| 1. |
Texas taxpayers can’t afford another school choice experiment.
In school year 1999-2000, Texas taxpayers spent more than $126,000,000 on an experiment involving more than 160 charter schools. There is a growing concern about many charter schools and their poor student achievement and financial mismanagement. The average passing rate on all TAAS tests for charter school students was 59%, which compared with the state average of 78.4% passing in traditional public schools. Legislators and taxpayers should concentrate on improving the academic achievement of about 24,000 children enrolled in experimental charter schools and evaluating whether these schools should be expanded or cut back.
|
| 2. |
Children are not “trapped” in low-performing public schools in Texas cities.
Parents in urban areas have an expanding array of choices for the public
school their child attends. Children may transfer to another public school in
the same or a neighboring school district, or they may enroll in a public
magnet school, charter school, school-to-work program, or an evening high
school. A 1998 Survey on School Choice conducted by the Texas Education
Agency found that urban school districts routinely granted many student
transfers: Houston ISD—36,000 transfers; Austin ISD—9,300 transfers; Dallas
ISD—4,226 transfers; El Paso ISD—6,500 transfers; and San Antonio ISD—815
transfers.
|
| 3. |
There are few “low-performing” neighborhood public schools in Texas inner cities.
The number of neighborhood public schools rated by the Commissioner of
Education as “low-performing” for two consecutive years are: Houston ISD—0; Dallas ISD—3; San Antonio ISD—0; Northside ISD (San Antonio)—0; Fort Worth ISD—0, El Paso ISD—0; Austin ISD—7. The greatest improvements in academic achievement have been made by economically disadvantaged children in urban districts.
|
| 4. |
Vouchers would not benefit most disadvantaged children in urban areas, because private schools don’t want to admit voucher students who have achievement problems.
Private school administrators cite several reasons why they would not
participate in a voucher pilot program: their schools have waiting lists and
only admit top students; a voucher would not cover private school tuition and fees; private academies won’t administer the TAAS test and don’t want any government regulation of curriculum and instruction; bilingual education and special education are not offered; no transportation or free lunches are provided; they refuse to exempt voucher students from participation in religious activities during the school day; parents of currently enrolled students don’t want private schools to lower their selective admission standards; and other reasons.
|
| 5. |
Most Texas legislators representing inner city schools oppose vouchers.
Most Texas legislators representing inner city public schools actively oppose
vouchers. These lawmakers want to strengthen public schools—not weaken them by draining away money, students, and involved parents. Legislators from suburban and rural areas sometimes say, “I oppose vouchers for schools in MY district, but I will vote to make taxpayers in Houston and Dallas pay for private school tuition vouchers.” This is unacceptable. Legislators who represent inner city schools can best decide what’s needed for their constituents.
|
| 6. |
A voucher experiment in urban areas would open the door for a statewide voucher program.
Voucher lobbyists made a strategic public relations decision to “package”
vouchers as the “ticket out” for inner city students. But their real goal is
a statewide program that would give a tax-funded private school voucher to
every child in the state. At a Texas Capitol press conference in 1999,
Coalition for School Choice spokesperson Peggy Venable said “a number of the organizations here would like to see school choice statewide.” But she
added, “We recognize the political realities that most lawmakers are looking
at more limited programs, at least this legislative session.”
|
| 7. |
Vouchers are a political distraction from the state’s top priority:
providing high quality neighborhood public schools that meet the educational needs of every Texas child.
|
