Most Children Left Behind

Texas Governor Rick Perry supports education. We know this because he is an advocate for vouchers. Recently he was quoted as saying, "I still think it's a sad day in Texas when you tell a kid who lives in an urban, inner city district because his parents are poor and don't have an alternative he's got to go to a mediocre school at best..."

I agree with him, I think it's a sad day as well. But that's where the agreement ends. You see, Gov. Perry made this statement in support of vouchers. I don't support vouchers. I think that government funds could be better spent than on a voucher program that only supports a small fraction of all those in the environment. Governor Perry apparently expects us to believe that all these students in the "mediocre school[s]" will be able to get the vouchers and thus qualify to go to the superior private schools. This of course, is fallacy. Private schools still have the choice of who to accept into their program, which means that they can deny access to those students who Rick Perry thinks it's a sad day to deny an alternative to. Additionally, the program only has so many vouchers. If there are 5000 students in a high school that is "mediocre at best," how many of them would get a voucher to go get a better education? Then do we tell the other students that they have to get their mediocre education because they were too slow off the blocks?

Additionally, what message does Governor Perry's statement send to the schools? He has now said that he has little to no faith in their ability to provide a quality education, which is going to work wonders on the teachers' motivation, I'm sure. While someone will invariably argue that the teachers are professionals and they need to act as though they had not been slighted, we know that criticism acts to harm production. Perhaps instead of pushing vouchers for a few students to help them achieve more, Perry should be pushing increased funding for better educational materials for the schools that already show a need for assistance.

Does moving schools equal receiving a higher education? What about the home environment, or the neighborhood? Don't those play a part in the education a child receives? Perhaps a solution would be neighborhood vouchers, or parenting vouchers - how would the community have reacted had Perry said "I think it's a sad day in Texas when you tell a kid who lives in an urban, inner city district that because his parents are poor and irresponsible you have to suffer a less effective education?" Perhaps there is a stronger argument for taking these children from their less effective households and putting them in middle class, mother stays at home, kid doesn't have to worry about watching siblings or ducking gangs en route to school and home and seeing the positive effect that plays on the child's education. Very few people would support that, and rightfully so. The better solution, it seems, would be to try to help the family cope better. And that should transfer over to the schools - help those that need the help by increased funding, not cutting funding and expecting more.