Private School Education - Essay Example

Private School Education Abstract. There are about 28,384 private schools in the United States, a figure representing 25 percent of all the nation schools (Council for American Private Education [CAPE], 2007). The sectarian affiliation for most private schools means that selection of students is more discriminative, as opposed to public schools which are run more democratically. When Nobel winner Milton Freidman advanced the arguments in support for education vouchers for private schools, in the 1950’s, the idea was to promote competition in schools, as well as offer choice to parents who wanted to take their children to private schools. That would enable the government to support education without necessarily maintaining public institutions. The champions of this voucher system also say that one-size-fits-all public school system is inappropriate as the model does not cater different needs of the students. Opponents of the voucher system, on the other hand say that it is unfair to take public money meant for public schools and channel the same into private school where the public has no oversight over how the funds would be used. There is also fear that the private school system may only help to further segment the population alongside religious, social class and other lines. It is entirely possible that the introduction of the voucher system in private schools would provide a magnet for students in public schools. Faced with a larger applicant’s pool, private schools would then find it easier to reject applicants deemed undesirable. Unlike public schools, private schools are not obliged to take in one and all. Why the private school vouchers system issue so polarizing? Part of the answer lies in the way it has been promoted. California was among the first states to flirt with private schools voucher way back in 1993. A proposal was brought into the states legislature that would have taken away as much as 10 percent of public school funding, with a possibility of further increases on the card if more students moved from public to private schools (Rushefsky, 2002, p. 396). The issue is a political hot potato so much that George W. Bush stopped talking about it in the 2000 election primaries. Two powerful arguments already advanced are essential for a balanced view on the issue. And this article will chronicle the vouchers debate, and will attempt to close the difference between the two sides through critically analyzing the pros and cons of the voucher system in private schools. Literature Review. Recurring discussions on the topics are decidedly one-sided. And once a path has been identified, for many a writer on the topic, there is no turning back. Two critically acclaimed works on the topic include Rhetoric Versus Reality done by four RAND researchers; Gill, Tiampane, Brewer, Ross and Booker (2007). This book does a fairly good job examining the theoretical underpinnings of vouchers and charter schools and tables the empirical data on their efficacy. The book also looks at how several policy formulations such as the funding, eligibility criteria, academic standards and accountability, may affect the success of the program. Some issues which have yet to be addressed are raised, and although the book is not conclusive on those issues, it leaves room for a more robust consideration of the issues in the future. The other important work on the topic is The Education Gap by Howell and Peterson (2002). Compelling evidence is tabled that African Americans have greatly benefited from the voucher system. Overall, The Education Gap is illustrative on the practicability of the voucher program in private schools and emphatically so in poor urban environments. The point of convergence for both books is that the authors favor random field trials. The sheer volume of applications that is usually received reduces the voucher program into some form of wager, so that those who received the vouchers were merely lucky than needful. There are other studies/articles on the subject. Breaking These Chains is a book by Daniel Mcgroaty, a former Whitehouse speechwriter that in an evangelical fashion roundly criticizes the public school system (1996). Throughout the pages, one is never in doubt about where the author stands on the issue. There are some glaring oversights that such a book ought to have taken into account, like lack of serious consideration of public policy, educational as well as constitutional issues surrounding the voucher system. Two different authors, Jerome J. Hanus and peter W. Cookson Jr, come together in an unlikely alliance to pen a book called Choosing Schools: Vouchers and American Education. Hanus is unenthusiastic about public education almost as much as Mcgroaty while Cookson presents well supported arguments against vouchers in the other half. If private school voucher advocated found a kindred soul in Mcgroaty and Hanus, the anti-vouchers might feel the same about David C. Berliner and Bruce J. Biddle who teamed up together to pen The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud and Attack on America’s public Schools. Although the book is mainly devoted to defending public school from the media characterization as a crumbling institution, it devotes some attention to vouchers, which is one of the central themes in this discussion. Specifically, chapter three tackles a widespread belief that private schools are inherently better than public schools. Inevitably, a heated debate like this was in all probability to end up in courts. Judicial decision has in the past been able to shape public opinion because of the high degree of acceptability. In the case Zelman Vs Simon-Harris (2002), the Supreme Court had the opportunity to give their opinion in this vexed topic. The case tested the permissibility of school vouchers in relation to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The court devised a five-part which a lawful voucher program should have. One, the program must have a valid non-sectarian purpose; secondly, the aid must benefit the parents and not the schools. Thirdly, a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered. Fourthly, the program must be neutral in respect to any religion, and finally, that there must be adequate non-religious options. The Supreme Court was satisfied that the Ohio program had passed the entire five tests. Summary of the Problem. There is sufficient evidence to justify positive findings in favor of voucher program in private schools. Peterson and Howells have painstakingly tried to demonstrate that the poor African Americans have benefited from the program more than any other ethnic group (2002). They argue that students in private schools may perform better that their public schools counterparts as they are more motivated, and are less likely to cause disruption in learning. The motivation is attributed to some common denominator, like religious belief. However, the studies on the effect was based on pilot programs that involved a partly 40,000 students. Anti-voucher advocates also have robust arguments with them. And despite of demonstrable success of the pilot program especially with regard to the students of color, many of them are still not convinced that the program would work if done on a massive scale (The Century Foundation, 2007). It is a valid point that both sides of the argument need to consider. Findings. Many existing voucher programs operate on what the RAND team of writers calls “the escape valve” principle (Gill, Tiampane, Brewer, Ross and Booker, 2007, P. XVIII). They are aimed at a relatively small group of vulnerable students and may have overall positive effects on African Americans. For instance Howells and Peterson found that average test score gain in New York, Washington and Dayton was a mere o.7 national percentage points for voucher beneficiaries. But for African Americans, all the three cities averaged 6.6 percentage points improvement, and in New York in particular the gain was an impressive 9.2 percentage points (Howell, Peterson, 2002, P. 146). The pilot voucher programs do not pose any threat to public school budgets. And they could have a desirable effect in cities with high poverty index or the ones with significant African American populations. Such voucher programs will not be a panacea to the problems currently bedeviling urban education, and neither can they produce the effects that voucher opponents dread. The benefits of transforming the pilot voucher programs into full scale national programs may not be immediately apparent for a number of reasons. If one was to assume that the students who improved markedly did so because of interacting in the same class with high achievers, the same results are not guaranteed when the scale is massive, as more and more low achievers eventually outnumber the high achievers in a class. In that case there will be a welfare loss especially to the high achievers who may not need to exert much effort just to be ahead in the class. Secondly, if the gains demonstrated through the pilot program are achieved on the background of less-than-exemplary performing public schools, then those gains would mean nothing when they are contextualized with well performing public schools. Conclusions. There are still some grey areas as to the true effect of voucher programs. Yet there are ways in which policy makers can design a workable vouchers program that can work. The trick is to balance the various possible outcomes in a way that ensures mutual inclusiveness among the various (potentially) conflicting outcomes. The recurring theme that black students gained most from voucher programs may help explain that schooling with high achievers can benefit a low achiever to climb a few steps. This necessitates discarding the perception that private schools have something to do with the improved performance. If attending a private school guaranteed better results due to the inherent qualities and/or values in such schools, then presumably students from all aces who received a voucher should also have registered marked performance. But Peterson and Howell’s book has postulated that leaving racially segregated and poor schools to learn with more affluent classmates who are more motivated and high achieving does help many African American students who are the ones most affected by poverty and segregation more than any other ethnic grouping (Howell , Peterson, 2002, P. 143). All these findings further strengthen the case for a selective and carefully designed voucher program which clearly affords priceless benefits for a certain segment of the society and also bearing in mind the earlier cited Supreme Court decision of Zelman Vs Simon-Harris (2002) on the acceptability criteria that such program will have to fulfill. Recommendations. There exist some smart policy intervention measures which have been arrived at after careful consideration of the ongoing programs. But since the said programs haven’t been tested on a vast scale, the suggestions listed here are more of guideline that prescriptive. In this respect the research by RAND team has been helpful, and they too have given caution that the possible intervention measures be regarded as tentative rather than definitive (Gill, Tiampane, Brewer, Ross and Booker 2007, P. XXI). Policy makers might increase the usefulness of the voucher system if they included all the private and parochial schools, and ensure the dissemination of the information as well as randomized testing. Adequate funds should be provided as well. Measures to ensure that those who forego the voucher system are not disadvantaged might include ensuring an open door policy in many schools and encourage better performance especially from the perennial poor performers. In order to ensure that will benefit the scheme will benefit those who need it most, additional tuition fees should be discouraged, or out rightly banned. Responsible parents may be allowed to benefit from income tax deductions but only for the purpose of educating the child. Racially homogenous schools should be encouraged to integrate. In 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, (or NCLB) which did not comprehensively deal with the vouchers in private schools issue. It did provide that “faith-based” groups may serve as private tutors and receive public money, inviting wrath from the constitutionalists who support separation of church from the state. The faith based groups were probably emboldened by Zelman Vs Simon-Harris case, but as the NCLB comes for review, in 2007, perhaps they should consider one or two things cited above. References. 1. Berliner, David C. Biddle, Bruce J. (1997). The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud and Attack on Americas Public Schools. Reading, MA,Addison-Wesley, 2. Council for Americas Private Education. Facts and Studies (www document) URL http://www.capenet.org/facts.html 27th October, 2007. 3. Gill, Brian P. Timpane, Mike. Ross, Karen E. Brewer, Dominic J. Booke, Kevin (2007). Rhetoric Versus Reality; What we Want and What we Need to know About Vouchers and Charter Schools. Santa Monica, RAND Monograph Reports. 4. Hanus, Jerome J. Cookson, Peter W. Jr, (1996). Choosing Schools. Vouchers and American Education. Washington D.C., American University Press. 5. McGroaty, Daniel, (1996). Breaking These Chains. , Roseville, Prima Lifestyles.. 6. Peterson, Paul E, Howell, William G. (2002). The Education Gap. Washington D.C, Brookings Institution Press, 7. Rushefsky, Mark E. (2002) Public Policy in the United States: At the Dawn of the 21st Century. New York, ME Sharpe. 8. The Century Foundation (2001). The Problem of taking Private School Voucher Programs to Scale. (www document) URL http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:4e2c9BmHiecJ:www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/vouchers.pdf 27th October, 2007. Read More