- Ohio's Cleveland Scholarship and Tuition Program is
before
the U.S. Supreme Court. If children of the Court's justices, or the
program's
opponents, had to enroll in Cleveland's public schools, the issue wouldn't
be in doubt. While specifics vary over time, public sources have reported
the following about Cleveland's schools:
-
- 1. During a ten-year period, there have been 20 different
board members and 10 superintendents.
-
- 2. Janitors were paid $80,000 a year when teachers
received
$44,000.
-
- 3. When the scholarship program began in the 1996-7
school
year the system's defenders claimed that 1,900 voucher students, accepted
from 6,200 applicants, would render great harm to the system. Yet,
enrollment
had already declined from 150,000 in 1972 to 75,000 in 1997 -- an average
loss of 3,000 per year for 25 years.
-
- 4. Virtually every school building in the district needs
serious repair or replacement.
-
- 5. Despite claims that the program's intent is to benefit
private, largely religious, schools, one study noted that, since actual
costs always exceed private tuition, religious schools lost $577 for every
student they accepted.
-
- 6. Only 7% of the district's students graduate on time
with senior-level proficiency.
-
- 7. Coincidentally, 7% of the district's students are
also crime victims each year.
-
- 8. The dropout rate is twice the state average.
-
- 9. The district falls short of all 18 of Ohio's
performance
requirements; and all 27 of the state's performance standards.
-
- 10. Only 15% of 4th graders passed a state proficiency
test and 4% of 8th graders passed algebra. In 9th grade, only 9% of the
students passed a state proficiency test, compared with 55%
statewide.
-
- 11. As many as 25% of the students may be absent on a
school day. There's more, of course. While students may use scholarships
to attend public schools in other districts, all 15 suburban districts
adjoining Cleveland refuse to accept them. So much for public school
defenders
claim that public schools must accept all students.
-
- This refusal of suburban districts means scholarship
recipients have to attend nonpublic schools within the city, almost all
of which are religious. Opponents of the scholarship program now attack
the program because most scholarship students attend religious schools.
Yet a teachers' union representative complained because nonreligious
schools
were opened to take advantage of the program.
-
- Opponents claim that the Cleveland school district loses
money because of the scholarship program, yet state law explicitly says
that the district can count scholarship students as part of its enrollment,
thus continuing to receive state subsidies for them. In addition, the
funding
formula for disadvantaged students was adjusted so the district wouldn't
lose money. The result is that district made a "profit" of as
much as $118,473 in 1997.
-
- Claims have also been made that students departing with
a scholarship don't save district money, because they are drawn from many
schools and classrooms, preventing economies. Yet a union representative
claimed the program cost 65 teachers their jobs. If this is true, the
district
may be saving as much as $3,500,000 a year.
-
- The law establishing the scholarship program includes
a provision which requires that money for tutoring be equivalent to money
made available for the scholarships. This means that grants of up to $500
are available for qualified Cleveland public school students to obtain
needed tutorial assistance, though few, if any, take advantage of this
provision.
-
- As is common with all school districts, and not just
urban ones, Cleveland schools claim they are woefully underfunded. Yet
a news report in February 2001 said the district spends more than $10,000
per student per year, which is above the state average and more than all
but a handful of the state's individual districts.
-
- Safety is an issue, too. When the district hired 412
teachers in 1997, 386 started working without the required criminal
background
check. The Cleveland Plain Dealer found at least 192 district employees
had felony convictions -- 27 had three or more. Another 80-plus have
convictions
for collecting fraudulent welfare payments while working for the
district.
-
- The district's teachers send their children to nonpublic
schools at a higher rate than the general public. While true, this
understates
the situation. Even those sending their children to public schools
generally
either live in suburban school districts or avail themselves of the
district's
few acceptable public schools. That is, teachers exercise the choice their
public salaries make possible. For proof, visit any failing urban school
and ask how many students have parents who are public school teachers.
Almost without exception, the answer will be zero.
-
- In fact, when Wisconsin state Rep. Annette
"Polly"
Williams, sponsor of Milwaukee's voucher law, said she would introduce
legislation requiring the children of teachers to attend the schools where
their parents taught, she became the target of considerable abuse,
including
death threats.
-
- Compelling children to attend such terrible schools
should
be a criminal act. Being willing to do so as long as one's own children
are not involved is not just hypocritical but disgraceful and cruel.
-
- Opponents of Cleveland's scholarship program should be
ashamed.
-
- http://www.schoolreformers.com
|
