Florida Gov. Rick Scott's education plan ruled unconstitutional

[Dr. L]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101215/ts_yblog_thelookout/rick-scotts-bold-education-plan-draws-bevy-of-critics

Newly elected Florida Gov. Rick Scott is making waves with his proposal that all children should receive education vouchers they can use to attend private, public or charter schools.

"The parent should figure out where the dollars for that student are spent," the Republican governor-elect told the St. Petersburg Times. "So if the parents want to spend it on virtual school, then spend it on virtual school. If they want to spend it on, you know, whatever education system they believe in, whether it's this public school or that public school or this private school or that private school, that's what ought to happen."

The idea has previously won backing from the late Nobel-laureate economist Milton Friedman and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as a way to foster competition among schools and give parents more choice in their children's education. But there is one major hitch: The Florida Supreme Court has ruled private-school vouchers unconstitutional, concluding that they endanger the free public school system. And, it turns out, many in the education world agree, and not even only those connected to the teachers union (though for the record, a Florida teachers union spokesman called it a "terrible idea.").

The details of the plan are still unclear, but the proposed voucher would most likely be for $5,500, the average state per-pupil contribution to public school students. The state would deposit that sum into each individual child's "education savings account" (theoretically every Florida child would have one) instead of into school districts' coffers. (The state currently doles out vouchers for some low-income and disabled students, a program that has not been challenged in court.)

"I don't think the idea of draining the treasury of public education is practical. There's a place for public schools, they do great work in the community," private Christian-school principal Rick Pucci told a Tampa news station. "This plan may rob public schools of the things they need. I'm not in favor of it."

In an editorial, the St. Petersburg Times called it a "fuzzy vision" that will drain money from public schools without raising new revenue to replace it. The paper questioned whether private schools would be able to handle the increased demand, and also referred to a 2009 study mandated by Congress that showed students who used vouchers to attend private schools did not perform better than those who stayed in public schools. (This study drained some support from the reform community away from vouchers.)

And the opposition isn't just local. Education historian Diane Ravitch tells The Lookout Scott's plan could hold up in court if passed by lawmakers, despite the state Supreme Court ruling. "The real danger is that he sends a signal that it's politically fine to attack public education, which has been one of our most valued institutions and a bulwark of our democracy," she writes.

Several conservative lawmakers and think tanks have lined up behind the proposal, however. "I don't think it's radical at all,'' Lindsey Burke, education policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, told the Miami Herald. "At this point, the radical notion is to trap a child in a failing public school.''

And Michelle Rhee, the former D.C. schools chancellor advising Scott on education, has supported private school vouchers as a way to give parents more choice.

Scott is also expected to tackle teacher tenure and institute a new teacher evaluation system partly based on student test scores.

(Photo of Scott: AP)

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misidentified Rick Pucci as a Catholic school principal.

Say what you will about the vouchers themselves, but there is a shitstorm every time the idea of "Private education" stems up. Having experienced both public and private schools, I can easily speak for the case of the Private schools. The luxury of choice may improve our education in and of itself. If a parent is dissatisfied with one school, they merely switch to the next. The money is then with the child, not with the school. Whether the teacher cares about the students or not isn't a problem when they're forced to try for the sake of their own livelihoods as well. The Private school I went to hired some of the best teachers one could find, and if they didn't care, they were sure as hell good actors.

What say the Wilmarth folk?

[Tonus]

Ask yourself where the money for this voucher comes from, and then ask yourself why a fiscal conservative would support the idea. To be honest, I don't understand why this idea has so much support from the right. It is not an issue of whether public or private education is better. It is simply another way to redistribute taxes for education, and if government manages to do a shit-tastic job of budgeting and tracking education dollars as it is, what kind of unholy mess would we create by scattering those dollars in millions of different directions at once?

I can live with the idea of a government-funded education system, though I would just as soon remove unions from the picture, considering the mess they've helped make of it. I don't see government-provided (ie, taxpayer funded) vouchers as a better way to do it.

[Dr. L]

Ask yourself where the money for this voucher comes from, and then ask yourself why a fiscal conservative would support the idea. To be honest, I don't understand why this idea has so much support from the right. It is not an issue of whether public or private education is better. It is simply another way to redistribute taxes for education, and if government manages to do a shit-tastic job of budgeting and tracking education dollars as it is, what kind of unholy mess would we create by scattering those dollars in millions of different directions at once?

I can live with the idea of a government-funded education system, though I would just as soon remove unions from the picture, considering the mess they've helped make of it. I don't see government-provided (ie, taxpayer funded) vouchers as a better way to do it.

Likely a means to an end.

My statement was in support of private education, vouchers are another story. I noted in comments how 'Private Education' was the source of ire, rather than the vouchers, where it ought to be the reverse. The Republicans likely felt it to be an acceptable bribe to the union and Democrats, but it looks as if it backfired.

[Grunthos]

I think the reason many fiscal conservatives support the voucher plan, is that it fosters competition between the public schools and the private schools, placing them on an equal footing financially. Competition and the efficiencies it produces measure very large in the pantheon of fiscal conservatism.

Also, the vast majority of private schools (I'd want to say all of them, but don't know if that's trues) are non-union.

Very few fiscal conservatives are willing to go so far as to buck the long-standing concept of a 'right' to a free public education, so the voucher's ability to make the government-run schools have to compete successfully with the private schools looks like an acceptable compromise to them.

Personally, I don't really have a strong opinion either way, though I do believe that much of what's wrong with public schools, especially in big cities, is a classic case of the evils of government-sanctioned monopolies operated by protected unions. No incentives to excel, or even to succeed; no consequences for failure.

The voucher program, by the simple fact that it scares the paskhoodniaks in the public school system purple, must have something going for it.