Since it appears the debates will continue for a while yet, let's try out some new questions.
Question # 1: Poverty
Thank you for taking my question. And this question is for all candidates:
Our poorest children in the public schools face insurmountable challenges that threaten their future, as well as the future of their schools. It is an indisputable fact, for instance, that family income is positively correlated with student achievement, with state and district level test scores showing the correlation without exception, as do SAT and ACT scores: the lower the family income, the lower the test scores, and the higher the family income, the higher the test scores.
At a time when public school households across the nation are, indeed, getting poorer, NCLB demands test scores go higher and higher. While experts agree, without exception, agree that these demands can't be met, and that most public schools will fail by 2014, and while most urban and poor rural schools are being turned into abusive test prep chain gangs, politicians refuse to confront the truth for fear of being accused of the "bigotry of low expectations."
My question is this (and thank you for your patience): Do you see poverty as the problem that has to be addressed in order to raise student achievement? And if you do see poverty as a problem related to the achievement gaps, what will you do to reduce poverty in urban and rural neighborhoods and to help raise family incomes, which would constitute the grandest kind of education reform--one that does more good than harm?
Question #2: Charter Schools
Thank you for taking my question, and yes, this is directed to all candidates:
When Eli Broad and Bill Gates announced last year that they would inject $60,000,000 to "force education to the forefront of the 2008 presidential campaign," their Strong American Schools program was launched. Some prefer to call their effort Strong-Arming American Schools, since their money appears directed toward remaking public education by turning schools into charter schools, which operate as non-profit and for-profit corporate entities funded by public dollars but without local school board oversight and without the benefits and salaries of teachers in the regular public schools. Recently, for instance, Eli Broad gave $12,000,000 to spread charter schools in L.A.
There are huge sums of corporate money, venture capital (with tax credits), and foundation grants going to fund charter school startups acoss the country. Even the U. S. Department of Education has earmarked $273,000,000 for charter schools in next year's budget. What they all have in common is less public oversight and control by locally-elected school boards, fewer benefits and less job security for teachers, fewer services for special needs children, even more focus on test scores, and less adequate facilities for drama, sports, and other school activities.
The one big advantage of charter schools? They are cheaper, about 20 cents on the dollar cheaper.
Now here is my question, and thank you for your patience. Given the fact that charter schools give up so much in return for the promise of corporte efficiency, and given the fact that the research consistently shows their academic achievement based on test scores no better, and sometimes worse, than the regular public schools, is 20 cents on the dollar enough to recommend them for the urban children, urban parents, and urban teachers who already have been shortchanged ever since slavery?
What is your position on charter schools, and what will you do to make sure that public schools in urban and poor areas aren't replaced by this new efficiency model of corporate schools and year-round test preparation? And would you send your own children or grandchildren to one of these schools?