Seattle Times Editorial Board Comes Out Against School Choice
The Great Debate: School Choice and Its Implications
A few days after the Seattle Times editorial board published its scathing piece against school choice, also known as vouchers, the conversation has intensified. This contentious issue pits supporters of private schools and educational freedom against critics who claim it would undermine public education.
At the center of this debate are the two candidates for superintendent of public instruction: Chris Reykdal and his challenger David Olson. Both have weighed in on the matter, reflecting the varying perspectives within the community.
The Facts Behind School Choice
Live Finne, director of the Center for Education at the Washington Policy Center, has been vocal in her criticism of the Seattle Times editorial piece. She disputes the notion that private or religious schools would cherry-pick top students and athletes, leaving the rest behind. According to Finne, research indicates that applicants to voucher programs are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and include immigrant children and minority kids.
Finne emphasizes that school choice is about giving families trapped in low-performing public schools an alternative. She argues that opponents who claim it would only benefit wealthy families are misguided. The data shows that when lawmakers pass school choice programs, they increase funding to traditional public schools.
In the 32 states with school choice initiatives, a significant number of students stay with their local public school. Finne believes those who aren't satisfied should have the option to choose a different educational setting.
Candidates Weigh In
Superintendent Chris Reykdal has come out firmly against voucher programs. He views them as an attack on traditional public schools and argues that using taxpayer money to fund for-profit institutions would lead to segregation by race, income, religion, and disability.
Reykdal advocates for investing in local public schools with elected school boards. His stance reflects the concerns of many critics who worry about equity and access issues within school choice systems.
On the other hand, David Olson, a longtime Peninsula School District board member, is more nuanced. While he supports charter schools with elected boards and accountability, he doubts that voucher programs would gain traction in Washington due to Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
Olson suggests that parents should have the option to send their children to charter schools rather than struggling public schools. However, when asked about increasing state funding for charter schools, he remained pragmatic, noting that this might be challenging with current legislative leadership.
Expert Insights
Finne emphasizes that school choice is not only beneficial but also necessary for low-income minority and immigrant families seeking better educational opportunities. She rejects the claim that traditional public schools would lose funding due to voucher programs, pointing out that lawmakers consistently increase funding to these institutions when school choice initiatives are implemented.
In her view, opponents of school choice often misrepresent its purpose and benefits. Finne believes that giving families a choice in education is essential for prosperity and a comfortable middle-class existence.
She questions why anyone would stand in the way of offering families the best option for their child's education, especially when there are evidence-based solutions to address concerns about equity and access.