It really depends on how the funding formula works. The funding formulas generally work in favor of the public schools and in DC the public schools have lost so many students that they have closed down quite a few schools.
I said it would look a lot worse.
Well, what a relief, considering I did not say that.
Haven’t glossed over that at all. Those left behind are fucked already. You just want to hold those who might possibly not be fucked as hostage for fear that failing institutions might have to change.
You may or may not realize that you are contradicting yourself again. If you can’t attract customers, and don’t have to, you are a monopoly, and not competing with anyone. Then you ossify and fall behind.
But that is exactly the problem. Public schools have a monopoly. It doesn’t matter if they do a good job of educating or not. They have guaranteed customers. It is just that poor parents have no choice - they have to send their children to the local public school no matter how shitty a job that school is doing. And you advocate locking them there forever. Because it is apparently more important that an institution be maintained than requiring that it actually achieve something.
Of course the educational bureaucrats are going to scream bloody murder if they see a threat to their guaranteed cash flow. So would I. But protectionism is a stupid idea in the auto industry, and it is equally stupid in education.
Who is it that hates poor children more - those that want to lock them into failing schools for fear a few bureaucrats might lose their jobs, or those that want them to have a significant choice?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t care about “brain drain” - at least not in the context of this discussion. (If I was, the mere existence of elite private schools would give me fits.) My big issue here is the notion of draining money straight out of private school budgets, especially when I see severe potential for abuse, and flimsy argments for it like the free market nonsense.
I suppose before I could give charter schools a complete pass, I would have to know if the opening of a private school in an area was likely to come straight and completely out of nearby schools’ budgets, approximating what vouchers would specifically be doing. But I somehow suspect that he charter school program is less about looting the public school system than about providing better educations, so I doubt their funding is structured in a way that would bother me.
(I feel I should add that I have no affection for teachers unions or inefficient public educations, despite the repeated accusations thereof. I could get on board with a plan to correct these things and improve education. I just don’t like the voucher idea because that plan, specifically, sucks.)
Hmm, I don’t know then. Objectively I don’t care how many public schools there are, but I do care that those that remain are getting enough funding to provide educations comparable to what there were before the student drain. Despite accusations, etc, I don’t really care where the kids are going - I just care that the public school option or an equivalent remains available, and isn’t looted into ruin.
By your scenario, it would certainly be a lot worse.
You did, but admittedly you contradicted yourself in doing so. And look, you do it again here! “Those left behind are fucked already.”
Nope. I just don’t want to switch to a retarded scam-masquerading-as-a-solution that will inevitably make things worse for those kids you are dismissing as “fucked already”. (Hell, let’s shoot them all; they’re already “fucked” so that’s okay, right?)
Talk to me about charter schools. They may have their own problems, I don’t know, but they’re not as dumb as what you’re arguing for.
If public schools have a monopoly, then private schools (and charter schools) current do not exist. At all.
Oh, look. When you scrape off the nonsense, there’s no contradiction.
Contrary to repeated accusations, etc.
Tell me more about charter schools. Not this voucher scam.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here.
Yes there is an underlying philosophy that makes my statement more convincing: it is the citizens’ money by default. Govt is created and funded by the citizens and not the other way around. Govt has to make a convincing case to keep their funding.
Think about what you’re saying and think about this debate in this thread. Why are we even debating? You are not going to run for office? I’m not going to run for office?
Since nobody in this thread is running for office, I guess that means this debate is pointless?
Why are we typing words about this topic? I say it’s because some people don’t believe the future tax money going to schools is gone forever and not to be questioned.
Some people may not realize that don’t just blindly fork over future property taxes. And they don’t have to “run for office” to insist that things can and should be done a different way.
Blowing people off by saying “run for office” is ridiculous.
Citizens STILL have control over their future tax bill. Citizens need to frame that future tax payout as their money— because IT IS. They can exercise that control by voting for laws that redirect the funds to improve outcomes. If that tax money did not belong to the citizens… why have the citizens vote on any referendum or any election of politicians?! Just take the citizen’s money— it already belongs to government as you say.
If you don’t pay taxes, they throw you in jail. If you try and rob the treasury, they throw you in jail. That’s a sufficiently convincing case for me.
I think that the point of this debate is “convince me that this is a good/bad idea”, or , “If I was in government, should I do this?”
In those contexts, “I want my (and other people’s) tax money to go to vouchers not public schools and I have the right to insist on this because I was the one who paid (some of) it!” is no more compelling than “I want my (and other people’s) tax money to go to gold-plating toilets not vouchers and I have the right to insist on this because I was the one who paid (some of) it!” Which is to say, not compelling at all.
Those schools should have absolutely no problem continuing as they are today, then. Because parents will continue to select them.
For the rest that are not, the parents will have the power to redirect their vochers to wherever they think best.
Why is the burden on the taxpayer, and the parents, to prove they are (1) deserving of their money back and (2) the choice as to how to spend it?
Your scenarios are invalid because both those scenarios frame the tax money as ALREADY BELONGING to the government and you’re saying they have no choice but to decide AFTER-THAT-FACT whether it goes to vouchers or toilets. That’s not the enlightened way to look at it.
I’m saying that people must consider their tax money as theirs BEFORE it gets to the 2 scenarios you’ve listed. Tax money for the next 20 years and for the next 100 years should not be thought of as the government’s money if you wish to have effective government accountable to the people.
We don’t argue if black people should be considered 3/5ths or 4/5ths a white man. We step back and consider that a black man isn’t property in the first place so it doesn’t later set up a silly debate between 3/5ths vs 4/5ths.
Yes, one way to reclaim that tax money is to throw the politicians out of office and elect new ones that stop collecting that money. But that approach will be politically difficult (maybe that’s what you’re counting on.) Therefore, another more expedient and realistic way is to pressure governments to offer vouchers to rebate that tax.
Public school systems have mishandled citizens’ tax money and churned out substandard graduates for the money sunk into it. The citizens need to take control of that money again. Vouchers are just a round-about way of not paying the tax in the first place. It doesn’t help the situation when people like you try to fool them into thinking that it’s govt money instead of theirs. The citizens need to be re-educated about how that tax money is theirs.
Well, Charter School systems can be set up the wrong way but generally speaking, they get their budgets based on the number of students they have and other schools lost money based on the number of students they have. They are probably going to draw a lot more students from nearby schools than from schools on the other side of town so their funding is in fact likely to come largely from nearby schools’ budgets. Here in the District, they even advertise on TV.
Ummm not quite. In a lot of cities and even some states there’s “school choice” where you can opt to attend a better school, then Neighborhood Crackhouse High School. There’s also “busing” programs like METCO, which bus inner city students out to suburban schools. There ARE alternative options out there you know.
You know…I just thought of something. Why is it that the same people who bash taxes for public schools have no problem with the same tax dollars going to support private schools? Isn’t that basicly corparate welfare?
And for those people who keep yapping about “breaking the government’s monopoly” by providing school choice…the government could create a WHOLE bunch of schools with different teaching methods etc. The thing that’s the problem isn’t that the government has “created” a monopoly, but rather that the education is too one size fits all. Create a bunch of schools that teach with different methodologies (but the same basicly curriculum) THAT would improve education A HELL of a lot more then “vouchers”
My point is that the fact that the tax money was once in your pocket means nothing because it is no longer in your pocket and you have no more say over how the educational dollars are spent than you have over how military dollars are spent. IOW, your vote is your say. If you want to make an argument about why your idea makes more sense then fine but it is kinda silly to say that voucher systems make more sense because you pay taxes.
Because its NOT their money and the best policy isn’t always “give the money to individuals”
Do you have a response to my reply in post 266?
WTF are you talking about. It is the only way to look at it. You elect people who decide policy, how much to tax and what to spend that tax money on. You don’t get to demand your officials spend the taxes differently because you are a taxpayer.
That’s fine and they can vote in people who will do what they want but the fact that the money once belonged to you does nothing to support your argument.
If that’s not a non-sequitor, I don’t know what is. I might as well we don’t pretend that Hitler was a saint, we take a look at reality and recognize he was an evil man.
OK that’s fine and you can make your argument to follow that policy but arguing that rebates and vouchers make more sense because you paid taxes is entirely unconvincing.
Indirectly of course tax money belongs to all of us. But that is not an argument for why a voucher system is better than a public school system. It is merely an argument against taxes generally (a poor one but that is about the best you can do with that argument).
Some of them already have kids in private school and just want the money. Others don’t really want to pay 30K for fancy private schools but would be happy to pay 10K if the government would pick up the other 20K. Some people don’t have kids and just want to repeal the taxes that go to fund public education and see this as a vehicle. Others think that you can never have too much free market and want to inject as much of it into as many places as possible. Others are just dumb (maybe I am just repeating last sentence).
I’m giving up.
You’re far more intelligent and articulate than most of the statists who ramble on this board. Which is both refreshing, and depressing, at the same time.
My response is to shake my head at someone who believes the burden is on the citizenry to somehow prove they have a right to their money back after it has been extracted by force by the government.
As well as for parents who somehow need to prove they will make better decisions for their children than the government. Why you would willingly dispossess yourself of your property and disempower yourself to make those decisions, and gladly hand them to someone else, is beyond me.
There is no way to ‘vote’ the Department of Education (which costs $80 billion per year, and accomplishes nothing) out of existence. I’m using the DoEd as an example of course and not representative of public education in toto as we’ve discussed above.
If you believe otherwise, walk me through an scenario of how we, as citizens, would ‘vote’ something like the Dept of Ed out of existence. It’s impossible. That’s why we have to fight tooth and nail to prevent the expansion of government in the first place.
Once governmental bodies like that are established - the Dept of Ed, schools that employ members of the American Federation of Teachers, other government agencies that employ members of the ASFMCE - a constituency has been created that sucks up your dollars. That constituency will start peddling influence back into a targeted group of legislators to keep them whole, keep them growing, and resist any threat of change to their status quo.
Those legislators will then horse-trade favors with other groups and work to protect their special-interest constituencies. And since it’s your money and not theirs that they are spending, they aren’t really interested in making tough tradeoffs, and certainly would never make a radical decision like killing off an entire program. Private sector businesses have to do it all the time. The government? No way. If it’s failing, it must be because we’re not giving it enough money. Excuse me, Mr. Taxpayer, but <fill in government program> sucks. So give us more of your money to fix it.
No Representative from Iowa is going to stand up in Congress and say ‘I want to abolish the Dept of Education!’ when he needs 220+ other votes (plus the Senate, plus the POTUS) to agree with him, and he is fighting an entrenched constituency and their lobbyists. There’s no point to it.
It’s easier for him to horse-trade for his local pork, or for something else that’s important to a big campaign donor. So even if you lived in that fellow’s district in Iowa, and he campaigned for his local seat on abolishing some program you didn’t like, you still have about a 0.00001% chance of it ever happening.
Vouchers were a nice way around this problem, by getting a thin wedge driven into atrocious public school systems and building momentum that way. The teachers unions have fought with all their might against them, and with the current Democratic majority in Congress, and a President who gets better at double-talk every day, they are going win the next few battles. And with smart folks like you taking their side, the poor kids in those schools will continue to be doomed for a while.
The average cost of tuition for Catholic schools is just over $4,000. The average for non-sectarian is $13,500. The average across the board is about $6,600. (cite) So while a voucher program like DC’s may not cover 100% of tuition to every private school there is, it most certainly can cover most, if not all, of tuition to many schools out there. It is, and most certainly can, pull the weight I claim it does.
Yes, I agree with the idea behind vouchers. But all the numbers, including costs and student performance, and perhaps most importantly, the people involved, all support it. Why don’t you?
There is no assumption here. Studies show the exact opposite of what you are assuming. The US Department of Education study of the voucher program after 3 years found a statistically significant positive outcome on reading test scores. Cite. (WARNING: PDF) This is a better product, for only $7,500, vs. the $24,000 the district is spending. Remind me again, why are we against a better product at a much lower cost?
Good post; I second this.
Apparently some citizens need to be re-educated as to what a social contract is, and what governments are for. At their fundamental level, governments (at least, good governments) are what happens when people decide to work together to try and accomplish something that can’t be done, or can’t be done well, in the absence of an overarching control.
One example of this is ensuring the education (or at least attempted education) of everyone. The free market simply doesn’t do this, by definition. So at a minimal level there has to be some government involvement, either to create a public school system, or to force businesses to do business with everyone so that literally everyone gets service. It’s an either/or thing, you have to do this, or you have to accept that you don’t care whether everyone (like, specifically, poor people) get educations.
The whole “Gimme my tax money back” is, pretty much by definition, a rejection of the social contract, and an acceptance of the anarchic state of the issue. So, calling for your education tax money back is announcing “I don’t think poor people should get educations.” Possibly with a little bit of “they don’t need educations to clean my toilets or shine my shoes or pick my crops anyway.” This, I can’t respect. At all - either for the selfish, heartless motivations I see in it, or for the selfish and short-sighted rejection of the social control it ultimately is.
So yeah. We want kids to get educations - it’s something society has seemed to endorse. Specific people may disagree - they only want their kids, or rich kids, or motivated kids (or whichever) to get educations - the rest can go to hell for all they care. Well, in my opinion those people can just suck it up. My taxes go to pay for military adventurism I don’t support, but I don’t yell for my taxes back. It’s one thing to want the government to operate to achieve its goals effectively. It’s quite another to stomp your foot and announce that other people need to have to pay taxes when *you *like it, but when things don’t go your way, you’re gonna take your ball and go home.
I think that vouchers are an atrocious way around this problem because (entirely apart from them being a scam), precisely because they’re a devious way around the ‘problem’ of public concensus. If the will of the people really were to abolish public schools, it wouldn’t be a political impossibility. But that isn’t the will of the people. What we have here is a minority plan that feels it needs to trick the populace/government to achieve its end, apparently because most people don’t think it’s a very good idea at all.
For the same reason I don’t use a hammer to screw screws in. I’m not saying there isn’t a problem. I’m saying that the voucher plan, specifically the one that is going to hand money to the rich who don’t need it first thing before a single middle-class or poor kid can move schools, is not a good solution to the problem.
At least two other possible solutions have been mentioned recently in this thread - need-based governement-assistment with scholarships (which is to say, what existing voucher programs apparently functionally are), and charter schools. While I’m not qualified to assess these soltions’ objective merit to any precise degree, even a cursory examination suggests that either of these solutions is likely to be at least as effective as vouchers in getting students into better schools, and they’re also solutions which won’t hand money to rich parents who are already sending their kids to private schools (and thus their kids’ educations won’t be improved in the slightest), which won’t invite people without kids to argue that they should get their tax money back too, and which aren’t as explicitly an attack on and a rejection of the idea that all kids deserve a chance at as good an education they can get.
So yeah, that’s why I don’t support it. Not all alternatives are the best alternative - and this voucher business doesn’t even seem like a good alternative to me.
I don’t remember signing a contract, do you?
Why do you keep referring to future possible tax revenue in past tense? To try to confuse citizens?
The original context of me talking about citizens asserting their tax money is theirs is to protect them from getting fooled by rhetoric using the words “subsidy”.