Why Should Ty’Sheoma Have A Choice?

The following op-ed, which appeared in the Sunday, March 1, 2009 edition of The Washington Post, was written by Jeanne Allen who serves as the President of the Center for Education Reform:

 

What if Ty’Sheoma Bethea had a choice? Ty’Sheoma is the young lady who sat with first lady Michelle Obama when President Obama spoke to Congress Tuesday night. She had reached the president through a letter about her school, the ceiling that leaks, the walls that shake when trains go by, the poor education it provides. She warmed his heart and ours.

Ty’Sheoma’s world is not unlike the District’s before charter schools and scholarships, when enormous effort was made to improve schools, to no avail. It wasn’t until these choices were available that people could see how financing a broken system, without accountability, does nothing. Now, charter schools and the scholarship program are not only educating nearly 35 percent of D.C. students but also ushering in a new wave of public school reform that would never have been on the table had the arrival of choice not shown the way and shed light on the failings of the system and its protectors.

What if Ty’Sheoma had a charter school? Poverty abounds in her home town of Dillon, S.C. Its school board and citizens have the power to start charter schools. But school boards fight their creation, claiming they undermine public schools. Charters use education money with one goal, to educate. If they don’t succeed, they don’t stay open.

Dillon’s per-pupil expenditure — $8,700 — is higher than the national average. That funds more than 50 staff positions at her J.V. Martin Junior High School (including four custodians). That’s a student-to-staff ratio of 9 to 1, meaning there are more than twice as many adults serving students as at most schools in the country. What if Ty’Sheoma had an opportunity scholarship, which would send $7,500 to the private school of her family’s choosing? Those schools are not lush, but they are well-maintained, safe and successful in educating children. If Ty’Sheoma could vote with her feet, too, she’d find her allotted money spent where it should be, on ensuring student achievement. Her district might just make changes in response, lifting all schools.

But Ty’Sheoma doesn’t have choices. She’s the victim of a lawsuit filed by those who are adamant that money equals education. We know from years of equity battles that education doesn’t change when courts order states to spend more. Facilities may get a facelift and teachers may make more, but not because they are better; it’s because they are there. With choice, Ty’Sheoma’s family could evaluate a school, review the programs and the data on school performance. Ty’Sheoma could choose to attend a school that worked for her.

Ty’Sheoma Bethea doesn’t know that adults work in her schools regardless of how well they do their jobs, that there are no consequences for leaky roofs. She may not know that cities like this one offer choices that provide exactly what she wants and deserves. She’s been told that she is treated inequitably because the state doesn’t care about kids in Dillon. So she wrote the president, who brought her to Washington and told her story and asserted that the economic stimulus legislation helps her, absent any policy changes.

The Washington that has pledged to help her wants to abolish the D.C. program that affords choices to the poorest children. I wonder, if Ty’Sheoma had written the president about how choice benefited her, whether she would have been sitting with Michelle Obama.

If Ty’Sheoma had a choice, maybe we wouldn’t know her at all.

The writer is president of the Center for Education Reform.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2009/02/28/AR2009022801663.html?sub=AR

 

 

 

We Need To Unite Behind Choice In Education

The following op-ed, co-authored by Representative Eric Bedingfield and Senator Robert Ford, appeared in the Sunday, March 1, 2009 edition of The Greenville News:

 

As elected officials go, a lot of people might be tempted to view us as the “odd couple.”

One of us is black, the other white. One is a Republican, the other a Democrat. One is from the Lowcountry, the other from the Upstate. We wear different clothes, listen to different music and watch different TV shows.

In a word, we are “unique” — which means we have something in common with the hundreds of thousands of children who attend our state’s public schools.

We have all heard the expression “that which unites us is stronger than that which divides us,” and that is more true today than ever before. In fact, that “unity” in pursuit of a common aim is why we are joining with dozens of our colleagues from across the state to lead the fight for long-overdue parental school choice in education.

How can we honestly call ourselves a culture that celebrates diversity and individual empowerment if thousands of children remain trapped in failing schools as part of a “one size fits all” system?

How can we possibly prepare future generations for an increasingly competitive world when nearly half of our students do not graduate on time?

And how can we say that we are confronting growing achievement gaps if we keep returning to the same old “solutions” that have failed the children of our state for decades?

These are challenges that transcend race, gender, socio-economic status and partisan affiliation.

And they are challenges that demand a new approach to the way South Carolina cares for its most treasured asset — the children who represent our collective hope, common dreams and shared future.

That new approach must begin with a shift in perspective.

We can no longer permit public policy in this state to be dictated by a “one size fits all” education system. We need to address the fact that all children are individuals and may need different ways and techniques to reach their full potential. The good Lord makes us all different, let us embrace that fact and allow parents the options to make sure their children have access to the educational system that best fits their individual needs.

In other words, our goal must be to advance academic achievement by any means necessary, both inside and outside of the current public system. That means empowering parents to find the right school or methods, whether they be public or private schools.

Currently, there are over 150 failing schools in South Carolina with almost 88,000 students trapped inside of them. Many of these failing schools are predominately black and their parents have lower than average income.

Also, we face declining public school SAT scores and a widening achievement20gap between white and black students that is evident in every measure.

These unacceptable results come after years of sustained funding increases. In fact, even after this year’s budget cuts we are still spending on average almost $12,000 per student when you factor federal, state and local resources.

More money has never been — and will never be — the only answer, although this is the constant refrain we keep hearing in Columbia from government bureaucrats and their lobbyists.

Our proposal is simple — we would take roughly half of the money our state currently spends per child and allow parents to choose a school setting that fits their child’s needs through a SC Opportunity Tax Credit. It would only be an average credit of $2,500, which pales in comparison to what the state spends to educate children today.

For our lower income families who may not have a tax liability, we are allowing scholarships be made available for families to send their children to the school of their choice. The scholarship program has been successfully implemented in Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio. It’s time we give opportunities to our lower income families to free them from decaying failing schools and give their children the opportunity they deserve.

Public, private, parochial — the choice would be up to the parents.

It’s that simple.

It would also create the same sort of competitive system we have in kindergarten and higher education in South Carolina, two areas that are consistently outperforming our K-12 system. We allow lower income families to choose a private kindergarten and we allow state and federal funds to aid families who send their children to private universities. Why can we not do the same for grades 1-12?

In endorsing this proposal, we fully expect to be criticized by the government-funded special interest groups who have successfully blocked parental choice up to this point. They don’t want change because they profit from the current system, and we can certainly see why they are so motivated on this issue.

But the time for change has come whether they like it or not.

South Carolina cannot afford to continue down its current path. We must unite behind real change — and real choice — or else we will continue to fail our future generations.

 

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20090301/OPINION/903010304/1008