Discussions between John Kirtley and James Forman on parental choice/vouchers

My recent emails triggered an interesting discussion on parental choice/vouchers between John Kirtley (who's spearheaded such programs in Florida) and James Forman (Georgetown Law Professor and co-founder of DC's Maya Angelou charter school).

Here is my take on the discussion followed by James's challenge to John Kirtley's critique of Obama's speech (http://edreform.blogspot.com/2007/07/john-kirtleys-response-to-obamas-speech.html), followed by John's response.

My two cents on this:

a) The fact that other people and organizations I greatly respect (like Ed Trust) reject parental choice certainly makes me think hard about this issue, but I've concluded that they're wrong to remove this tool from their school reform toolkit -- we need every tool at our disposal! That being said, I don't think parental choice is "THE ANSWER" because there isn't one single answer -- people have a natural tendency to look for a silver bullet -- one 100% solution -- but we need 100 1% solutions;

b) Parental choice can mean a lot of different things -- the discussion is often "you're pro-voucher" vs. "you're anti-voucher", but in fact there are many nuances of these programs and the devil's in the details. Simply dismissing the concept entirely makes no sense to me;

c) I embrace reform-oriented Democrats, even if they don't support parental choice -- it's not, to quote James, "ideological straight-jacket" to me. Heck, Democrats for Education Reform is silent on this issue; and

d) I know there are plenty of people on this email list who oppose parental choice. Can one of you please email me with what you would say to this mother (per John's email below):

But that mom in Miami doesn't care about high minded arguments concerning economic systems. She would say to your friend, "Let me understand you. The school I want to use has a 99% graduation rate. The one my child is assigned to has one of 30%. The school I want to use will cost you less than half the other school. Tell me again why I can't send my kid there?"

Give her an answer that will satisfy her, and I will be satisfied too.

In 18 years, I have never heard a good answer, so I'm throwning down the gauntlet: I don't want to hear about draining the public schools of money/students, church-state issues, the political difficulties, etc. -- all valid issues, to be sure, but I want to know what you would say to that particular mother.

Without further ado, here's James Forman's email:

Whitney: I disagree with you that "there are no good answers" to John's questions.

You talk about the Democratic party being "bankrupt" on ideas in this area, but John's comments amount to a single claim: unless the candidate does not support vouchers, reform-oriented Democrats should be pissed off.

But lots of folks have good reform ideas that do not include vouchers. Education Trust, for example, is by no means beholden to the Democratic party, and they don't advocate vouchers.

As for Obama's focus on teachers, John's comments criticize him for saying that teachers are not the most important thing. But tons of people argue that teachers are the most important factor determining student achievement. Ed Trust says this. So do your own slides, where you say, "Numerous studies have shown that the most important determinant of student achievement, by far, is teacher quality."

Look, some people agree with John that vouchers are really important. But others don't; some think they are a terrible idea, others are not sure, and lots more think they might do some good but will never greatly impact the majority of low-income kids in America. To suggest that reform-oriented Democrats have to support vouchers (or even charters for that matter) is to incorrectly impose an ideological straight-jacket on people.

I think the real thing to focus on is the merit-pay point, and the fact that Obama made the important argument that criticizing NCLB cannot be the end of the game for Dems. They need to have a proposal, and Obama made clear that his was going to be about improving teacher quality. Per your slides, that is a terribly important idea.

Here is John's reply to James:

My comments amount to a single claim, but a different one: unless a candidate supports parental choice for low income parents, reform oriented Democrats should be pissed off. More importantly, low income parents who are being asked to support such candidates should be pissed off.

Your friend I think is getting caught up in a word. The real question to ask him (or her) is: why don't you, or the Education Trust, support the idea of using taxpayer dollars to help a low income parent send their child to a particular school, perhaps even on their block, that works for that child? Don't just say that it should be OK for you or the Education Trust not to support that -- say why it's OK to deny that parent that chance.

Remember the example of Miami Union Academy. It graduates 99% of its kids, and 95% go to college. Tuition is $4,000. All its kids are poor and minority. Per pupil spending in Dade County Public Schools are more than double that, and they graduate less than half of minority children.

That low income parent deserves to know why she can't send her child to that school. She won't accept an answer that "it should be OK that we deny her that opportunity."

Your friend says, "To suggest that reform-oriented Democrats have to support vouchers (or even charters for that matter) is to incorrectly impose an ideological straight-jacket on people." This statement gets to the heart of the problem most Democrats (and many Republicans) face on education. I believe that giving parental choice to low income parents will help drive improvement in the public schools that serve low income children. I believe that it will make every other reform method work better, because it will be an external catalyst for those reforms to be adopted.

Your friend does not want to grant that power to that low income parent. They want to try reform methods, all of which may be good ideas, but they want the essential nature of the system to remain the same. They believe that a system where children are assigned to schools based upon where they live can eventually operate successfully. For some reason they wish taxpayer dollars used to educate children to only be used with certain providers within a closed system. They do not want to grant to low income parents the power to allocate resources. The allocation of resources will continue to come from on high.

Of course there was another system where resources were allocated in such a way, and when the productivity in that system faltered, many well meaning people believed that if they just tried the right reform with the existing system, or had the right people in the right positions, things would get better. Glastnost didn't work in that case, and sadly I don't think it will here.

But that mom in Miami doesn't care about high minded arguments concerning economic systems. She would say to your friend, "Let me understand you. The school I want to use has a 99% graduation rate. The one my child is assigned to has one of 30%. The school I want to use will cost you less than half the other school. Tell me again why I can't send my kid there?"

Give her an answer that will satisfy her, and I will be satisfied too.