<p>.</p>
<p>Rontrell’s Choice
Why a South Carolina teen has to work his way through high school.
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, March 6, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST </p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110009749[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110009749</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>I really don’t have time to get into this today but . . . </p>
<ol>
<li><p>This story provides yet another example of what psychotherapists have always maintained: If you’re not paying for it, you don’t value it, and you don’t commit yourself.</p></li>
<li><p>The school in the story is remarkably, scarily unstable. Do voucher proponents intend to build an entire education system based on $8/hour teachers and principals who come out of pocket to keep the lights on? That’s gonna work real well!</p></li>
<li><p>Most of the liberals I know (myself included) are very attracted to voucher proposals – they make sense on lots of levels, most importantly introducing market discipline to the world of educating the non-wealthy, and giving poor people some of the same choice that righ people can buy. And, personally, I don’t get cooties from the idea that tax money might find its way to religious schools. But. (1) I think the problem of a death spiral for the existing public school systems is significant. It wouldn’t take much for lots of systems to break down more completely than they have already, making lots and lots of kids a lot worse off, and without sufficient capacity in the nonpublic school world to take them all, or even half of them, in the foreseeable future. (2) Philadelphia has a ton of innovative charter schools with a lot of independence, varied leadership and strategies, etc. The performance data on these schools is not great. While there are a few bright lights, on the whole the charter school world is not producing better measurable results than the bad old traditional public school system. (3) Something like the 150-point SAT difference in the story could easily be due to self-selection, or differences in who takes the tests, not better instruction. Of course, being with other students who want to go to college is a real benefit to kids like the story’s protagonist, but there could be nothing to that story but cream-skimming.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t know JHS, but while the good-people of this world continue to wring their hands in contemplation, I will simply say–go kick some a$$ Rontrell Matthews!</p>
<p>…and don’t look back.</p>
<p>It’s a fake choice. When kids raise their hands and want to work, public school systems (at least the ones I’ve seen) do a pretty good job of delivering resources to them. It may be relevant that this kid is sitting on a tinyish island. But we don’t need a whole voucher system to help kids like Rontrell. </p>
<p>And, to some extent, the article suggests that a voucher system would NOT help him, since it would certainly reduce his personal involvement in paying for his education, and probably dilute the messianic fervor of his school as well. Come on, Dorothy. You can’t tell me that sucking off the public teat is good for the soul of religious schools, regardless of the concerns of Constitutional secularists.</p>
<p>To be honest, I have no idea what would “work.” </p>
<p>What’s more, the issue is apolitical within the asymmetry of my traditional “politics,” such as they are. I simply found the story inspiring. I believed most would.</p>
<p>My headline, I thought, hinted at my ambivalent stance on the politics of education. I do, however, believe many of the arguments posted above are something of an institutional cop-out; that is to say, lame and uninspired.</p>
<p>Of course you are right that personal/financial involvment in self-improvement is a key factor in the successful recovery of the subject…so what’s that say about nationalized health care?</p>
<p>…or goverment grants for 19 & 20 year old college students on the make? </p>
<p>.</p>