Bipartisan support for School Choice – But NOT in Ohio
Friday, November 21st, 2008 By Beth Lear
Today in Columbus a miracle occured: 2 Democrat State Representatives and 1 Republican Speaker of the House came together and agreed, wholeheartedly, that all American kids deserve school choice. The Ohio Coalition for Quality Education held a Legislative Discussion about ‘Improving Public Education through Choice and Accountability’ that included Speaker Jon Husted (R-OH) and two gentlemen from out of state, Rep. Jason Fields (D) of Wisconsin and Rep. Jabar Shumate (D) from Oklahoma.
The conversation was decidedly one sided — all three supported the rights of kids and parents to choose the school they attend and all agreed that the education monopoly does not have the answers to improving education. In fact, these three gentlemen believe the free market and parents are better at determining the best direction for education in the US than government and special interest groups.
Rep. Shumate called the issue of education in this country ‘the new civil rights movement’. He said things need to change, because “…more black males are in prison than in higher education, (this) can’t continue.” And Rep. Fields shared that behind closed doors most of his democratic brothers and sisters support school choice. They just need to get rid of the fear of opposition groups. “If you’re in this job with fear that a group or organization may come after you, get out! Because you’re doing a disservice to all of us,” Rep. Fields declared.
The usual question about academic accountability and charters schools came up. Speaker Husted quickly dispatched that red herring by stating, “Choice IS accountability through parents who make better choices than government can.” He added two additional points: public charters should be compared with urban public schools, apples to apples, not to average or suburban schools, because charters and failing urban schools have the same populations they are trying to educate. He also noted that accountability standards are stronger for charter schools because they can be closed, while failing district schools can exist indefinitely. The market works through kids who leave bad charter schools.
Rep. Fields agreed the “greatest accountability is where someone chooses to send their child. (It’s) not for us to determine which school is best…it’s for those individuals who are choosing. Telling parents they don’t know what’s best means you’re telling parents they are idiots.”
Rep. Shumate’s views on the accountability issue were that those who are involved in supporting choice are not afraid of being tested and monitored, unlike many in the public system. He acknowledged, “Where resources are limited, we begin to pick at each other. Let’s look at what’s best for kids.”
All three gentlemen agreed that government is not the solution to improving education, but parental choice is. And a key component to facilitating this change will be allowing education funding to follow the child. Look to the Buckeye Institute to provide more information on this important policy issue early next month.
In the meantime, it would be wise for Ohio Democrats and some Republicans to pay attention to the political environment in other states. School Choice can be a bipartisan issue for those who have the courage to support kids over special interests. Ohio should lead the way instead of lagging behind.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 am
Funny that Speaker Husted had to go all the way to Oklahoma and Wisconsin to find Republicrats that actually agree with school choice. They’re obviously unfamiliar with the mess it’s created here, the lack of accountability, transparency or consequences for the charter operators in Columbus (that, when compared to an urban school of the same size, demographic or academic make-up) are vastly outperformed (as your parent organization, Fordham noted in a recent report) by the local traditional school district.
November 26th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
You’re funny, Bob. Charter schools actually close. When was the last time time an OEA member lost a job for anything short of criminal conduct? (Not that the way children are imprisoned by big school districts isn’t a crime).
Obviously you believe parents ought not choose schools (although I presume you’re okay with the current system where parents who can afford it move to the districts they prefer); I wonder, when choice was first proposed, were you one of those who argued that this would allow only the best students to leave, thereby harming public schools because the harder to educate children would be left in the public district schools? Do you also argue that charter schools cost the public district schools money, by “diverting” money that those schools desperately need, etc.?
Education isn’t an easy thing, and sometimes public district schools are unfairly criticized by those who buy into false assumptions, but I’d say your note is a rather strong example of poorly based criticism itself.