Romney's voucher system for schools

[CalMeacham]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Emphasis mine. You’ve got an odd definition of “religious college.” I hardly think you can compare Harvard, which has never been affiliated with any church and offers degrees in Environmental Science and Human Evolutionary Biology, with Bob Jones University, which doesn’t offer a single environmental science course, but does offer a “a top-notch science education from a thoroughly Christian perspective.” In other words, you will be required to take religious courses every year of your biology education and your BIO 300: Evolution and Origins course covers:

*This *is an example of a religious college.

Sorry for the hijack, but I couldn’t see letting this pass.

You could call Harvard a “religious college” in its origins – it was founded to train orthodox Puritan ministers, in the wake vof the Anne Hutchinson debacle. It always was a state colege – but the state was religious at the time, so the school inevitably was.

The charter creating the corporation of Harvard College came in 1650. In the early years, the College trained many Puritan ministers.[21] The college offered a classic academic course based on the English university model—many leaders in the colony had attended the University of Cambridge—but one consistent with the prevailing Puritan philosophy. The college was never affiliated with any particular denomination, but many of its earliest graduates went on to become clergymen in Congregational and Unitarian churches throughout New England.[22] An early brochure, published in 1643, described the founding of the college as a response to the desire “to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity, dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches”.[23]

The leading Boston divine Increase Mather served as president from 1685 to 1701. In 1708, John Leverett became the first president who was not also a clergyman, which marked a turning of the College toward intellectual independence from Puritanism.

Harvard University

Of course, calling it that today is pedantic, or snarky.

[FixMyIgnorance]

Just because religion might be involved in its origin doesn’t mean that it’s technically a religious school. I wouldn’t even say it’s being pedantic – it’s just wrong.

[furt]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Emphasis mine. You’ve got an odd definition of “religious college.” …
Sorry for the hijack, but I couldn’t see letting this pass.

You’re right in pointing out that Harvard is not a “religious” college except by the most strained definition. Bob Jones isn’t exactly typical, either; but I think the relevant point w/r/t the thread is that students at both Harvard and BJU are equally eligible for the same federal aid.

[FixMyIgnorance]

I think that’s also part of the trickiness to this whole thing. You’re not supposed to start funneling money over to private religious institutes, but it seems all too easy to frame things as a secular institution that just-so-happens to contain plenty of religious internals as a bypass.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Bob Jones students have only been eligible for federal aid since 2007, and I can’t find anything explaining how the reestablished their eligibility.

[furt]

@FixMyIgnorance

I think that’s also part of the trickiness to this whole thing. You’re not supposed to start funneling money over to private religious institutes, but it seems all too easy to frame things as a secular institution that just-so-happens to contain plenty of religious internals as a bypass.

Schools like BJU (and Notre Dame, and Baylor, etc) are not '“framed” as secular anything. They are avowedly religious institutions, and they explicitly undertake teaching and research as part of their religious mission, not as some kind of ruse: religious colleges and universities existed long, long before the government funding did.

I don’t know who the “you” refers to, but Courts have consistently held that religious entities can have government money “funneled” to them, so long as that money is advances a secular governmental aim. You may not like it, but it’s settled law.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Bob Jones students have only been eligible for federal aid since 2007, and I can’t find anything explaining how the reestablished their eligibility.

I wouldn’t assume they weren’t “eligible” before; some very conservative colleges and universities simply choose not to be part of the federal aid program. Hillsdale is another.

[FixMyIgnorance]

@furt

Schools like BJU (and Notre Dame, and Baylor, etc) are not '“framed” as secular anything. They are avowedly religious institutions, and they explicitly undertake teaching and research as part of their religious mission, not as some kind of ruse: religious colleges and universities existed long, long before the government funding did.

I don’t know who the “you” refers to, but Courts have consistently held that religious entities can have government money “funneled” to them, so long as that money is advances a secular governmental aim. You may not like it, but it’s settled law.

Yes, BJU etc. are religious institutions. I refer to the notion that government money can be used as long as it advances a secular aim. I’m just dubious that that’s what tends to take place.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

Personally, I’m fine with publicly financing secular education through student financial aid, even at private religious institutions, so long as it applies equally to all private religious institutions (yes, lslamic as well, as the case may be) as long as said institutions are not contravening federally protected individual rights to privacy (i.e., any BS such as requiring students to maintain university-provided health insurance that specifically prohibits legal medical treatments).

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@furt

I wouldn’t assume they weren’t “eligible” before; some very conservative colleges and universities simply choose not to be part of the federal aid program. Hillsdale is another.

Well, it’s semantics. They weren’t eligible for 501(c)(3) status before because of their interracial dating ban and political advocacy, but they could have dropped those policies (and indeed, did drop the former after GWB got in hot water for doing an appearance there.)

[Palo_Verde]

@brickbacon

The differences in effectiveness are analogous to the difference in drug efficacy from one person to another.

So you accept that charters are only an effective solution for failing schools, not that schools choice is a better model in general? Because you seemed to be advocating that school choice and the introduction of market based solutions are an inherent good as opposed to just a solution to the worse of the worst situations.

You’d be wrong on that as my job requires me to interact with students in those situations, in addition to those in great ones. In fact, living int he DC area, I am intimately familiar with many of the people spearheading these movements. It’s because I am intimately aware of many of these issues that I am skeptical that introducing “solutions” that have high failure rates and don’t actually solve the problem.

Talk about an excluded middle. The issue needn’t be charters or no charters seeing as there are a million ways to skin a cat. My issue is that you keep trying to frame it that way. As it if it preposterous to be disinclined to accept a solution that is demonstrably ineffective, and often deleterious. One that makes it harder to find good teachers, and funnels money to private entities with a variety of good and bad motives. Sorry, but I don’t buy that. While I agree the status quo is not good, the proposed solution is no better.

Hmmm. My son has been going to Basis Tucson, a charter school that has made multiple “Best School in the Country” awards for many years in a row. “Newsweek has ranked BASIS one of America’s top ten schools every year since 2006. BASIS was also ranked 4th in the nation by the Washington Post in 2011 and 2nd in the nation for math and science by U.S. News & World Report.”

It mostly serves middle class kids who are looking for more of a challenge, not kids from failing schools and broken homes.

How is this not a better option for kids who normally would attend OK but not great schools?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@2sense

The article is vague but it doesn’t look like Mitt is breaking any new ground. So really it’s just a question of how you feel about vouchers to begin with. For myself I think enabling students to move between public schools is different than vouchers for private schools which removes funding from the public school system. Overall the way to improve American education is to move away from the agrarian past and send our kids to school during the summer. Also focusing on learning instead of test taking would help. Also the realization that the main problem dragging down our test scores is not the education system itself but rather that far too many kids get stuck in awful family situations and are condemned to poor performance before they ever reach kindergarten.

I am in favor of charters and against vouchers unless the private school will accept the voucher as full payment for all fees and activities and base admissions on lottery.

@Cheesesteak

That’s the rub, will this voucher actually allow a poor student to go to a successful private school? Or, will it simply allow not-quite poor students to go, or simply give a rebate to wealthier students who are already going the private school route?

In Washignton DC, the voucher program is only open to poor students and the private schools around here generally accept it as full payment… BUT they screen the applicants so that they end up cherrypicking the best students.

@Farmer_Jane

I used to think that charters and vouchers were eeeebil and to a degree, they are, but what’s a parent supposed to do?

Why are charters evil (and how do magnet school fit into that, I havent heard anyone condemning magnet schools)? The failures of the public school system invites this sort of competition, and even if the public school system was not failing, there would still be demand for good charter schools that provide a different emphasis, perhaps a charter high school that focuses on science or performing arts. Vouchers on the other hand are evil.

@DrDeth

Here’s the issue. I support public schools as I get to vote on how they are run. If the Directors do something stupid, like decide to stop teaching Evolution, I can vote the bastards out.

If a Church decides to do that thing, there’s nothing I can do.

My tax money means I get a say.

Thus vouchers are bad.

One problem with charters and vouchers is the difficulty in regulating the system. I can easily imagine a group of homeschoolers getting together to form a charter school that effectively pays the parents to homeschool their kids and just bring them in for standardized testing.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It’s not really an apples-to-apples comparison. School systems in other countries generally don’t build giant stadia* for school sports teams, driver’s ed facilities, and other things that are pretty much universal at US schools.

*a public school in Texas broke ground on a $60 million stadium earlier this year; hardly representative, but even if the average is $5 million it’s a huge additional cost, even if you don’t count maintenance and lighting and so on.

Yeah I heard about a $62 high school football stadium (outside of Dallas right?). It was voted on by referendum and passed overwhelmingly (it is going to significantly increase everyone’s taxes).

@Terr

I see people say that all the time. Now - once again, let’s compare to Europe, where almost every country is getting a lot better results in education while paying much less per pupil. …

Not to derail this thread but you could replace the word education with healthcare and pupil with aptient and you have the same argument taht liberals make about universal healthcare. It works so well everywhere else in the world, why don’t we give it a try here.

@Terr

The fact that we in the US are spending way more than all other Western countries per pupil on education shows that we don’t need more money for better results. What we need is fundamental change in the education system. Discipline in schools should be rock-solid. You can’t get that without kicking out those that disrupt and drag other students down. Uniforms in school. Lower (hugely) any emphasis and funding on non-academic activities. Don’t allow students to decide what subjects they don’t take - it is absolutely ridiculous that one can graduate high school without taking physics or chemistry. Create a system of advanced schools (not just advanced classes in regular schools) for gifted kids. Etc.

I generally don’t agree with anything you ever have to say about anything but I kinda agree with you here.

@FixMyIgnorance

I do think it’s a problem when a kid goes through school trying to take easy classes solely because they don’t see the point of things like chemistry and physics even if you don’t become a chemist or physicist.

I took trigoometry and calculus. I used trig ONCE in my lifetime when I was putting up crown molding and I used calculus NEVER.

@Palo_Verde

Hmmm. My son has been going to Basis Tucson, a charter school that has made multiple “Best School in the Country” awards for many years in a row. “Newsweek has ranked BASIS one of America’s top ten schools every year since 2006. BASIS was also ranked 4th in the nation by the Washington Post in 2011 and 2nd in the nation for math and science by U.S. News & World Report.”

It mostly serves middle class kids who are looking for more of a challenge, not kids from failing schools and broken homes.

How is this not a better option for kids who normally would attend OK but not great schools?

It sounds like a magnet school more than a charter school. I am philosophically opposed to private magnet schools that are publicly funded.

[brickbacon]

@Palo_Verde

Hmmm. My son has been going to Basis Tucson, a charter school that has made multiple “Best School in the Country” awards for many years in a row. “Newsweek has ranked BASIS one of America’s top ten schools every year since 2006. BASIS was also ranked 4th in the nation by the Washington Post in 2011 and 2nd in the nation for math and science by U.S. News & World Report.”

It mostly serves middle class kids who are looking for more of a challenge, not kids from failing schools and broken homes.

How is this not a better option for kids who normally would attend OK but not great schools?

Well, first, I happy the option is working out for you, but the question of policy is very different depending on whether it’s viewed form an individual or societal level. As evidenced by the studies that have been done 17% of individuals see improved performance at charter schools.

What I find problematic is that (I think) 37% of students are worse off. I also find in problematic when money funneled to charter schools goes toward exorbitant operators salaries at the expense of teachers, and allows corrupt business people to mismanage funds, engage in profiteering, and/or commit fraud. For example, in PA, the following happened:

Not surprisingly, the bad education delivered by the privatizers also comes with a heavy dose of corruption: At least six Philadelphia charter schools are under criminal investigation by the state attorney general’s office, after the Philadelphia Inquirer—and the city’s comptroller—reported rampant financial mismanagement and nepotism throughout the city’s charter system. As in other cities, charters have extensively abused public money in real estate profiteering schemes: Their operators used schools as tenants, paying money to themselves to rent their own property. In one particularly classy instance, a charter operator was running a private parking lot on school property. Exorbitant salaries were common for the charter school C.E.O.s, and some implausibly held fully salaried jobs in multiple schools, billing the city for more than 365 days in a year. Several Philadelphia charter school leaders are already in prison as a result of such shenanigans, and the Inquirer’s investigations may continue to lead to more prosecutions.

In Michigan, 4 out of 5 charter schools are run for profit. Now, I don’t really mind someone profiting so long as it doesn’t come at the expense of students, but history shows that is rarely the case. Education is largely guided by social norms. When you introduce policies to allow business norms to predominate, you are making certain tradeoffs that I don’t think are beneficial to society as a whole. You create a system, like healthcare, where the people at the top (eg. HMOs, et al.) don’t really see the user as anything more than a dollar sign.

So I can certainly understand why an individual might love the choice, and benefit greatly from it, but it is demonstrably bad public policy as it is currently practiced.

[Palo_Verde]

@Damuri_Ajashi

It sounds like a magnet school more than a charter school. I am philosophically opposed to private magnet schools that are publicly funded.

It is not a magnet school, it is not part of the our school district. It is a charter school in every meaning of the term.

@Basis website

BASIS schools are open-enrollment public charter schools which do not administer entrance examinations and do not charge tuition. Any student can attend if there is space available; a registration lottery determines admissions if there are more students interested than the school can accommodate.

NATIONAL RANKINGS

NEWSWEEK
AMERICA’S BEST HIGH SCHOOLS
2012 3rd in the Nation BASIS Scottsdale
2012 5th in the Nation BASIS Tucson
2011 3rd in the Nation BASIS Tucson
2010 6th in the Nation BASIS Tucson
2009 5th in the Nation BASIS Tucson
2008 1st in the Nation BASIS Tucson
2007 6th in the Nation BASIS Tucson
2006 3rd in the Nation BASIS Tucson

WASHINGTON POST
RANKING AMERICA’S HIGH SCHOOLS
2012 1st in the Nation BASIS Tucson
2012 5th in the Nation BASIS Scottsdale
2011 4th in the Nation BASIS Tucson

U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT
BEST HIGH SCHOOLS FOR MATH AND SCIENCE
2011 2nd in the Nation BASIS Tucson

U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT*
BEST HIGH SCHOOLS
2012 6th in the Nation BASIS Tucson
2010 9th in the Nation BASIS Tucson
2009 13th in the Nation BASIS Tucson
2008 16th in the Nation BASIS Tucson

BUSINESSWEEK
AMERICA’S BEST HIGH SCHOOLS
2009 Top Arizona School for Overall Academic Performance BASIS Scottsdale

[brickbacon]

Palo Verde, I would ask you to delineate between what is good for your child, and what is good policy. When viewed through that lens, I would wonder how happy you would be to know two students are worse off in an effort to benefit your child? Even if you are willing to make that tradeoff, once everyone excepts that bet, we will all collectively be worse off.

In short, I feel regardless of how bad some schools are, it’s easier to improve them than to introduce business interests that have no intrinsic commitment or loyalty to positive educational outcomes. IMO, it’s easier to mitigate or eradicate public incompetence than it is to temper private greed or reconcile public and private interests.