Government Monopoly on Education?

Great Debates
1

Originally posted by MrWhipple

On RESOLVED: Slavery in the U.S. …

I was going to respond there, but this is really a different thread. To the above, I respond with a giant HUH?

The government does not have a monopoly on education. What I believe MrWhipple was referring to is the mistaken notion that “private schools” (read: schools that get to pick their students) do a better job of educating children than public schools (read: public schools with a lot of poor people in them) do.

But isn’t the whole voucher scam just an interference of the free market process? The government provides a free system of education to every child in the country. Other suppliers decide to charge for the service. Any good reason why the government should subsidize those schools?

Of course, if you don’t like the government’s system, then elect different leaders. But that’s another thread altogether…

2

In forgetting that “the government” = “the people”, you’ve just argued against yourself.

In other words, “the people” provide a public system of education for American children. Some people decide not to use this system for their children. Any good reason why those people should subsidize the public schools they’re not even using while paying full tuition elsewhere?

I think we can probably agree that most parents pay less in property tax than it costs to educate their children in the public schools. Thus, by sending a child to private school, parents save their neighbors money and it would be reasonable to refund the school tax paid by those parents for use towards tuition costs elsewhere.

Thus, a parent who sends his child to private school should be able to receive a rebate on his school tax up to the amount it would have cost the community to educate his child. (i.e. if it costs $5000 per child, then a parent who pays $1400 in school tax should be able to get all of that back if he’s spending at least that much on private school tuition, a parent who is paying $6000 in school tax should be able to get back $5000 for one child or the full $6000 if he has two children, etc.).

Now vouchers, I believe, go a step beyond this in the interests of equal opportunity, and give an equal amount to every parent based on the cost of the education, regardless of what that parent actually paid (i.e. if it costs $5000 per child in the public school, then all parents are allowed a set fraction of that, perhaps $3000, to use towards private school tuition even if they only paid $1000 in school tax).

Either way, it is not “the government” subsidizing private schools, but rather “the people” paying for the education of “the children” whether in public or private school. I happen to think that vouchers are a great way to test the waters and see our country can handle a more private system of education after so many years of public schooling.

Ideally, I would like to see schools re-privatized, with special tax-supported vouchers for poor parents to use so that every child can still receive a good education. There are too many different ways of teaching and learning for a rigid government bureaucracy to handle. The “free education” currently offered is like the government deciding to provide free food for all and then charging everyone an extra 5% income tax for a nightly meal of refried beans. Wouldn’t we do better to raise the tax 1% and only buy food for those who can’t afford it rather than lulling an entire nation into culinary oblivion?

3

I don’t know. I’ve seen what privatization has done for our health care system. And the prisons.
Schools? The idea of one corporation being to control any regions educational system scares me.
Peace,
mangeorge

4

**

Then Microsoft didn’t have a monopoly either.

**

This doesn’t mean the government doesn’t have a monopoly on grade school education.

**

Free market has already been taken out of the equation as people will pay for schools whether they like them or not. Indeed whether or not they have kids matters not as they will pay just the same.

The problem is you can’t have a good educational system without imparting some sort of values. I have different values then those the schools tried to impart to me. I have values that I want my children to share that doesn’t fit in with many school policies.

Marc

5

MGib: That’s the fun thing about being a parent. You can tell them whatever you please. Granted, they won’t necessarily agree with you. But they won’t necessarily agree with the school either. I don’t agree with either my parents or my school(s) on a lot of issues.

6

I’m not quite sure I understand your point.

Marc

7

<<Any good reason why the government should subsidize those schools?>>

Why shouldn’t we have such a program?

First of all, Public schools are obscenely expensive, with average per pupil costs way out of line with what the private sector has long established is neccessary to provide a quality education. With a national average of 6-7 thousand bucks per head, some districts are spending even more, up to 11 thousand dollars per child. No district is spending much below 5 grand/ year, which is still more than the average 4 grand it takes to enroll a child in a private school.

So if we have a voucher for about 2,000, the government saves the spread between the cost of the voucher and what it would take to educate that child in a public setting. The net to the taxpayer would be 3-7 thousand dollars per child per year. That’s just more money available to spend on children who remain in public schools. Not less.

(Yes, the people telling you that vouchers will bankrupt public schools are lying to you. They will not. Nothing bankrupts the public school system quite so effectively as the public school system itself.)

So the first good reason for a voucher system of some type, is it simply makes good fiscal sense.

(But wouldn’t sending voucher money to religious schools violate the first amendment requiring a separation of church and state?)

No. First of all, the constitution has no such requirement. It simply means that the government must remain neutral on religious matters. Congress cannot establish an official religion, certainly. But neutrality does NOT mean hostility. For the government to disqualify religious schools from state programs that self consciously secular schools qualify for is in itself a violation of the constitution: the government may not discriminate on the basis of religion.

Second, there is already a long history of the Government providing medicare, medicaid, CHAMPUS, CHiP, and other payments to institutions such as Mount Sinai Medical Center, St. Jude Children’s Hospital, Baptist Hospitals, the 7th Day Adventist health care system.

All of whom are sponsored by religious institutions.
All of whom recieve government money in the form of these payments
All of whom conduct public education activities on premise. (teachers go to hospitals to teach kids).

Somehow, America avoided a constitutional crisis in the health care system.

If school vouchers are unconstitutional, then it must follow that Medicare and Medicaid payments may only be made to state hospitals and VA clinics. The wishes of the patients be damned.

Clearly, that’s absurd. Medicare payments to religious hospitals are no violation of the constitution.

The objection to vouchers on constitutional grounds is therefore absurd.

The third reason for a voucher system is that we already know that many inner city school districts are failing miserably. Much of this problem is due to the system of using property tax revenues to fund school systems.

What happens is that the people who have the MOST reason to get the heck out of the public school system have the LEAST ability to rescue their children by putting them in the private schools, as many of their teachers do.

The property tax system is inherently unfair, but telling them they can’t escape the system is simply taking an already painful wound and pouring salt on it.

(But nobody’s saying they can’t…they just can’t use my tax money to do it)

They aren’t. As mentioned above, if they took a 2,000 dollar voucher rather than forcing you to spend 6,000 dollars on their child, they’d actually be SAVING your tax money. You ought to be encouraging them. They’re doing everyone a favor.

This is my first post here. I look forward to getting torn apart by you guys. :slight_smile:

Y’all are much bigger and more capable dogs than the intellectual lightweights I’m used to dealing with on other bulletin boards.

8

Great post, Panzerman. You’re dead on.

9

panzerman2:

  1. Do you have a cite for these figures?

  2. Have you forgotten that private schools are usually heavily supported by endowments and donations as well as tuition? Their tuition charges do not cover the full expense of educating their students.

10

I believe Washington DC has the distinction of having the highest per-student costs and one of the worst (if not the worst) records. In a TV discussion some time ago, someone mentioned this and the fact that Utah did way better with much lower costs. His opponent said something like “well, they are not comparable because the circumstances are very different” to which he retorted sarcastically “Yes, they are closer to Canada”.

The truth is that anything run by the government is usually badly run and the private sector does better. The truth is that it is not the rich who want vouchers but the poorest of the poor who are demanding them so they can get their kids out of lousy schools. And the truth is that the teacher’s unions have bought the democrats and they are in an immoral alliance to prop each other up while the school system goes to hell in a handbasket and they both couldn’t care less.

I am so glad I don’t have kids because I’d be outraged by the whole thing. All schools should be private, You want to help poor people send their kids to school? Give them vouchers! The government already gives them food stamps without getting into the business of actually growing the food.

11

I did a quick search and found:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/gf-edada.htm
and several other sites which back up that $7K figure.

It is worth noting however that $7K is the averaged cost, not the cost of the average pupil. I would imagine that the latter is much lower since not only are there obvious economies of scale, but a disproportionate amount of every districts budget is spent on “special education” (it can cost $25K/year for one disabled child). Presumably, parents of such children are less likely to choose private schooling (due to costs) and thus the relevant figure for vouchers is the marginal cost of the non-special-needs student (perhaps more like $2-3K).

A) The cheapest parochial schools usually don’t have much of an endowment. However, they also offer lower salaries and fewer sports/extracurriculars, thus lowering the cost of education.

B) We’re talking about costs to taxpayers or parents, not volunteers. When a school receives sizable donations, it has effectively lowered its cost per student. If more public schools inspired such generosity, property taxes could decrease and local residents and parents would be much happier! In my eyes, outside funding is a sign that a school is doing something right.

12

<<Do you have a cite for those figures?>>

Yup. From http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

The National Center for Education Statistics.
“Question:
How much money does the U.S. spend on public elementary and secondary schools?
Response:
In 1998-99, the estimated current expenditure per student in average daily attendance was $6,915. The expenditure per student in public schools rose significantly during the late 1980s, but increased more slowly during the first part of the 1990s. Between 1985-86 and 1990-91, current expenditures per student in average daily attendance grew 14 percent, after adjustment for inflation. From 1990-91 to 1998-99, expenditures per student grew by 7 percent.”
As far as my assertion about it costing 4 grand to enroll a child in a private school, the NCES again cites an across the board school-sized weighted tuition figure of $3,115, albeit that figure is from 1993-94, so it will be a little higher now. Advantage, vouchers.

Nonsectarian schools are more expensive than sectarian schools, undoubtebly because sectarian schools are supported by church contributions.

But even the average nonsectarian private school is cheaper than the average public school on a per pupil basis. $6,631. Advantage: vouchers.

And Catholic schools are able to do it at a cost 2200 per pupil per year.

<<http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55>>

       Advantage: vouchers.

Students of private schools are 30-40 percent less likely to witness or become victims of bullying, robbery, or physical attack.

       Game, set, and match, vouchers.

(cite: NCES again. Same webpage.)

Problem is, those incidents are concentrated more highly in urban schools whose parents are most supportive of vouchers. No surprise, huh?

How come Chelsea didn’t go to a Washington D.C. public school?

13

Across the board, polls consistently show the largest block in favor of vouchers is black parents. I mean, why not? They see rich white people (actually, rich people of all stripes) sending their kids to private schools, including many of the politicians steadfastly against vouchers.

Who can blame these families for wanting the same chance better-off people want? Ironically, the vocal black leadership usually comes out against vouchers. Of course they are in bed with the democratic party which is beholden to the teacher’s unions. They end up scratching each other’s backs, and the anti-voucher folks (liberals, mostly; although I can see that parents of al political views may wish to close their private school doors to the inner city voucher brigade), do what they can to prevent inner city kids from being able to access the same schools their precious kids attend.

14

Are we assuming that all private schools are going to limit tuiton to the value of the vouchers? Including the ones that want to keep their enrolment exclusive?
Public education isn’t dead, it’s just ill. Why are so many ready to toss it out, without any real attempt to heal a largely successful institution?
Many of us have the system to thank for a really good education. I think standardization (that ugly word) would be more appropriate than turning our childrens future over to stockholders, who’s bottom line is profit.
Peace,
mangeorge

15

**

Probably not.

**

I don’t think vouchers are an attempt to kill public education. If we all benefit from an educated public what difference does it make whether it comes from private or public? Vouchers shouldn’t lower the amount of money schools receive per student so I fail to see what harm they do.

You may live in an area with excellent public schools. I grew up in that kind of place. There are many areas where the schools are just plain no good and it doesn’t appear that a solution is anywhere in sight. It isn’t always about money either. Look at the Dallas Independent School District. The board members constantly fight amongst themselves and they can’t keep a superintendent for even a whole year.

From what I recall most for profit ventures provide services as best they can. After all they don’t want the customer going somewhere else to spend their money. School districts have a stranglehold on the market and don’t really have to worry about providing good services.

Marc

16

from Mangeorge:

<<Are we assuming that all private schools are going to limit tuiton to the value of the vouchers?>>

No. Why in the world would we make that assumption?

–Do we assume that all grocers limit the groceries they sell to food stamp customers to the value of the food stamps alone?

–Do we assume that all colleges will limit tuition to the amount recieved by needy students in a Pell Grant?

–Do we assume that medical expenses will be limited to the amount covered by Medicaid?

–Do we assume that retirement expenses will be limited to the amount of Social Security Benefits?

Because none of these programs will cover, nor are designed to cover, the entirety of the need, shall we then scrap the programs altogether?

I hear this argument raised all the time by antivoucher folks…that a 2,000 dollar voucher is useless if private schools cost 4,000. That arguement never made sense to me. If that were true, then 200 dollars per month in food stamps are useless if groceries cost 400 dollars per month. OK. Then lets see what the DNC would say if there was a serious movement afoot to eliminate the USDA food stamp program.

Incidentally, I recieved a Federal Pell Grant while attending the University of Southern California: A private school. Indeed, a Methodist University. Took the edge of the tuition expenses and helped me pay for groceries and books big time. Didn’t have much money.

Federal Government also kicked in my ROTC scholarship at the same Methodist University.

Federal Government also kicked in to guarantee student loans so I could come up with the rest.

Somehow, this Republic survived without a constitutional crisis. Why is there a legitimate need that nobody seems to question at the college level, but for some reason things are totally different at the high school level? Doesn’t seem rational at all.

17

In the long run, a voucher system that takes all of the money that would have been spent on public schools and gives it to parents to send their kids to private school will benefit education in America immensely. The current socialist school system is failing and will only get worse. The whole idea that we can give any kid a free education regardless of handicapp or behavioral problems is just too expensive and inefficient. Competition amongst schools for students will create the best possible education system for well behaved kids with no special needs (I don’t have any idea what will become of the handicapped or unruly kids that no private school will touch).

HOWEVER, in the short run any school voucher program will be an unmitigated disaster. For the first 3 years (at least) of a voucher system there will be gigantic tuition inflation at all private schools. Think about it from a supply and demand/maximize the profits perspective. As soon as the gov’t starts handing out $2000 dollar vouchers to everybody, private schools will up their tuition by $2 grand. If you don’t believe me then look at the following example:

prior to voucher program: a public school has a capacity for 960 students but has 1000 students and a $7 million dollar budget, a nearby private school has a capacity of 200 students and has 200 students and charges each one $5000/year in tuition = $1 million dollars gross income.

after voucher program gives all students (public and private) a $2000 voucher: private school raises tuition to maximize profits to $7,000/year (why wouldn’t they, they don’t have any more capacity for more students) which yields $1.4 million gross income. public school will still have 1000 students but now only has budget of $6.6 million dollars. Thus, the voucher system has done nothing but transfer $400,000 from the public school into the pockets of the owners of the private school. Until more private schools are built to take advantage of the voucher system the existing private schools will remain at capacity and will suck up the extra money as profit.

(Note, I am assuming that all the private schools are at or near capacity so no competition will take place amongst existing private schools. I’m also assuming that it will take years for more private schools to be built to offer some competition. I’m basing this on reports I’ve read that indicate most schools in the US are at or near capacity, both public and private, is this true? I have no cites to back this up but I’m assuming there is isn’t a glut of extra classroom space waiting to be filled. I am also assuming the vouchers will be given to all children in a shcool district not just to the ones currently attending public school (it would be patently unfair to withhold these vouchers from kids who are already in private school and such a plan would never fly with the voters.)

18

This argument is valid if you the original tuition was $4000. Whats more likely to happen is that after vouchers take effect, tuition will be raised. For example tuition is $3000/ year. A voucher system starts, and tuition is raised to $4000-5000/year, causing the vouchers to be useless to most of those who couldn’t afford the original tuition.

19

Doreen:

<<Whats more likely to happen is that after vouchers take effect, tuition will be raised. For example tuition is $3000/ year. A voucher system starts, and tuition is raised to $4000-5000/year, causing the vouchers to be useless to most of those who couldn’t afford the original tuition.>>

Speculation.

Shall we then get rid of food stamps in poor neighborhoods? After all, by your logic, they contribute to grocery inflation. USDA food stamps come into a neighborhood, and groceries are raised by an equivalent amount, causing the stamps to be useless to those who couldn’t afford the groceries.

Shall we then eliminate all government aid to college students? After all, colleges will just raise tuitions by an amount equal to the typical aid, making the aid useless to those who couldn’t afford the tuition in the first place.

I hope you’re calling your congressman opposing Pell Grants and Government Guarantees of student loans.

Shall we then eliminate Basic Allowance for Quarters payments to servicemen who aren’t housed on post? After all, local landlords will just raise rents equal to the amount of BAQ.

I hope you’re writing letters to the editor railing against WIC programs. After all, all WIC programs do is contribute to the inflation in the price of diapers and baby formula. Grocers just raise prices on WIC items, making the WIC coupons useless to those who need them most.

Clearly, Medicare and Medicaid payments are useless… health care providers are just raising their prices to match them.

And even if your pure speculation does indeed come to pass, it wouldn’t cost the public school system a dime. If tuitions are 4000, and a 2000 dollar voucher program starts, and schools raise their prices by that amount to 6000, it’s going to be the same group of people that can’t afford it as before.

Since they can’t afford private schools, their children remain in public schools, and the voucher goes unspent. The child remains in public schools, even though his or her parents feel the private school will do a much better job for their child.

Naturally, though, you know much better than they do what’s best for their child, though, right?

20

Here’s a report by the Electronic Policy Network containing a large number of links to various articles on both sides of the issue.

A few points:

meara: *We’re talking about costs to taxpayers or parents, not volunteers. When a school receives sizable donations, it has effectively lowered its cost per student. […] In my eyes, outside funding is a sign that a school is doing something right. *

My point was just that those extra costs (not borne by taxpayers or parents) come from somewhere and have to be counted. Established private schools pay a large chunk of operating expenses out of their existing endowments and support from committed alumni or from religious organizations. When the legions of competitive new private schools that voucher advocates predict start to spring up, they will have to find some way of covering all their operating expenses without long-established financial support networks. Absent a huge wave of philanthropy for starting new schools, those costs will have to come out of tuition charges.

panzerman: Students of private schools are 30-40 percent less likely to witness or become victims of bullying, robbery, or physical attack.

Of course, private schools don’t have to accept students with behavioral problems, whereas public schools do. The EPN report above mentions evidence that schools in the Milwaukee voucher pilot program have been ignoring legal requirements of “random selection” precisely in order to focus on what they consider “desirable” students.

divemaster: Ironically, the vocal black leadership usually comes out against vouchers. Of course they are in bed with the democratic party which is beholden to the teacher’s unions. They end up scratching each other’s backs, and the anti-voucher folks (liberals, mostly; although I can see that parents of al political views may wish to close their private school doors to the inner city voucher brigade), do what they can to prevent inner city kids from being able to access the same schools their precious kids attend.

Nice rant. Got any cites to support it?

MGibson: *From what I recall most for profit ventures provide services as best they can. After all they don’t want the customer going somewhere else to spend their money. School districts have a stranglehold on the market and don’t really have to worry about providing good services. *

Starting a good school isn’t exactly like launching a new dotcom or opening a store; the practical options for the customers to “go somewhere else” are likely to remain pretty limited for quite some time. Also, if public schools don’t need to worry about providing good services, then why are school boards and PTA’s in many districts very effective at making them do so? If lack of competition is automatically destructive of quality, then why aren’t all public schools bad?

panzerman: * I hear this argument raised all the time by antivoucher folks…that a 2,000 dollar voucher is useless if private schools cost 4,000. That arguement never made sense to me. If that were true, then 200 dollars per month in food stamps are useless if groceries cost 400 dollars per month. *

Surely you recognize that you can buy at least some food for $200, even if you can’t scrape together the full $400 you need for optimal nutrition. But if you can’t raise the full $4000 for school tuition, you can’t get a “half-share” of education there. Unless you’re proposing something like sliding-scale tuition charges, which will throw off your cost calculations.

*Why is there a legitimate need that nobody seems to question at the college level, but for some reason things are totally different at the high school level? Doesn’t seem rational at all. *

Um, except for the little fact that education through high school (or at least till age 16) is legally mandated for all citizens but college education is not? When we’re talking about pre-college education, we’re trying to find the most effective way to educate everybody (unless we’re giving up on that goal—see below), whereas for optional post-secondary education we have a much larger variety of educational goals and support strategies.

SarumanRex: *The whole idea that we can give any kid a free education regardless of handicapp or behavioral problems is just too expensive and inefficient. Competition amongst schools for students will create the best possible education system for well behaved kids with no special needs (I don’t have any idea what will become of the handicapped or unruly kids that no private school will touch). *

panzerman: *If tuitions are 4000, and a 2000 dollar voucher program starts, and schools raise their prices by that amount to 6000, it’s going to be the same group of people that can’t afford it as before. Since they can’t afford private schools, their children remain in public schools, and the voucher goes unspent. The child remains in public schools, even though his or her parents feel the private school will do a much better job for their child. *

Well, there’s one solution: work to get the best possible education at the best possible price for well-behaved kids with no special needs whose parents can afford the tuition, and quit worrying so much about the others.