Vouchers and School Policies

"Since the creation of the program, the BOOST advisory board said, about a dozen private schools have decided not to take vouchers because they were unwilling to give the state assurances they would not discriminate." (Bowie, 2017)

This quotation is disappointing, saddening, and unsettling. Trinity Lutheran Christian School in Joppa, Maryland lost its voucher funding after it became known that the school's handbook contained discriminatory language even though schools which receive voucher funds are mandated to pledge non-discriminatory admissions procedures. Trinity Lutheran Christian School had agreed to this condition both last year and this year, but now it shall not be receiving any voucher funds for the current school year. The currently-enrolled students who are receiving voucher funds are permitted to take the voucher money and switch to other schools. While Trinity Lutheran Christian School's board offered to change the handbook language to comply with state law and not discriminate in admissions, BOOST was not satisfied as the school handbook had contained this phrase while the school had been held responsible under the pledge. Trinity Lutheran may re-apply next school year to be a school which accepts voucher funds, but it will be required to release information about enrollments and admissions. 

Considering the current climate of the United States and the marginalized and oppressed communities which still have not found equity, equality, or justice, this article resonated considering one of our upcoming topics is vouchers. Most importantly, this article demonstrated the importance of evaluating actions compared to words; especially, consideration of those actions before and after higher tiers of involvement become involved is important.

It will be curious to see if this sparks an investigation into the other private schools receiving voucher funding. Additionally, it will be worth observing if Trinity Lutheran Christian School applies to receive voucher funding next year or if it chooses to keeps its admission and enrollment records sealed. The question moving forward from this situation is whether or not private schools accepting public school funding will be subject to the same educational court case outcomes as public schools when the situation concerning discrimination lawsuits. 


Reference:
Bowie, L. (2017, October 13). Private school loses state voucher money over anti-LGBT policy. Retrieved October 14, 2017, from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/bs-md-school-voucher-discrimination-20171012-story.html

Should We Train Teachers Like We Train Doctors?

When then-Secretary of Education John King spoke at Hopkins last fall, he brought up the intriguing idea of remodeling America’s teacher training programs to look more like medical residencies. He cited the fact that after World War II, a revolution happened in medical education wherein society realized we needed to ensure that our doctors were fully qualified to serve the public. Training residencies, in which doctors work under the supervision of qualified superiors for several years before entering medical practice, were established and public funding began to pour into medical education. Currently, we spend roughly $11.5 billion per year, or $500,000 per new doctor. Of course, teacher residencies would not need to be as lengthy and therefore would not cost nearly as much. But would a similar investment in teacher training be worth it?

The data seems to suggest that it would. With baby-boomer retirements, high turnover, and underenrollment in teacher preparation programs, we are facing an unprecedented teacher shortage. In the hopes of mitigating this crisis, some states have begun to relax policies in order to make it easier for teachers to enter the profession. But underprepared teachers are quick to leave the field, and we spend $2.2 billion annually to replace teachers who drop out.

In states that have begun implementing yearlong co-teaching residencies, however, the picture is more promising. Upwards of 90% of teachers who have gone through residency programs stay in the profession, compared to only 47% of others. 74% of principals say that residency graduates are more or much more effective than the typical teacher. Slowly but surely, the trend seems to be growing: Minnesota, Oklahoma and Kentucky have implemented statewide residency programs, while a number of cities such as Boston, DC, and Denver are piloting smaller efforts. Because of the novelty of these programs, student achievement data is limited, but thus far seems to suggest that students taught by these highly trained teachers are outperforming their peers.

Of course, such an overhaul of our teacher training system would require a great financial investment. But when viewed next to the millions that would be saved from expenditures on teacher replacement efforts, the expense has the potential to be greatly worthwhile. It is possible that here in Maryland, we’ll see the benefits of a teacher residency program very soon. Last year, the Teacher Induction, Retention and Advancement Workgroup began working on a recommendation for a yearlong teacher residency program in Maryland, and it may be included in the state funding formula for the upcoming fiscal cycle. Final recommendations will be made at the end of this year.

References: Polakow-Suranksy, S., Thomases, J., and Demoss, K. (2016, July 8). Train Teachers Like Doctors. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/opinion/train-teachers-like-doctors.html

Hershkowitz, S. (2016, Novemeber 29). Train Teachers Like Doctors? It Might Happen in Maryland. Retrieved from https://mseanewsfeed.com/train-teachers-like-doctors-it-might-happen-in-maryland-bbc66d585484