education.  As I said this earlier week on PBS NewsHour, “the only way we are going to fly this plane while we fix it, is by helping those kids with the immediate needs, and also providing the impetus for public schools to right-side themselves.”

 

Our nation’s education system needs to be about providing the best education to all children.  Every option must be on the table to ensure each and every student in America receives a high-quality education that will prepare them for tomorrow.

In The Root, Kevin P. Chavous Roots for Educational Choice

American Federation for Children Senior Advisor Kevin P. Chavous wrote today in The Root, the sister site to The Washington Post, about D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson’s initiative to close 20 poor-performing public schools why that means more educational choice is necessary in the nation's capital. In defending the decision and calling for more accountability, Kevin wrote:

For many young people, neighborhood public schools were the only gateway to economic empowerment. Today, however, the sad reality is that far too many of these historically significant public schools are not serving our kids well — and some need to be shut down. It’s tough, however, when people don’t know what they don’t know.

As a former member of the D.C. Council, Kevin has a lot to say on our K-12 education. Writing that “like it or not, accountability matters in K-12 education,” Kevin argues that we need more educational choice in the District, especially for those students attending poor-performing public schools:

But accountability in our schools is only one side of the large and expansive education-reform coin, one that must be coupled with educational choice to truly pay dividends for our children in the long run.

The educational choices in the District have been growing in recent years with charter schools and the reauthorization of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which allows District children to access a high-quality education today.

What do you do when the blood, sweat and tears of your history clashes with the realities of today?

That’s what Kevin P. Chavous, our senior advisor, asked in piece published yesterday on  The Huffington Post.  Looking at how Brown v. Board of Education shaped our education system in the last 60 years, Kevin questions how the educational gap for students of different racial and economic backgrounds continue to plague our country.  In looking for a solution, Kevin writes:

We must ensure that integrated schools and integrated classrooms are available to all students no matter their race or their class, and we must also start embracing and learning from our differences. Folks, we can raise academic achievement across the board while celebrating, not demonizing, the rich diversity of cultures in this country. Integrated schools are a win-win for all students. But we are going to have to teach our kids, and adults for that matter, the importance of appreciating and learning from their peers from different backgrounds. For if we don't, it will be impossible for future generations to succeed in today's diverse society where collaboration is a necessity and separate but equal is no longer a viable alternative.

The Huffington Post isn’t the only place that Kevin has been writing this week.  In Sunday’s Washington Post, Kevin wrote an editorial on what President Obama’s second term will look like and the fate of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Kevin knows firsthand how the OSP has changed family’s lives. He was a supporter of the program as a member of the D.C. Council when the program was created in 2004. And he continues to support the program.

The Reality of the Education Status Quo: Lower Expectations for Black Students

Public education is supposed to provide an equal education to all students, regardless of race or family income.

But parents and education reformers have long recognized that this is not the reality of our current education system.  Public charter schools, open enrollment, traditional public schools, magnet schools, and private school choice have been tirelessly fought for to allow low-income families to escape failing public schools where achievement is low and violence is often high.  After all, our equal system wasn’t supposed to determine a child’s future because based on a ZIP code.

But opponents to school choice have long claimed that instead of providing educational options to low-income families whose students end up at the bottom of the achievement gap, we should invest more money into fixing schools.  Years later, our failing schools are still failing—and there are more of them than ever.

We need a robust public education system that can serve our children; and we need educational choices for families that feel their children are being left behind.  Because the reality is, the status quo is leaving many of our children behind.

And now, defenders of the status quo are lowering expectations on academic performance—but only for students that are black, Hispanic, or poor.  Under waivers to 27 states, the goals over the next five years are lower for black, Hispanic, and poor students than they are for white and Asian students.

Parents have called this what it is—a prejudice. 

Kevin P. Chavous on Why Democrats Must Support School Choice

Last month on the Washington Post’s “The Answer Sheet” Blog, guest blogger Jeff Bryant argued why Democrats should not support any form of educational options.  Check out the response from AFC Senior Advisor Kevin P. Chavous, a former D.C. Councilman and a lifelong Democrat, on why Democrats must put partisan politics aside and support school choice:

Jeff Bryant’s July 18 piece on Valerie Strauss’ “The Answer Sheet” blog lets blind partisanship get in the way of an accurate characterization of school choice programs across the country.  As a Democrat, I full-heartedly support school choice in every form—from strong traditional public schools to charter schools to voucher programs—because these options shift our focus from an antiquated, overly-bureaucratized one-size-fits-all system that is sadly failing millions of disadvantaged children to those who know their children best—parents. Your failure to think critically is apparent in your change-averse ideology that prizes the status quo over proven measures that will help kids.

In a political climate where bipartisanship is growing increasingly rare, school choice breaks the mold, having earned the backing of Republicans and Democrats in places like Louisiana, Florida, Wisconsin, Georgia, Ohio, and right here in the nation’s capital. The reason, which Mr. Bryant fails to acknowledge, is simple: for many lawmakers, the future of our country’s next generation is far more important that scoring political points.

The assumption that poor families are misinformed is simply untrue, and it is that notion—one emphasizing system-wide decision-making over the best judgment of parents—that accounts for a great deal of the achievement gap that plagues our country’s educational performance.  It’s why when we put power pack into the hands of parents, as was done here in D.C., voucher students graduate at a rate of 91 percent—more than 30 percentage points higher than students in D.C. Public Schools.  And an evaluation of the Milwaukee voucher program also found a higher graduation rates and a trend that participating students were more likely to enroll and continue in four-year universities than their public school counterparts.

It’s why when the opportunity for choice arises, parents respond in droves. More than 17,000 students are on waiting lists for public charter schools here in D.C. and more than 10,000 low-income families have applied for the voucher program since it was created in 2004.

So yes, Mr. Bryant, I am a Democrat who proudly favors school choice, and there is nothing meek about my support. After all, I’m on the side of the parents, and it’s they—not you—who really know what’s best for their kids.

—Kevin

- American Federation for Children | Alliance for School Choice, MSG

For Famed Washington Post Columnist, Choice Words on School Choice

Former Washington Post columnist William Raspberry died today of prostatecancer at the age of 76.  A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who wrote for The Washington Post for more than 40 years on social issues including race, education, and poverty, Raspberry was the second-ever nationally-syndicated black columnist upon his ascension to the position in 1996.

Raspberry’s most famous columns recounted his views of black families, black communities, and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  Less known, but still significant for the readers of the more than 200 papers around the nation that published his columns, were Raspberry’s view on school choice.

Having written dozens of columns and editorials on school choice, here are some of his most memorable statements on vouchers for children from low-income families:

“And the question that won’t go away is: If choice is good for middle-class children, why is it bad for poor children, who without some sort of subsidy, may find themselves stuck in underperforming schools.”

—September 2003

“As a middle-class parent whose children attend public and private schools, I can’t see anything particularly noble about denying that same choice to children who are poor.”

—September 2003

“For some years, I’ve been having my own private wrestling match over school vouchers—supporting the expansion of choices to parents who had two few, and worrying over the prospect of draining even more support from our troubled public schools.

Today, I want you to listen to the mental wrestlings of man who has arrived solidly on the pro-voucher side of the issue.”

—August 2001

"My point in the present case, though, is the dead certainty on the part of teachers unions and other liberal groups that vouchers cannot possibly improve education for poor children. It's almost as though they'd rather be certain than try it - even in just three or four cities."

—April 2000

"If I find myself slowly morphing into a supporter of charter schools and vouchers, it isn't because I harbor any illusions that there's something magical about these alternatives. It is because I am increasingly doubtful that the public schools can do (or at any rate will do) what is necessary to educate poor minority children."

—June 1998

"Look at it from the viewpoint of those parents who grab so avidly for the chance to get their children into better schools: Should they be required to keep their children in dreadful schools in order to keep those schools from growing even worse? Should they be made to wait until we get around to improving all the public schools? . . . Surely voucher opponents cannot believe the logic of their counterargument: that if you can't save everybody -- whether from a burning apartment house, a sinking ship or a dreadful school system -- it's better not to save anybody at all."

—March 1998

“When Ted Forstmann and John Walton put up $6 million of their own money to provide scholarships for low-income parents who wanted their children out of the District of Columbia public schools, there were 7,573 applications—about a tenth of the total public school enrollment.

These parents...constitute 7,573 rebuttals to whatever anti-voucher case you care to make.”

—March 1998

“I recently declared myself a reluctant convert to school “choice,” a declaration that has dismayed some supporters of public education and cheered some opponents of what they are pleased to call ‘government schools.’

At the risk of dismaying both these camps—and perhaps some others as well—let me try to express more clearly the sad conclusion I’ve reached: It’s time for some serious experimentation.”

—June 1997

“For most of us who buy public education, there is no elsewhere.  It’s like it or lump it, and millions of our children are taking their lumps everyday”

—August 1975

Looking at Raspberry's views in the past, and the solidly pro-voucher stance he took in recent years, is simply the latest example that for many folks, this is an issue for which there is room for growth. As we mourn Raspberry's loss and reflect on his remarkable career, we ask that you keep that in mind -- the fight to bring educational options to low-income families exists everywhere.


- American Federation for Children | Alliance for School Choice, MSG

No, School Choice will not kill public education

School choice opponents like to argue that vouchers will hurt public schools, segregate students, and worse: destroy public education.  These talking heads like to resort to using fear to defend a system—one that for millions of children provides a great education, but is very simply not the best fit for hundreds of thousands of others.

But what many opponents to education reform forget is that education is not about a certain system, government bureaucracy, or politics.  Education reform is about providing an education for every child in America, because having access to a quality K-12 education is a right, not a privilege.  As a nation, we believe in the equality of opportunity—the opportunity for any person to achieve their dreams.  We don’t believe in systems, we believe in learning.

Public education fulfills that need for lots of families; but others are left behind and don’t receive the quality education that can transform a life.  So it our duty to ensure that children have other options. 

It's with that in mind that we came across a Washington Post blog post by Diane Ravitch, who asked if school choice will kill public education.  The answer, very clearly, is no.

The Washington Post Gets it—Why Not the Administration?

The Washington Post’s editorial board has continued to stronglysupport the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program—a voucher program that allows children from low-income families to attend the private school of their parents’ choice.  The editorial board called the scholarship program “worthwhile,” but referred to the deal struck between the Congressional leaders and the Obama Administration “modest” and “disappointing.” An appropriate characterization, we think, since this deal was made after the Administration failed to comply with the deal it made with Congress last year.

In sum, the Administration agreed to the very agreement to which they agreed over a year ago.

The Administration’s opposition to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is puzzling on many fronts.  Never mind that the President himself attended a high-achieving private school thanks to a scholarship that helped his family with the tuition, and that sends his daughters to one of the city's most elite schools, which also participates in the voucher program. And again, never mind that Secretary Arne Duncan chose to live in Arlington, Virginia, which has some of the best-performing public schools in the nation.  The issue at hand is that the Administration continues to try to not fund a small federal program that is “enormously popular with D.C. residents, with demand far outstripping the number of vouchers [available].”

An Administration that claims to support both low-income families and expanded educational options certainly puts in a lot of effort to make sure families right here in the District don’t have access to strong educational options.  This a policy contradiction in its most clear form. After all, the Administration supports Pell Grants— effectively vouchers for post-secondary education—and public charter schools, not to mention a wide variety of policies that are targeted to low-income families, including housing vouchers. It's beyond unfair for District families to be locked out of the program because of arbitrary funding limits.

Those families want this program: nearly 10,000 families have applied to the program since it was created in 2004.  And the program works: participating students had a 91 percent graduation rate—more than 21 percentage points higher than those interested in the program who did not receive a scholarship—and 92 percent of parents report being satisfied with the program.

But what's perhaps most striking is the defense tactic taken by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who attempted to "clarify" the Administration’s position on the scholarship program to ensure that no one is confused. Take a look below, noting that, again, the president signed into law the five-year reauthorization of the program last April.

Editorial Boards Endorse Education Reform in the Form of School Choice

As journalists report on education reform initiatives across the country—the political battles, implementation of new programs, and results—the other side of newspapers are sounding strong support for school choice programs.  In both left-leaning and right-leaning papers, editorial boards are endorsing these programs.

Today, The Chicago Tribune published an editorial praising Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s education reform package recently signed into law, which expanded the Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence Program statewide. 

In “Momentum for School Choice,” the Tribune Editorial Board writes:

The Bayou State is part of a "Top this!" competition among many states to open public schools to competition. Indiana has set up an expansive voucher program that covers students in families that have incomes below $61,000 a year. Wisconsin has expanded school choice programs in Milwaukee and Racine. Ohio will give tuition vouchers to as many as 60,000 students by 2013.

And Illinois? Left in the dust.

A bill that would have offered private school tuition support to as many as 30,000 Chicago kids came close to passing a couple of years ago. The latest version is languishing in the Senate assignments committee.

And that’s not the first time the Tribune Editorial Board advocated vouchers.  In July 2011, the editorial board wrote:

Major school reforms are unspooling in as many as a dozen states, including Illinois. These laws bring the promise of a transformation just as dramatic as — forgive us — anything that Decepticons could manage. (Ask your kids.)

It starts with giving parents more options about where their children can go to school.

The American Federation for Children, a Washington D.C.-based school choice advocacy group, dubs 2011 "The year of school choice."

But Chicago isn't the only place where newspapers are taking notice of the importance of voucher programs.
  

Editorial Boards say "YES" to D.C. Scholarship Program

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and the controversy of President Obama zeroing out funding for the program in his FY2013 budget has sparked strong support for the program.  Supporters on the hill sent a flurry of letters to the White House and U.S. Department of Education, and now a series of editorials are supporting school choice in the District.


Here’s what is being said everywhere from The Washington Post to The Wall Street Journal:

Who will rescue the D.C. voucher program this time?

The Washington Post

April 10, 2012

The administration’s action — which includes a bizarre provision prohibiting students who are unsuccessful in the lottery that allocates spaces in the program from reapplying the following year — would effectively place an arbitrary limit on the number of children able to enjoy the program’s benefits. Why cap the number at the 1,615 students currently enrolled when the program has accommodated larger numbers (1,903 in 2007-08, for example)? Does the administration really want to send the message — much like the one delivered in 2009 when Democrats tried to kill the vouchers — that there is not much of a future for the program?

Surely, it shouldn’t be among the president’s priorities to single out for attack a tiny federal program that not only works — in the judgment of federal evaluators — but also enjoys bipartisan support. If it is, we trust that Mr. Boehner would step in, as he did last year, to save a program that D.C.’s poorest families value for their children.

###

Why is Mayor Gray jeopardizing aid for school choice in the District?

The Washington Post

April 13, 2012

Here, in the District, we pride ourselves on being at the forefront of providing quality educational options, through innovative charter schools and our highly successful, federally funded D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, through which more than 1,600 low-income children attend quality private schools. But all of that is being threatened by Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D).

The release of Mr. Gray’s 2013 budget proposal makes clear that parental choice is no longer a priority of his administration. In the proposal, he breaches a promise made to charter school supporters by not closing the funding disparity between charter schools and traditional D.C. public schools.

But it doesn’t stop there.