School Vouchers - Would they work?

[Kent_Clark]

Originally posted by Wrath *
And as for the schools that get less money as students leave, the voucher idea is based on the actual cost we currently spend per child for education, so if there were fewer children to teach, the school would not require the same amount of money, thereby forcing them to streamline operations.*

I think that has been pretty well argued to a standstill in previous posts.

1. There are still fixed costs that apply to a school (or a school district) even if enrollment declines.

2. Many people (myself included) believe that a voucher system will leave behind the most at-risk or special needs students – the ones who require the greatest resources. Accordingly, the per pupil cost will go UP.

Wrath, I would like to know what operations in a school system you think should be streamlined.

Enough of my arguing, here’s a little something about how the experiment with contracting education to private industry has worked in Baltimore. Be warned, it’s by an analyst for the American Federation of Teachers, so you may want to keep your bias-meters active.
http://www.aft.org/research/reports/private/jsbm/jsbm.htm

[pldennison]

Two observations:

1. Anyone concerned about public school funding, especially in urban areas, should find out how much their local schools are losing due to property tax abatements given to multimillionaire developers. Sure, there are valid arguments to be made regarding attracting jobs, but the fact is these abatements rob the schools of money, and increase the tax burden on other residents of the school district.

   The Cleveland School Board tried to get an issue on the ballot which would have required the city, if they granted a tax abatement, to make up the portion of the tax that would have gone to the schools from other sections of the budget. The result was the mayor of Cleveland waging an ugly political war (with public money) against the schools, claiming they wanted to do away with abatements and destroy the city’s economy. The net result was that the mayor got to fire the entire school board and hand-pick his own “schools CEO” and a new board. He now effectively controls the Cleveland Public Schools, and you can bet their funding problems aren’t going away.

   The point? The effect of vouchers would be negligible compared to the millions of dollars put straight into the pockets of the Forest City and Jacobs development groups, among others–millions that should have gone to the schools.
   As an aside, throwing money at the schools isn’t going to solve their problems any more than taking money through vouchers is going to destroy them.

2. How about legislation allowing parents to send their children to any public school they want, rather than being tied to a porrly-performing neighborhood school? If, for example, someone living near East Tech High School in Cleveland (which is practically an armed fortress these days) would rather send their child to Lakewood High School in the suburb of Lakewood, 25 minutes to the west, why should they not be allowed to do that? This, even more than vouchers, would provide clear, parent-driven signals as to which schools were performing and which ones were not.

[Maeglin]

Okay, so, require licensing of teachers and the schools so that they meet minimum requirements (we do that now).

No, we don’t. There is an enormous shortage of licensed, qualified teachers in urban areas. I can speak especially for New York City. Furthermore, the Milwaukee voucher laws did not have this provision. Ask yourself a few times why not.

How is a new charter school, existing only on investor dollars, supposed to cut through enough federal red tape to procure all the licensing in enough time to admit students, recoup its expenses, and turn a profit?

Why are all of the big voucher donors, namely Draper, Forstmann, et al, patently against state regulation of voucher schools?

It seems to me that only a nose stuck firmly in the sand would not smell something a little funny.

And your comments only address the Sensas-Utcha case. Perhaps you should read the linked articles.

MR

[Stuffy]

wrath

Investors invest to make money, if the vouchers only cover the minimum amounts that we use to educate students now, where’s the profit potential? You also must realize that public schools are averaging their cost, they get to pay a reduced amount for current text books and other supplies because they have a larger base of students, not so with private schools.

Oh and while we’re on the subject of resources. Where will we find teachers for all these “new” schools? Most schools are facing shortages now, because of a lack of credentialed teachers.

You know the more I debate this the more insane this idea seems.

[Wrath]

*Originally posted by kunilou *
Wrath, I would like to know what operations in a school system you think should be streamlined.
**

There is fat in every government-funded institution thanks to the way they budget (forget what it’s called, I’m not a financial wiz) where if you don’t use up all the money for which you are budgeted, you get less next year. This encourages wasteful over-spending. Switching to zero-based (I think) budgeting where you get the money you need for the things you need would help. In fact, in a voucher system it would become a necessity.

Private schools currently exist all over this country. Take a look at how THEY do things. I see no reason why current public schools should be any different.

We are not poor, but not rich either. There is currently a private institution that could help my son, but which I can’t afford. A voucher system would give me that choice. Since I am already paying for his education through taxes, let me use that cash the way I feel is in his best interests (and everone else’s, too).

[Wrath]

*Originally posted by stuffinb *
**[Investors invest to make money, if the vouchers only cover the minimum amounts that we use to educate students now, where’s the profit potential? **

Are you saying business professionals don’t know how to profit? If it can’t be done, it won’t . The public school is STILL THERE. It’s not going anywhere.

[Kent_Clark]

**
[/QUOTE]

Private schools currently exist all over this country. Take a look at how THEY do things. I see no reason why current public schools should be any different.**
[/QUOTE]

They do things differently, no argument. I can’t speak for your part of the country, but where I live, public schools are required by law to

Have public, competitive bidding on all projects

Follow Federal and state laws regarding class size, teacher certification, education of the handicapped, school lunch programs, etc. – and spend gobs of hours each day filling out the paperwork necessary to show they are in compliance

Teach certain classes, such as state history and “practical arts” that are required by state law

Engage in collective bargaining with teachers for salary and benefits (in Missouri, public school teachers are not required to unionize, nor are they allowed to strike, which takes some of the steam out of collective bargaining.)

Conduct audits each year and submit themselves to state audits at any time.

Private schools aren’t required to do any of that. Think of the fat that we could cut out if we could get rid of those pesky rules and regulations.

[Stuffy]

Are you saying business professionals don’t know how to profit? If it can’t be done, it won’t . The public school is STILL THERE. It’s not going anywhere.

Only now with LESS resources than it had than before. BTW, I read you earlier post as it concerns to your son. I empathise with your position. I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be some form of governmental assisitance (whther tax credits or scholarships) for those who have need of other educational opportunities. And I know states like mine (CA) and NY have provisions for those sorts of support. I think those ideas should be expanded. The how is what concerns me. The voucher initiative in my state (and I haven’t seen posters from other states praising their initiatives) is a bad idea.

[Wrath]

*Originally posted by kunilou *
Private schools aren’t required to do any of that. Think of the fat that we could cut out if we could get rid of those pesky rules and regulations. **

No, let’s require them for private schools as well, if they wish to receive vouchers.

[Stuffy]

*Originally posted by Wrath *
**

*Originally posted by kunilou *
Private schools aren’t required to do any of that. Think of the fat that we could cut out if we could get rid of those pesky rules and regulations. **

No, let’s require them for private schools as well, if they wish to receive vouchers. **

But that’s the problem, in my state they’re specifically exempted from these regulations and others, including zoning requirements (in California! the Land of the Great Shakes). And as I recall everyone else was saying the same things of their states initiatives.

[The_Ryan]

villa

If we take $y and give it to people whose children go to private schools, then those people are better off by y and the people still attending public schools are worse off by the same amount, other things being equal. The new public school budget is (x-y), out of which they still have to cover the same level of fixed costs. So it doesn’t “just make the rich have to pay less”.

You still aren’t getting it. By paying for public schools, parents are indirectly paying for private schools. Vouchers would make them pay less towards public schools. Yes, the schools would end up with less money, but the reason would be that private school customers would be paying less, not because they are taking money away from public schools. If I pay you $4000 each year, then start paying you $1000 each year, am I “taking” $3000 a year from you?

But I wish they’d have the honesty to propose tax & benefit cuts rather than hiding behind a voucher scheme.

You mean give tax cuts to those that pay for public schools? How would this differ from a voucher program?

*Originally posted by Satan *
Do I disgust you, The Ryan?

I suppose I should have been more specific. I am disgusted by the idea that if a plan would benefit the rich and middle class more than the poor, then the plan is automatically a bad idea.

Insulting people and whining yourself how we need to look out for the more wealthy people and vouchers are a neato way to do this does not come close to answering my question.

I never did either.

My mind is not made up at all on this. I want what is best for our aschools, and will listen to any reasonable ideas to achieve this.

Really? You want what’s best for our schools? Well, what’s best for our schools is if we cut funding for every other government program, and put all of that money towards the schools. I’m not for what’s best for the schools; I’m for what’s best for society. I really don’t see why you’re so fixated on what’s best for the schools.

kunilou

Given that the major argument for vouchers is that it will help “the really poor,” if vouchers DON’T help them, that would seem to be a strong argument against the idea.

No, it would be the elimination of a strong argument FOR them. There is a difference.

[Stuffy]

You still aren’t getting it. By paying for public schools, parents are indirectly paying for private schools.

Apparently I missing something, care to explain?

Vouchers would make them pay less towards public schools. Yes, the schools would end up with less money, but the reason would be that private school customers would be paying less, not because they are taking money away from public schools. If I pay you $4000 each year, then start paying you $1000 each year, am I “taking” $3000 a year from you?

No, you just describe a “cut”. And it’s a “cut” of the public school funding, no matter how you try to dress it up.

I suppose I should have been more specific. I am disgusted by the idea that if a plan would benefit the rich and middle class more than the poor, then the plan is automatically a bad idea

Ahh, but that’s the crux isn’t it? These programs are being touted as a way to save public schools and give lower income parents a choice. NOT, as a rebate to parents already sending their kids to private school. How about some truth in advertising?

I’m for what’s best for society. I really don’t see why you’re so fixated on what’s best for the schools.

And vouchers (now acknowleged as rebates)help society how? By further polarizing the education between the the haves and have-nots. Hmm, I’m still missing something.

[JustAnotherGuy]

taps the microphone

Is this on?

Wrath, the federal voucher program will almost definately NOT help you. It will be almost invariably for the poor only.

The eligibility requirements under Jeb’s plan, which is the only thing I could find, but is supposed to be a mirror of George W’s plan require the the public school FAIL. If the public school in your system PASSES, your kids are not eligible for the voucher program.

Most middle class and wealthy families live in nice suburban neighborhoods where there are less business property tax incentives and more money going into the public school system. Most middle class and wealthy families find the time to devote to making sure their children are going to learn, that their teachers are competent. Most middle class and wealthy parents have the essential tools, i.e. computers for their kids.

Unless we are talking about state voucher plans, the “This only benefits the middle class” whine is completely inaccurate. This, in 95% of all cases will NOT affect the middle class at all.
About Baltimore… I live here, well in the suburbs. I work here anyway. Did you notice the Baltimore Board of Education doesn’t reveal how their budget related to EAI’s?

Following EAI’s departure from the Baltimore educational system, but in no way a cause and effect, Sylvan Learning Center, headquartered in Baltimore City, flourishes quite well and has excellent results. I am sure they are poised and ready to take on a voucher program. The Baltimore City Schools have plummeted consistently in test scores until…

Governor Paris Glendenning stepped in and started attaching strings to State Education money. The State of Maryland was extremely close to closing down the Baltimore Board of Education and taking it over. Some in the City complained, some rallied, but in the end, the State settled for having a say in the Directors of the Board of Education. Since the State’s strong-arm involvement a couple years ago, City test scores have gone up two years in a row.

This probably seems to make a case for intervention rather than vouchers. But the education levels, while improving, are still incredibly lower than test levels in the various counties of Maryland. And some schools are jumping in leaps and bounds, while others are actually continuing to drop in test scores and others are being closed down.

People are leaving the City of Baltimore in droves, seeking better educations for their children. A voucher program will not only allow current residents to send their children to the public school of their choice if the one in their district fails, but it will give others some feasable education option if they elect to move into the City.

Vouchers may just save Baltimore City Public Schools. Not to mention Baltimore City. I have heard the same abandonment is taking place in many cities across the country.

The middle class meanwhile, at least those that I know of with school age, or soon-approaching-school age children, look hard at the scores in a neighborhood public school before moving there. My first is not even a year old yet, but my wife and I found out that they were building a brand, spanking new elementary, middle and high school for my neighborhood before we bought three years ago. With the real estate taxes that my neighborhood pays, those schools will do well.
Have you ever heard the saying about the Department of Agriculture … there is one employee for every farmer in the United States? They are based here in Maryland, I assure you it isn’t much of a stretch. At least it wasn’t 6 years ago.

The same is true for Baltimore Public schools. There is a huge seven story building half a block away from me filled with bureaucrats… probably one for every teacher in Baltimore City schools. If you give them, the Board of Education more money they will be happy to spend it, raises for all of them. But you will have to give them twice as much as you want to get into the classroom.

While the number of students in the Baltimore City School system dwindles year after year, the Baltimore City Board of Education increases it’s budget, year after year.

You don’t need to take my word for it, look it up… http://www.baltimorecity.com.

[Stuffy]

JAG

I haven’t looked at your cites yet, but FWIW, my arguments regarding vouchers are in repsonse to the voucher initiative in my state and by default to some of the other state initiatives as well.

I have no opinion as yet to Dubyas plan, as I haven’t seen it.

[Wrath]

*Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy *
Wrath, the federal voucher program will almost definately NOT help you. It will be almost invariably for the poor only.

Dang it.

[villa]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Ryan *

You still aren’t getting it. By paying for public schools, parents are indirectly paying for private schools. Vouchers would make them pay less towards public schools. Yes, the schools would end up with less money, but the reason would be that private school customers would be paying less, not because they are taking money away from public schools. If I pay you $4000 each year, then start paying you $1000 each year, am I “taking” $3000 a year from you?

I definitely ‘get’ what you’re saying. You think people who place their children in private school should pay less money into the public school system than they do at the moment. I point out that that will mean there is less money for the public school system, which, presumably you don’t disagree with. Because of the fixed costs inherent in the school system this means less financing per head for those left in the public system. You seem to think this is fair enough, I don’t. Where I take exception to you’re thoughts is that you say that this would only reduce the cost for the rich. WRONG. It would also reduce funding available for the less rich.

But I wish they’d have the honesty to propose tax & benefit cuts rather than hiding behind a voucher scheme.

You mean give tax cuts to those that pay for public schools? How would this differ from a voucher program?

It would be a lot more honest to stand up and say " I pay for private school for my children, and so I don’t think I have any degree of responsibility to contribute to the education of the children of those less able to pay for it. Therefore, give me a tax cut or tax break" than to hide behind a voucher scheme that many claim is for the benefit of those that it is likely to hurt the most.

[Bucky]

Nobody is paying for their kid to go to school. We all pay for every kid to have a public school to attend if that is the choice of the student/guardian/etc.

If parents of kids in private schools shouldn’t “have to pay twice,” then I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY AT ALL! I have no kids. My parents SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY AT ALL! Their kids are grown. When it comes to the military, I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY AT ALL! (Canada isn’t going to invade Minnesota.) Hey, why does my tax money go to federal disaster relief in Florida? I don’t know anybody there and I don’t live there. Wait, I’m not a senior citizen…screw this Medicare! Veterans’ benefits? I don’t see a penny of this!!!

And if you think the above paragraph is stupid yet still claim that vouchers are a fairness issue (as opposed to efficiency, a different concern)–you might need to go back to school yourself.

Regarding efficiency–any pro-voucher supporters like to address my earlier issue of rural areas? I’ve never heard a response to that in many many times of debating this.

Bucky

[DavisMcDavis]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
**2. How about legislation allowing parents to send their children to any public school they want, rather than being tied to a porrly-performing neighborhood school? If, for example, someone living near East Tech High School in Cleveland (which is practically an armed fortress these days) would rather send their child to Lakewood High School in the suburb of Lakewood, 25 minutes to the west, why should they not be allowed to do that? This, even more than vouchers, would provide clear, parent-driven signals as to which schools were performing and which ones were not.
**

This is called open enrollment, and existed in my hometown when I went to school there. It didn’t seem to cause any problems, but then, all the schools in my area were great, so it’s probably not very good evidence one way or the other. Your solution assumes, however, that there are other nearby schools, transportation for the kids, etc.

The Ryan Your arguements are weak. There’s no reason to give money back to the parents of private school attendees until I get MY voucher, since I have no children at all. Oh, and I want a voucher for the fire department, since I’ve never had to use them, either.

Clearly, our society believes that having universal education is beneficial to society. Otherwise society wouldn’t pay for it. So if rich people pay for the education of their children by themselves, are they not providing a service to society? What’s wrong with reimbursing at least some of the cost?

You’re missing the math portion of tonight’s program. You disgust me. The “what’s wrong” is that the reimbursement comes from the money currently being used to school the poor. Take that away and there goes that “universal” part you started out with. You disgust me. Duh.

Originally posted by DavisMcDavisPlus, you’re giving additional money to those students who were already IN private school on their own before the vouchers. Where is that money coming from?

From the parents of those very same students. Duh. Under the our current system, we just pocket the savings from them, and pretend that it is somehow “our” money.

But we’re also pocketing my tax dollars and calling it “our” money. Duh. Should I get a voucher, too? You disgust me. In fact, under your plan, maybe public schools should be paid for by just the poor people attending them! That sounds like a great plan! Oh, wait…

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by Wrath *
**Okay, so, require licensing of teachers and the schools so that they meet minimum requirements (we do that now).

A school voucher would only be payable to a state-licensed school, not a non-existent one.

And yes, it can be that easy. **

No, it can’t. The current Prop up in Nov election, here in CA, completely FORBIDS any sory of licensing, certification, education requirement, or curriculum requirement. Sure they want OUR money, but we get no say in how it is spent.

And that is what is so wrong about vouchers. I pay taxes, but have no kids. Well, I accept my share of the brden, as i feel I am investing for my Countries future. So, I want MY investment spent in certain ways. Now, in the Public sector- I have input. I can run for School board, I can write letters, I can support candidates with similar goals. Or, I can do as I HAVE done- sit on the Civil Grand Jury, and investigate waste, fraud and inefficiency in our County’s school system. We wrote a 50 page scathing report on it- and got changes. I had input- I made a difference.

But the private schools want MY money- but I have NO input at all- legally. If they want to teach “creation science”- there is nothing I can freaking do. And I will not accept this- this is simply wrong, and against all the principles this Nation was founded on. Private schools may be better, or not. But they are just that-private. As long as they are private- they have no right to MY money.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by Wrath *
**Okay, so, require licensing of teachers and the schools so that they meet minimum requirements (we do that now).

**

California does not have a licensing requirement for teachers at private schools. I don’t know about other states, but at least 1 other poster has also said this.