There is an error in your second sentence. Now, please feel free to delete this comment for non-PC content.

Typo fixed. Thank you very much.

This could easily be fixed by our state legislature, by enacting a school choice program for those in failing districts. With a voucher that could be used at any public, private, or parochial school, students would be not trapped in the district their parents could afford, but could go where the education was best. Will the Post-Dispatch editorial board be supporting such an apartheid ending, child saving policy in the future?

Mr. Roth,
Professor Carter appears to be in favor of a voucher system.
“One obvious response would be to give poor families in the inner cities the money they need to purchase private education for their children. But this the Democratic Party steadfastly opposes.”
Since you say the column was great, do you agree? I am not convinced that a voucher system would improve education in the absence of parents who put no effort into educating their children.

He does say that married parents that care about their children’s future might help. How do suggest we do that?

So does the PD not have the nerve to come out and say marriage and vouchers are good for children? You can only put in a link to the NYT for that. I bet Mr. Carter would consent to you publishing his opinion — the editorial board could even say they agree.

There are a number of ways to address the educational inequities currently afflicting many of St. Louis’ children. The creation of a single, metropolitan school district (rather than perpetuating the multiplicity of districts which ensure economic and racial segregation) would be one approach. Such a restructuring would mix children from different economic, racial, geographic and cultural backgrounds — resulting in an enrollment that really would resemble the population of our metro area. It might also eliminate the embarrassing differences in expenditures-per-student that is currently the case. Politically risky — yes; potentially helpful — no doubt.

tmnolan,

Another way to address the problem would be to make the districts much smaller. That way each parent and student would be more responsible for their education. The differences in per student spending actually reflect the fact that students outside the city get many fewer dollars. Unless of course, you count the time parents spend with their children teaching them, perhaps you could force each parent that already does a good job to spend the same time with another student with parents who don’t. You might solve some inequality that way too — of course it sounds a lot like forced servitude, which our country just happened to fight a civil war about.

Nick,

Do you truly believe that a voucher would solve the tuition problem for poor students or children whose parents are barely able to make ends meet? How will these parents come up with the remaining tuition due?

Who do you think will be last on the tadem pole to be accepted into private schools? No doubt, poor Black children.

Who do you think will benefit lest or at all from tution vouchers? No doubt, poor Black children.

You voucher activists should be ashamed of yourselves, but you are not, why?

D. Walker,

Did you even read the column referenced here? The guy who wrote it at least admits a voucher system might help.

I suppose you might propose the child (or their parent) could get some government subsidized loan for their education similar to what college students do.

I really don’t care how private schools choose to accept students, they are private right, so they should get to choose how to accept students however they want.

Next you ask who will benefit the least from a voucher system - teachers and administrative staff that aren’t worth their salt. If they have to teach or work in a private institution they might actually earn their 401k instead of forcing us to pay their outrageous pensions.

If you think poor black kids will lose the most in the deal, I would counter with the SLPS system doesn’t give them much of anything right now so they wouldn’t be losing anything.

You ask why people in favor of voucher’s are not ashamed of themselves. Perhaps they have actually worked for their paychecks and feel no shame in that. Perhaps they might even feel they have a right to all of their paycheck rather than having a bunch of moochers down in city hall who have never done an honest day’s work rob it from them in taxes.

D-Walker, How is the current public education system currently helping the poor, black children you mentioned? While I agree that some kids will be turned away because of their skin color at some private schools, many will not. With a voucher system, many children in the failed St. Louis Public School system would have a chance to get the solid education they have no chance at getting today.

Why would anyone be against school choice?

< I suppose you might propose the child (or their parent) could get some
< government subsidized loan for their education similar to what college
< students do.

What planet are you guys living on? How many poor families do you think will qualify for student loans?

The only thing I am saying is that its shameful to push vouchers as something that will benefit the poor, such as the poor in urban school districts. It will only cause poor students in the STLPS to be worst off with worst schools.

Maybe people should begin looking into home-school type curriculum and style for urban schools. There are ways and methods of assuring good education for all.

But vouchers would be great for all middle class and lower middle-class families who have the ability to move into decent school districts.

John Deal,

The article states:

One obvious response would be to give poor families in the inner cities the money they need to purchase private education for their children. But this the Democratic Party steadfastly opposes.

Such a response as the writer states above would cause a complete failure and closing of inner city schools. Is this the outcome you guys are also supporting?

D-Walker says, “Such a response as the writer states above would cause a complete failure and closing of inner city schools. Is this the outcome you guys are also supporting?”

Seems to me the inner-city public schools in St. Louis have already done this. While they haven’t closed, they have indeed failed, miserably. I am curious as to why the Democratic party would oppose a change in the current education system. They claim to be the party of Pro-Choice. I couldn’t be that the influence of the NEA actually is more important to them than providing an education to kids.

The concept of educational apartheid manifests itself locally, in fullest flower & with the fervent support of a broad array of public school officials. Has anyone checked the filings in the lawsuit brought by parents of City pupils who had the audacity to assert their Missouri statutory right to require SLPS to pay tuition bills generated by the Clayton School District? CSD, SLPS, the Mo. Dept. of Elementary & Secondary Education, and a consortium of conspiring county districts now argue that the statute upon which plaintiffs rely has no teeth & doesn’t really mandate anything. This is nonsense. The statute is clear, and when the problem was not large & politically explosive, its mandate was obeyed; e.g., Wellston School District lost its accreditation several years ago, CSD took some of its students & sent the statutorily prescribed tuition bills to WSD for payment. The fact is that SLPS’ loss of accreditation should have been foreseen years ago & appropriate preparation & changes should have been made; it is a grotesque distortion of our system of laws, and not men, to ignore a legal mandate simply because it convenient to do so. The public should also know that CSD & SLPS are arguing in the lawsuit that the Voluntary Transfer Program approved by the federal court several years ago somehow works a silent preemption of the subject statute, but only to the extent that SLPS, and SLPS alone, is exempted from its reach. CSD & SLPS presumably were unaware of the consequence of their argument when they first reduced it to a written filing: if you are an Aleut child living in the City, you are deprived of your statutory & constitutional (Missouri has a provision in its constitution guaranteeing a free public education through high school) rights because the VTP affords an escape hatch only to some, but not all, black children; this legal apartheid our disingenuous local school officials seek to construct would, of course, relegate to inferior class status kids of every shade except black (ironically, since the VTP does not accept all black students, this wicked construct hurts most of them too). Perversely, SLPS continues to collect all the taxes that it did when it was accredited, so the City parents whose childrens’ rights have been eviscerated must continue to feed the gluttonous SLPS beast.

The hue and cry about the failures of the SLPS, real or imagined, has been lacking one element, Where’s the money going? The adage “follow the money” seems most appropriate here, perhaps Ms. Montee could do an audit of the SLPS and at the least we’ll know what’s what.

As for educational apartheid, Bill Moyers has addressed the issue broadly and speaks truth to power about the need for us to empower our children with the ideals of the American Revolution.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/01/america_101.php

Q: What last worked well? A: The local schools within walking distance of every home. Q: Why is that system gone? A: It was felt unfair because it sustained inequalities based of inequalities of neighborhoods, often reflecting racial make-up. Q: Was busing the only way to deal with this? A: Only the most politically expedient.Q: Is there another way? A: Yes, by assuring that an equal dollar amount will be spent on each student, regardless of neighborhood. Q: Will that address the racial component? A: No better, and no worse, than the present system. Q: Is equal education for all an “entitlement”? A: Yes, when we decided long ago that public education, to a certain level, was our first “entitlement”. Q: So the best system would be equal investment of tax dollars in every neighborhood based on enrollment alone, disregarding all other consideraions such as race, community safety, crime, etc., etc. A: You got a better way?

Mr. Roth, all due respect, you are fanning a flame that is much more complex than you or Mr. Carter can even grasp. To apply this in respect to the SLPS or any other failing district is fine, but please place some of this in context. Why have the SLPS been failing? Numerous reasons, but if you want to address race and poverty issues, let’s examine the role of bussing students and the effect it has had on our schools. Can you at least offer an open dialogue and a scholarly response on how that might affect education, race relations, and economics? Just a thought.

Why do I bring this up? There is no loyalty to neighborhood schools, let alone a connection or identity. When children are spread willy nilly, their local community loses ownership over the children. Ownership is then passed on to someone else. Why are parochial schools anchors of the community, because they are 1) paying for a service and 2) there is a common community responsible for all the children. From a sociological perspective, economics does play a greater role in the success of a child. Yet a greater determinant of success is the literacy level. A student who learns a skill at school, but is not allowed to practice at home will ultimately fail. When a parent is working 2 jobs to get by, or is not even engaged in their childs life…What do you expect? This issue transcends race or economics.

I am not Democrat or Republican and I agree that a change is needed and I think everyone recognizes that a change is needed. But this change should not be a change that would make the situation even worst than it is now for the majority of inner city students.

Change is neccssary, but none of the adults involved are willing it appears to make the changes that are necessary, nor or the adult citizens in the better school districts, and we all know why, has everything to do with social status and race.

Let’s talk about vouchers…will the vouchers really ensure a real choice?
could you share with me the costs of a student attending a private institution for education? The size of the voucher (scholarships) are not enough for families to send children to the schools…
How do we solve this problem? It’s clearly not vouchers…

Studies have shown that patients who have to pay a significant portion for their medications are more likely to actually take them. I am not saying this will directly translate to kids doing better if their parents have to contribute monetarily to their education, but it may follow. Part of the lack of care in their children’s education is the lack of investment in product. Like Aristotle said, that which is had in common is the least valued. I’m sure their are plenty of data on the subject, don’t expect the PD to tell you what they are though.

John Deal,

That’s a bunch of crock. I know too many poarents paying for collegae educations where their college kid is goofing off.

But, if parents can’t afford to pay for college educations and their child do not qualify for grants then they don’t go to college.

If what you are suggesting Mr. Deal holds true, then the only thing that paying for high school will create is a greater high school drop out rate. Is that for the better good? I don’t think so.

Maybe your thinking may hold true if the college student had to pay for their own college tuition, but most high schoolers are too immature to take this that seriously, and who on earth would force a child to have to pay for their high school education by paying for it themselves?

By the way, people who cannot afford their medication, don’t take their needed medication. Some cut pills in half attempting to make them last longer etc… Bottom line, people who have to pay for medication that they can’t afford, GO WITHOUT! And, going without needed medication cause people to become sicker, and worst off. That study is seriously flawed and ridiculous if that was the conclusion.