Ok, I’m a liberal… bleeding-heart and proud of it. Card-carrying member of the ACLU… Separation of Church and State… Proud protector of Flag-burners everywhere.
However, after trying (and failing) for 10 years to get a halfway decent education from the public schools for my learning disabled son, I’m foursquare in favor of school vouchers. I’m happy to pay (via taxes) for my own children’s education, and a piece of other children’s, but I can’t afford to pay twice!
As long as the government checks up on the schools and ensures they’re giving a complete education, I say let the parents decide. I don’t care that parochial schools are going to get money; it seems an easy-to-fix technical problem to structure things so that the voucher can go for the secular education, and the church can pay for the religious education. So long as the government treats each religion the same, I don’t see a problem with that.
Yes, I know the ACLU opposes vouchers. Sigh…
Another thing, here in Littleton and in other places, the religious right is making a big push to control school boards. They’ve failed pushing for a top-down approach targeting the presidency, governerships, congress and state legislatures, and now they’re going bottom-up… County boards, school boards, zoning boards… Privatizing the elementary school educational system is perhaps the best way to ensure the availability of a secular education.
Any interesting arguments in favor of the current public school system?
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away”. - Phillip K. Dick
Oooh, I like this topic! And haven’t had a chance to yammer on and on about it yet!
Approximately 1/2 of my oldest childs education was public, and 1\2 private. It bounced back and forth abit as we looked for an acceptible school district. I was the only “bread winner” at the time,things were very tight, and I thought in the beginning, that vouchers sure would be nice!
However, several things I’ve noticed.
Alot of private schools, value their privacy, and sometimes their “exclusivity”.
Then why do most of them favor the voucher system? So they can raise their prices. As a matter of fact, I’d say if vouchers were $500 a month, you’d see alot of them raise their prices right around $500 a month. It wouldn’t put anymore hardship on the current clientel, and things could stay just as they were. No Rif Raf. Everything the same, well except their profits would be 5-10 times higher. (assuming a current tuition of $500 a month, and a current profit of 10%-20%)
What many are after with the “voucher” program, is to end control from the government. Which I don’t quite agree with, but even if I did. I say the best way to do that “Is to do just that!” And not with this bad shell game.
And lets face it, if the private schools have all this extra money, but no more students. That means less money for the others with the same amount of students. No matter how hard they try, and how far they raise their standards, they are not going to attract the “exclusives” away from their private schools!
There are a few other “eventual” and “down the road” scenerios, but they aren’t much better.
I could be wrong…it happend once before…
Wow, SingleDad in favor of school vouchers, that just made my day. Arguing against him is a pain. I just thought I’d offer my perspective on this, since it is probably relevant. I’m only 21, so I can remember going to elementary through high school pretty well.
From kindergarten through 12th grade I went to various public schools in the city of Boston. My high school, which is a public school, is the oldest school of any type in the country, having been founded in 1635. Many famous people, renging from Benjamin Franklin to George Santayana to Leonard Bernstein have gone to this school. I consider the education I got there to be better than most of my peers at college, and my college occasionally makes the US News and World Report top 50 list.
All this being said for the public school system, I think that under most circumstances private schools will be more likely to provide the sort of opportunities that I got. I think that my experience was rather unique, and that very few public schools can get away with things like requiring students to take Latin from 7th through 12th grade. One of the reasons that my school could do this was that it was in a large city and admission was by selection, mainly based on a test administered in 6th grade (the school starts at 7th, not 9th, grade).
While the education I recieved was the sort of education I would normally associate with private schools, I had many experiences that I could have only recieved at a public school. For example, my school actually had some diversity, while the private schools in the area were pretty much all white middle class. I certainly would not want to give up these kind of advantages either.
As a Libertarian, I would like to see the public education system radically changed and privatized. As a realist, I see school vouchers as a way of moving in that direction, and at least securing the benefits of a private education to a larger segment of the population. The only problem with them is that it may lead to the public schools being underfunded, which would, well, suck. But if it is at all possible to manage fiscally, school vouchers are a definite way to improve the current situation.
Then what about all those people with no children? Why should they have to pay at all? You seem to favor a half-way system – the one that helps you the most but still takes money from those who don’t have kids at all. I would say you can’t have it both ways. Either the public supports education or they don’t.
Maybe you don’t, but I do, and the ACLU does, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State does, and lots of other people do as well. Oh, and there’s that pesky First Amendment thingy.
So you want to avoid the First Amendment by playing a shell game? Besides, in many parochial schools, it’s hard to tell the secular from the parochial. Is science class secular? What if they teach creationism? Is art class secular? What if they have kids draw Christ on the Cross? Is English class secular? What if they study the collected works of Christianity? Etc.
Because it’s still favoring religion, and in particular those religions that have enough people to put together a school. You often see the Catholic school system pushing in favor of vouchers – I wonder why? Because they would benefit greatly. But what about the Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu population in smaller towns? They don’t have enough kids to put together a viable school. Let alone atheists.
No, voting against them is the best way to ensure it. Or suing when they overstep their bounds (if they win the school board) and want to display the 10 Commandments or teach creationism. This is a new one on me – give vouchers so we can keep the public schools. It almost sounds like bribery – here, take this money for your private schools and leave us alone.
Arguments against vouchers are not the same as arguments for the “current public school system.” Obviously, things need to be changed in certain areas. Some areas don’t. I went to public schools for my entire schooling, and I have no problems with any of it. Of course, that was the suburbs. But there are a lot of interesting ideas on how to help the public schools. For example, where I live, there are two charter schools (run by outside corporations, but still public schools), a number of magnet schools, etc.
David B, thanks for addressing this already. This really irks my squid - you aren’t paying for your childrens’ education through taxes, you are paying the state to set up an education system for all children. Why do you get to choose if I (with zero kids) don’t? What if I don’t want to support your private Jerry Falwell elementary school with my taxes? Do I get a choice? If you have eighteen kids do you pay eighteen times more property tax than if you have one kid?
David is completely right - you need to realize that you can’t have your cake and throw it out with the bathwater too. Or something.
Here are some interesting things to note about public vs. private schools.
[ul][li]Private schools don’t have to have special education departments for learning disabled or severely developmentally disabled children. Public schools do. How efficiently could your private school use your tuition dollars if it had to educate 3 special ed students that required full time nursing care?[/li][li]Private schools don’t have to accept a student who is below their standards, either academically or behaviourally. How hard is it to ‘out perform’ the public schools when you get the take the cream of the crop and the public schools are forced to handle everyone else?[/ul][/li]
Not all public schools are doing very good jobs. These schools should be fixed, but that may require more money in some cases. More money that won’t be available if the government is giving it to parents to send their children to private schools.
Gov. Jeb Bush ran on the voucher platform in his succussful bid for the Florida statehouse. A judge in the panhandle ruled that the state constitution was very clear, the state shall provide to each child a free, public education. It seems to me very cut and dry. You would think a candidate and his party would bother to read the constitution. You would think that a public official would realize the tremendous waste of court time and taxpayer money that trying to institute an obviously unconstitutional program would cause. This doesn’t even begin to take into account the seperation of church and state issues. Gov. Bush has committed to fighting this all the way up to the supreme court. We get to pay for it.
If you’re not happy with the quality of your public schools, move. If you can’t afford to move, become an active participant in your childs education. Taking money away from struggling schools makes them worse. It is our duty as taxpayers and citizens to provide the children in our society equal access to the best public education possible.
You lost me on this 1st Amendment argument. In what possible way do vouchers violate it?
The other argument (that taxpayers without children don’t get a choice) doesn’t wash either. The reason everyone pays taxes for public education is because society has decided it is in the general interest to have an educated populace. If vouchers help improve that goal, then the needs of all taxpayers are served.
The difference with parents is that if they decide their child would be better served in a private system they have to pay TWICE. They are still meeting the obligation to educate their children, which is the principle behind universal taxation for education, yet they are forced to pay again for another school.
In short, the only real difference between vouchers and the current system is that it takes the choice of where to educate children away from bureaucrats and vests it with parents. This involves no violations of the constitution (even in Florida - the education is still universal and publically funded), does not violate free speech or the separation of church and state (if that amendment meant that government can do nothing that benefits religion in general then the tax-exempt status of churches would be in violation).
Anyway, all of the arguments raised against vouchers are technical and not intrinsic to the nature of vouchers themselves. If you don’t want religious schools getting a boost, fine. Don’t allow vouchers to be used in them, or if they are, don’t let them charge more than the voucher value. If you don’t want private schools jacking their prices, fine. Set guidelines for how much a voucher-qualified school can charge. If you don’t want the curriculum to be changed, set standards. In short, you can have everything the current public system has, with the only difference being that parents can move their kids from one to another, or you can have a radical system of completely private schools and no regulations at all. Whatever. None of that has anything to do with vouchers.
Removing funding from failing schools does not benefit society in any way. The students that are left behind in that school are placed at a greater disadvantage.
It is societies obligation to pay for a childs education, it is the parents obligation to see to it that the child goes to school. If a parent decides to send his child to a private school, that parent is still obligated to make his contribution to the rest of the community he lives in, by supporting the public school system he resides in.
Vouchers violate the constitution. To say that the wording of the constitution is a technicality defies all logic. Parents do have a choice of living in a better school district, home schooling, and being more active in their childs education. They do not have the choice of mandating that all other taxpayers fund schools that are unregulated and teach religion.
I haven’t read the Florida decision so i don’t know if it turns on 1st Amendment issues or not. The way vouchers violate the 1st Amendment (IMHO, the USSC hasn’t ruled on a voucher case yet) is by funneling public money into schools which have religious instruction. The government is paying to teach children religion, which violates the Establishment Clause. The USSC has ruled that government can provide such non-religious resources as transportation, books and classroom materials and even “special needs” teachers to religious schools without violating the 1st Amendment but funding a child’s education in toto or without differentiation is a different order of magnitude. Again IMHO, I heartily disagree with the USSC on the constitutionality of providing any resources to students in religious schools. If the schools themselves can’t provide them, then the students should do without or else the school should have to cut its budget, just like anyone else would have to do. Providing even non-religious materials frees up resources which may then be spent on the teaching of religion, an indirect payment for teaching religion.
You might think that, but I gave up on that idea a long time ago…
Otto said:
Nope. The judge didn’t even need to worry about that – it was all the Florida state constitution, which Ronald already mentioned deals very clearly with the “public education” issue.
dhanson said:
If the vouchers are only for non-parochial school use (secular private schools), they don’t. However, most voucher programs are not content to stop there and push religious schools. That is where the First Amendment violation comes in.
Sorry, but your point is what doesn’t wash. SingleDad (and many others before him) are trying to argue that they shouldn’t have to pay for their kids’ education twice. Well, I pointed out the fallacy in that argument. Now, if you want to claim a different argument, fine, but that’s not the point that was at issue here. But you stated the very point – people are paying for a public education, not private educations (and certainly not private religious school educations). That’s where Jeb Bush lost.
BAAANT. Sorry, that one’s already been shot down, as I said above. You can’t have it both ways. Either all of the public is paying or not, you can’t claim certain people are paying twice.
Nobody is “forcing” them to do anything. If they want to send their kids to a private school, that is their choice. My next-door neighbors don’t have kids. Aren’t we forcing them to pay for my kids’ education? But you didn’t like that argument, as we saw above. You just can’t have it both ways.
Wrong. The parents always have that choice. They just may have to pay for it. That is part of the choice.
Yeah, I hate that “First Amendment” technicality…
That would indeed remove the First Amendment problem. But there are others – not the least of which is that the biggest backers of voucher programs are religious organizations like the Catholic Church (not a problem in implementing it, but a problem in terms of actually getting a law passed to say that).
I’m not really up to speed on this voucher thing.
Are private schools that accept vouchers going to be compelled to accept them as full tuition payment? The same as will be required of public schools?
Peace,
mangeorge
My impression is that the majority of private schools are non-profit. And if private schools are profitable, won’t competition keep their prices the same?
How are we supposed to end government control of education if anything other than what the government offers costs more than most people can afford?
DavidB
In other words, if someone argues for something that is in their own self-interest, that’s wrong? Hmm, is this a new logical fallacy? It’s sort of like ad hominem, but not quite.
Under the voucher program, the public would be supporting education; in fact, it would be supporting education more than under the current system; in the current system, the public only supports public education. Under a voucher program, the public would be supporting all education. Just how are supporters of vouchers saying that the public doesn’t support education?
Well,that logical fallacy is easy to recognize. Argument from authority.
What about it?
Shell game? What shell game?
There can be tests to see if the students are learning the secular lessons that they’re expected to learn. If they’re learning what they’re supposed to be learning, then it is none of our business whether or not they’re learning more in addition to that.
Well, gee, allowing religions to build churches helps those that have enough money to build churches. What about small Muslim or Hindu communities that don’t have enough members to support a temple? Let alone atheists. Should we outlaw churches? Vouchers help Catholics more than the general population, but that doesn’t mean that vouchers “favor” Catholics; vouchers do not discriminate against non-Catholics.
And if you don’t happen to be in the majority? What then?
Agreed.
What do you mean by “push”? Do you mean that the voucher program pressures parents into choosing a parochial school? That would indeed be unconstitutional, but that’s not what I consider to be a proper voucher system.
No, you didn’t. You simply said that he should pay twice, without providing an explanation for why he should. Simply saying that your opponent is wrong hardly constitutes pointing out a “fallacy”.
So is it any less of an education if it comes from a private source? This distinction seems arbitrary to me.
I certainly can. If SingleDad first pays for public education in general (which includes his own child) and then pays for his child’s education again, he has paid twice. If his child’s education is included in the first payment, then the second payment is superfluous.
You just love saying this in lieu of actually giving an argument, don’t you? Just what are the “both ways” to which you refer? And where has SingleDad tried to “have” both of them?
Not if they can’t afford it.
Did you totally miss what he meant, or are you choosing to ignore it? He’s saying that all of the objections refer to a specific type of voucher, not to all vouchers.
What the heck does that mean? Are you saying that if a certain religion supports a law, that law is in violation of the First Amendment?
douglips
[quote]
David B, thanks for addressing this already
In all the school voucher talks I never hear mention of home school’s. Any thoughts? As it stands in most states they receive nothing from the state yet they do pay taxes to support the education system. How do they fit (or not) in the voucher debate?
Actually, they were briefly mentioned as an alternative to public school that supposedly doesn’t cost as much as private schools (hmmm, $5000/year or the loss of one parents’ income… which is greater?). The way I envision vouchers, every child that isn’t in a public schools that passes an evaluation exam at the end of the year would have a voucher sent to his or her parents, regardless of what sort of schooling it was that enabled him or her to pass the exam.
Yes, it certainly is – if we are paying for it. My tax dollars should not fund somebody else’s religion. It’s just that simple.
Could you have come up with a more fallacious argument? Nobody’s talking about outlawing religious belief – I was simply pointing out that tax dollars will not – cannot – be equally divied up the way it was assumed. Thus there will be favoritism. Thus my tax dollars will go to fund somebody else’s religion.
Sure they do. I pay taxes. There are no agnostic Jewish (or even regular Jewish or atheist or anything else even close) private schools in town. There are, however, a lot of Catholic schools. So my tax dollars would go, in the form of vouchers, to fund the Catholic religion.
I had said: “However, most voucher programs are not content to stop there and push religious schools.” You replied:
Actually, it’s not what I meant by “push” but what I mean to type. Sorry, I meant to say, “most voucher proponents…” In other words, they push voucher programs so they can get religious school funding. You don’t see a whole lot of people clamoring for secular-only voucher programs.
Of course, to know that, we’d need to know exactly what SingleDad’s taxes are, what portion go to education, etc. Considering there are people out there with no children contributing to the tax base, I would estimate that SingleDad is, in fact, not paying for his child’s education “twice.” I know I don’t pay enough in property taxes to fund a child for a year in public school. If everybody did, there would be no need for taxing those without kids, right?
The point, of course, is that if he wants to make this claim, he must acknowledge those who pay for public education even though they don’t even have kids.
I’m sorry you haven’t understood anything I’ve said. I’ll try to type more slowly next time.
If you want to claim that you are overpaying by sending your kid to a private school, what do you say about those without kids at all? Either you eliminate the entire public school system to accomodate those folks or you stop complaining about “paying twice.” You can’t have it both ways; in other words, you can’t just complain about yourself and ignore everybody else.
I had said: “Wrong. The parents always have that choice.” You responded:
Thanks! I was hoping somebody would say that.
Do you honestly think any voucher program will suddenly make private school affordable for the majority of people? Have you checked the numbers? It just doesn’t work. While I don’t think (as has been mentioned here, I believe) that private schools will up the prices, the fact is that an extra thousand or two thousand just ain’t gonna cut it for the vast majority of people who voucher proponents claim will be helped by this. Do you think an inner-city family is going to be able to come up with the rest of the tuition for a private school? No.
I had said: “But there are others – not the least of which is that the biggest backers of voucher programs are religious organizations like the Catholic Church (not a problem in implementing it, but a problem in terms of actually getting a law passed to say that).” You replied:
I thought I was pretty clear, but I’ll try again. I specifically said that this was a problem of getting it passed, not of implementing it. In other words, the Catholic school folks, for example, won’t be lobbying to get a secular-only voucher program backed, which means state Reps & Senators aren’t likely to spend too much time on it.
Here’s a link to a press release on the Florida voucher court decision from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for info on that case: http://www.au.org/pr314002.htm
There are some other links to previous voucher-related press releases on that web page as well. One of those discusses a Federal Court ruling on the Ohio voucher program, which was ruled unconstitutional for the reasons I’ve been discussing – First Amendment violations: http://www.au.org/pr122099.htm
We have already accepted as a premise that the public is obliged to fund education. Therefore, everybody must pay into the system, regardless of whether they have children or where they send their children to school.
Although the Florida State Constitution may specify differently, there is nothing in general that says that the government must run the schools itself. The people should be able to decide how they want the money divided up. One option is to provide a certain amount of money per child for education, with the parents free to decide the best way to spend it, subject to government accreditation.
Since we have decided that the public should pay for educating its children, why is it unfair for the public to pay the same amount per student, but to allow private schools to basically be contractors hired to educate children as well.
Also, people who send their children to private schools technically do only pay once. They just give up their claim to the benefit they have paid for. They should be able to get the education they desire for their children without having to do this.
The religion issue is a red herring. It would not be difficult to make the school voucher legislation provide for the funds from the vouchers to be applied solely to secular education. The various parochial schools involved would probably be willing to comply to keep everything constitutional.
As a matter of fact, I’d say if vouchers were $500 a month, you’d see alot of them raise their prices right around $500 a month. It wouldn’t put anymore hardship on the current clientel, and things could stay just as they were. No Rif Raf. Everything the same, well except their profits would be 5-10 times higher.
My impression is that the majority of private schools are non-profit. And if private schools are profitable, won’t competition keep their prices the same?{/quote}
They may be non-profit,but that doesn’t mean they won’t raise their tuition. Non-profit just means there are no shareholders making a profit.My children go to a parochial school. Tuition is currently $3300/yr for two kids.If we get the approx. $4000/per child vouchers that were being talked about in NYC, I’m sure the tuition will be at least that much.Where would the extra money go?Increases in salaries and benefits, renovations ,possibly additional programs.Any school can find legitimate ways to spend more money.The reason some (not all) private schools try to keep tuition as low as possible is to prevent the enrollment from dropping. If I’m willing now to pay $3300/yr, chances are I’ll still be willing to pay a thousand or two even with a voucher,increasing the school’s revenue, and not causing a big drop in enrollment. (BTW I’m against vouchers for mostly practical reasons)
I used to be in favor of Voucers - I believe strongly that the market it is a powerful force for developing efficient businesses. However, there are serious problems:
In the bible belt, a school that was not christian would not get enough business to sustain itself. Would you make provisions for ‘public’ schools that may teach only 1 student?
Elsewhere, the most successful schools would be those with the most powerful advertising. Much as McDonald’s is the country’s most successful restaraunt (yet its food is some of the worst). Just how comfortable are you with your vouchers being spent to ‘sponsor’ Pokemon and X-Files reruns instead of on teacher salaries and classroom supplies?
Sorry, I meant to say, “most voucher proponents…” In other words, they push voucher programs so they can get religious school funding. You don’t see a whole lot of people clamoring for secular-only voucher programs.