Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
QUICK AND DIRTY ANALYSIS OF MCCAIN'S EDUCATION SPEECH.
McCain's education platform, rolled out today to coincide with his speech to the NAACP, contains few surprises, and no initiative as broad or detailed as the $5.5 billion national private voucher experiment he floated while running against GWB in 2000. Rather, McCain offered some expected bromides about "parental choice." He failed to mention early childhood education. He agrees with Barack Obama that teachers in high-need, under-performing schools should be rewarded with more pay, and, also like Obama, nodded toward public charter schools as a good option for many urban kids. McCain also seems to have absorbed the now almost-conventional wisdom bred by programs such as Teach For America and the New York City Teaching Fellows: There should be alternate certification paths that get elite college grads, mid-career professionals, and other non-traditional teachers into the classroom.
In the NAACP speech, McCain's main line of attack against Obama was that he opposes some specific private school voucher programs, supposedly because he is in thrall to the teachers' unions. But let's look more closely at the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship, the private voucher program that McCain mentioned today. Less than a month ago, a U.S. Department of Education report on the program found:
After 2 years, there was no statistically significant difference in test scores in general between students who were offered an OSP scholarship and students who were not offered a scholarship. Overall, those in the treatment and control groups were performing at comparable levels in mathematics and reading.
D.C. boasts some of the most successful public charter schools in the nation, and school choice here has generally been a good thing for parents and kids failed by the system. But I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no evidence that low-income and minority students' academic performance is improved by sending them to urban parochial schools, which tend to be the schools that participate in private voucher programs. No evidence in Milwaukee. No evidence in D.C. Supporting school choice does not require support for this sort of privatization, especially when there has been so much innovation and growth in the public charter sector.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (3)
There is no evidence that low-income and minority students academic performance is improved by sending them to urban parochial schools, which tend to be the schools that participate in private voucher programs.
I've always assumed that Republicans support voucher programs not because there is or isn't empirical evidence that they'll improve the performance of low-income and minority students, whose parents aren't going to vote for the GOP anyway, but because they sound like a bonsu for voters who are affluent enough to be sending their kids to private and parochial schools already and who wouldn't mind a voucher to help pay for the tuition.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | July 16, 2008 1:33 PM
Yes, DC has some excellent charter schools, but it also has some god-awful charter schools as well. And most charter schools are about the same as the regular public schools. That's true in just about every place with charter schools.
I consider myself a radical agnostic about charters. There is nothing magic about the "charterness" of a school. Charters might be part of a solution, but by themselves they are no solution.
Posted by: Bob | July 16, 2008 3:25 PM
You could finance a school a lot *better* and, done wisely, get better results, but *how* a school get financed isn't going to make it better.
Schools need to wise up and tell the finance specialists to F-off. They produce about as much results as rotating the secretarial staff.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 8:00 PM