LIVE Coverage of House Education Committee Hearing on School Choice

Comment

Comment by William Lin on July 27, 2011 at 3:48pm

Unite PA agrees with some of the committee members that we should follow how EITC students do, but Rep. Roebuck reiterates that the state law explicitly prohibits us from asking any questions about who the EITC funds are going to, how they are doing, and what schools they are attending. Rep. Roebuck also emphasizes the fact that corporate tax credits, that fund EITC, are a form of tax money. Shouldn't there be some kind of accountability and transparency with how this money is spent? If EITC is about helping poor students, as Students First claims, why are companies allowed to award EITC scholarships to upper-class students attending prep schools?

Comment by William Lin on July 27, 2011 at 3:43pm

Unite PA contends that homeschooling is "the most cost-effective method of education in the state" and warrants a portion of EITC funds. I wonder what others think about this.

Comment by William Lin on July 27, 2011 at 3:39pm

There is discussion throughout the hearing about standardized testing in private schools as a means of ensuring accountability. Should students who attend private schools through the use of a voucher or EITC scholarships be required to take the PSSA? Is the PSSA the best measure of student achievement, given the presence of "teaching to the test" in many public schools and the problems with high-stakes testing?

Comment by William Lin on July 27, 2011 at 3:34pm

Dawn reasons that by expanding school choice through vouchers, charter expansion, and EITC, this would help create a "healthy competitive market of schools" and that by providing more options, this would "force public schools to work harder" to avoid losing more and more students. As Research For Action has found, however, there is no nonpartisan research that supports this claim. Such improvement in traditional public schools is especially unlikely given that none of the "school choice" legislation requires that charter schools or voucher/EITC-accepting private schools share ideas and best practices with traditional public schools in their neighborhood. Since they are directly competing for students and funding, there is no absolutely no incentive for schools to do so.

Comment by William Lin on July 27, 2011 at 3:22pm

Dawn Chavous from Students First spent most of her testimony advocating in favor of HB 1708.

She mentions that under HB 1708, there will be academic accountability because private and religious schools participating in the program will need to take some kind of nationally-approved standardized test. Can anyone confirm that this language is in the bill?

Dawn is in favor of increasing the dollar amount of EITC scholarships. This acknowledges the fact that many private schools have tuitions that are much higher than the amount provided by EITC or that would be provided through a voucher.

Comment by D milo on July 27, 2011 at 3:09pm

Any thing being said about Rep Christianas HB 1708 the "compromise bill" ?

Comment by William Lin on July 27, 2011 at 12:30pm

Sorry, that previous post was by me, not Susan. Susan has been kind enough to let me share her computer today.

 

Baruch points out many facts hidden within the proposed legislation that has not received media attention. For example, under the current draft of voucher legislation, only 9 out of every 100 students in PA's lowest-performing public schools would actually receive a voucher. For students attending eligible private and religious schools, 100 out of every 100 students (not a typo) would receive a voucher. This seriously calls into question if the goal of the voucher bill is really about helping low-income students in poorly-performing schools.

Comment by Susan Gobreski on July 27, 2011 at 12:22pm

Baseerah Watson, a rising senior at Sayre High in West Philadelphia, points out many drawbacks to vouchers. She notes that vouchers "are not a guarantee of a better education" and that the dollar amount of the voucher is not enough to cover tuition at most private schools. Most low-income families would not be able to make up the difference.

She also emphasizes that voucher programs give schools to pick their students, not for students to pick schools. Since they are not public schools, private and religious schools will be able to pick exactly which students to accept. A student can be denied if they are learning English, if they have a disability, if they have a discipline record, if they are LGBT, and if they come from a certain religious background. She asks, "Why should taxpayer money go to schools that can discriminate against these students?"

Finally, she also adds that she is opposed to vouchers because she loves her school. It is a part of her community. She would rather work for improvements in her current school than leave to attend another school.

Comment by William Lin on July 27, 2011 at 11:21am

Lori Shorr raised the point in her testimony that without clear evidence that students who receive vouchers perform better than their peers who stay in public schools, we need to be cautious about implementing programs that may take away funding from the schools that the vast majority of students will remain in.

 

Safety has also been raised as a reason why parents choose to have their children attend a different schools, and that it is not always about academic performance. What do others think about safety and school climate as reasons to promote vouchers and charter school expansion in Pennsylvania? Would money be better spent on improving security in existing neighborhood public schools?

Comment by Susan Gobreski on July 27, 2011 at 11:09am

Lori Shorr (from The City of Philadelphia's Office of Education) just suggested that one principle to follow would be that the traditional public schools don't become the "underfunded schools of last resort" and that all schools must be accountable for the use of public dollars, including public access to information about school performance.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page