Whoops, sorry. Shooda said :
“What I AM against is the idea that we can fund these schools with PUBLIC money… while NOT HOLDING THEM to the same standards and requirements as we do the PUBLIC schools.”
Wang-Ka, I agree with you that many school districts (I would even say the vast majority) are doing a good job educating students. However, the question is what to do about the districts which are doing a poor job. Should we try and fix those districts like you propose? Sure we should. But there are a couple things to consider while pursuing those fixes. One, it’s not likely that any reforms tried in the district will be immediately succesful. The students who go to the school now will continue to suffer while the school is being fixed. It makes much more sense to give these children an opportunity to go to a school which is actually working instead of subjecting them to the experiment of whatever school reform is popular at the moment. Two, it’s not likely any reform will actually work all that well. Look at the history of school reforms and you will see that they don’t really reform anything at all, especialy recent school reforms. In the early 80’s, we had “A Nation at Risk,” which sounded the alarm about our education system and outlined quite a few reforms. 20 years later, and we’re no better than we were then. DC schools have been bad since at least the 1940’s, and they have been trying to reform them since then. In the 80’s there was a big push to reform the schools here, and scores just kept going down. So to say that we should fix the schools instead of trying vouchers simply means the schools likely won’t get fixed and another generation of children will suffer.
Now, of course, vouchers are mainly good for urban or suburban areas. They won’t work very well in rural areas, as you point out. Just because they won’t work as well there, though, is no reason to stop them from being implemented where they will work.
Of course, I must take issue with your characterization that simply providing more money to schools will fix them. DC has one of the highest per-pupil expenditures in the nation (around $11,000 per pupil) and it has one of the worst education systems. Providing more money is not the answer. And to say that vouchers have not worked for parents or students is simply wrong. Where vouchers have been tried (Florida, Milwaukee, and Cleveland), the parents who have used them were very happy with the results.
That seems like a perfectly reasonable statement, but I’m not sure that your sentiments agree with the proposals at hand.
I know that in the particular case of DC, the Bush plan offers no specific figure for the voucher funding. An alternative plan proposes $45M, but I don’t know if that is to be taken entirely out of DC’s public school budget of $75M, or if it’s on top of that figure, or if it’s somewhere in between.
I also know that two years ago, when the President spent his honeymoon period talking vouchers, it was repeatedly pointed out that the President’s plan only partially pays the costs of attending a private school. If that has changed, I didn’t notice it in the articles I’ve read in the past few days.
This leads to a sort of short circuit in my own thinking patterns, which I will share with you. I wind up thinking like this:
[ul][li] The plan is to be targeted at the poorest performing schools.[/li]
[li] The plan takes money away from the poorest performing schools and turns it into vouchers.[/li]
[li] The people who can afford to make up the difference between the voucher and the private school tuition can take their kids out of the poorly performing schools.[/li]
[li] Wait a minute… how did that help the poor kids? Now they’re still the poorest kids in the poorest performing schools with an even lower operating budget… that can’t possibly be correct.[/li]
[li] No, it looks like that is correct. “No child left behind” means “evacuate the wealthiest children from the shittiest schools”?! I’ll taste their blood for this, those evil so-and-sos! [/li]
[li] Rant… snarl… drool… [/ul][/li]
Okay, back to being serious. Has anyone in support of the voucher plan ever given a detailed explanation about how this situation is to be avoided? Are there private school alternatives for the parents who are just scratching by?
I would feel much better about vouchers if someone could directly answer the above questions.
Most voucher programs actually take a smaller amount of money than the average per-pupil expenditure, so school districts actually benefit when voucher kids leave. Yes, they have less money, but they also have fewer children to educate. And since the full per-pupil amount does not follow the child, there is actually more money, per-pupil, when voucher children leave than when they stay.
The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no church/state conflict in the utilization of vouchers.
But they are much more accountable to parents than public schools are.
If you examine the Florida McKay Scholarship program, which provides vouchers to special education students, you will see that this is not an issue at all. There are many private schools which serve children with disabilities, and when vouchers are introduced, there are incentives to create more. Three years ago, when Florida first started the McKay program, there were only a handful of private schools for disabled children. Now there are over 600. Private schools are more than willing to serve special needs children.
Sofa King, it’s true that my concept of vouchers is not what is being discussed currently in Congress. However, I am somewhat familiar with Bush’s proposal for DC choice, so I’ll try to answer your questions on that. The Bush proposal wouldd not take away any money from the DC school budget. It would instead offer federal funds to be distributed to poor parents to use at private schools (I believe there would be similar programs available for other cities).
And it is true that most voucher proposals only fund part of the average cost of private school tuition. But let’s examine that a little more closely. For starters, I’m sure that voucher proponents would love to cover the full cost of private schools for students, but out of political necessity, must instead settle on a lower amount. So it’s really the anti-voucher politicians who force children to accept the lower amount of money. Even if this is the case, though, that does not prevent the neediest people from taking advantage of vouchers. There are quite a few private schools who have low enough tuition to accept the vouchers. Also, there are private charities who make up the difference in some areas that have vouchers. It also must be considered that many poor parents will find enough money to make up the difference, too. That has happened in Milwaukee and Cleveland. So to say the poorest parents can’t take advantage of vouchers is contradicted by the actual results of voucher programs.
Count me as a liberal for vouchers. We don’t tell people where to spend their food stamps, don’t see why we should decide what schools there kids can go to. The idea that where you live determines what school you can go to is absurd. I also see it as a way to avoid creationist types from trying to cram BS down my kid’s throats.
Okay, that’s a decent enough explanation for me, Renob. At least it will allow me to see the issue in less simplistic terms. Thank you for your reply.
I find the liberal mindset to be both amusing and myopic.
Liberals always go into shreiking coniption fits over the voucher issue by linking it to a “seperation of church and state” issue. Their “reasoning” goes like this: Since a voucher would come from tax revenues, then “public money” would ultimately be used for religious schools. And that is a No No.
Okay, fine and dandy, but lets apply the same standards to both sides.
Since teachers within the public school system are paid with tax-dollars, or so-called “public money”, and teachers unions are funded with deductions from teacher’s salaries (again, tax-dollars and “public money”, why is acceptable for teacher’s unions to donate to political parties.
Yeah, and I be damned if I want my taxes donated to political parties or individual campaigns that I may be opposed to.
G. C. Collinsworth
A liberal’s worst nightmare; A redneck with both a library card and a concealed-carry permit.
Indeed yes- there is such a history- many parochial schools teach Creationism, and refute evolution. I myself went (for a year) to a Christian school, where one of the Teachers did teach that blacks were our inferiours- per divine writ (note that she also taught “tolerance and acceptance” of them, but also asked us to “take up our burden of helping them”).
Sure- parents should & can be able to send their kids to schools that teach Creationism- on their dollar- not mine. If it is MY tax dollars, I get some say in how they are spent- including what we teach our kids. Don’t want my say in it? Don’t ask for my tax dollars.
Razorsharp- teachers unions are NOT funded by public money. They are funded entirely by private money- the teachers dues. Their salaries- AFTER they are paid- basicly define “private money”. We can decide how much they are paid, but not what they do with the cash. Also, if someone is on the public dole gets such cash- if they like, they can spend it (unlikely they could afford to, mind you) on a private school if they liked.
Hell, there are a lot of things I don’t want the government to fund, but I don’t really get to pick and choose, do I? No one has direct say over their tax dollars, that’s not how taxes work. I don’t like the government using my money to teach that medicinal marijuana is evil, but I still have to pay my taxes, don’t I? The only say we get is through our elected representatives. If your elected representatives vote to give it to a private school in the name of a voucher, then you’ve had your say, and your view lost out in the political arena. You can’t directly control where your tax dollars go in any other area; you can’t apply this logic to vouchers.
But we do have say over education, Renob. That’s a given. You elect school boards & Supervisors, and can do so based upon what they say they will teach & how. I get a lot of say in how my tax dollars are spent on education. (I also get a lot of say in general on how my tax dollars are spent in general, the lower the level of government, the more say). But the religious schools insist that I get NO say on what they do with MY money- they can teach whatever they want, how they want. Since this is so- I don’t want to give them my money.
It is true that if my elected rep give the money (no strings attached) to private schools- I have lost out on how that money is spent- which is why I don’t want my rep doing so, and will vote out of office any politico that does so. I want the kind of control that my local school board gives ME over how they spend MY money.
It’s funny you should say this, Renob, because this is exactly why I don’t agree with vouchers. We don’t–and shouldn’t–get to pick and choose. And that’s exactly what the voucher system is: parents picking and choosing how their tax dollars are spent. And it’s selfish. Tax money should not be spent for selfish reasons. I shell out taxes not so Jimmy’s parents can get a $2,000 break on his tuition. I shell out taxes so that our society has a good educational system.
I have a problem with a lot of government-run programs, but I’m not asking for vouchers so I can utilize the private sector. I don’t ask the government to cut me a check if I decide to visit a private hospital rather than a public one. I don’t ask the government to help me buy a car when I get tired of riding public transportation. Why should parents get a break when they don’t want to use public schools?
What if every kid wants a voucher? Somebody has to stay behind just so the public school teachers have something to do, right?
Will parents from wealthy districts get more generous vouchers than parents from poor districts? Does this do anything to improve our failing public schools?
Did you have a point, or are drive-by incoherent blathers your style?
What the hell does that have to do with the topic?
For those worried about vouchers not covering the full amount of private school, thus leaving poor kids out in the cold:
Dunno about where you live but here ALL of the private schools have scholarships. They’ll kick in the difference between the cost of the school and what you can pay. The people who contribute money to these scholarship funds get a tax writeoff.
Fuck the teacher’s unions, vouchers are a great idea. Maybe if public schools had to compete with private schools for students they’d actually, oh, I dunno … TEACH SOMETHING! 
BTW what makes some of you think that the only kind of private school is a religious school?
Most? The only two voucher plans with which I am familiar are Milwaukee and Cleveland. Cleveland definitely spends more money per voucher than per student–and only the better-off kids are getting to use them, as Sofa King noted.
On paper, the $2,250 per voucher looks smaller than the money spent “per pupil” in the Cleveland school system, but the $2,250 ignores the costs of the administration of the program–and it is the “administration” cost that drives up the apparent “per pupil” costs of the public schools.
That’s fine and dandy only if the school offers a scholarship to your kid. If you’re a poor parent whose voucher doesn’t cover the cost of private school tuition, and whose kid is deemed unworthy of financial aid, then you’re still SOL.
And, of course, since the private schools are private (duh), they can award or reject scholarship applicants for whatever reason they want, whether it’s academic credentials, family income level, or skin color – which would be an awfully convenient way for a private school administrator to keep the “undesirables” out of the school, doesn’t it?
Here’s a question I don’t think has been answered yet. Does anyone here live in an area where there are enough quality private school spaces available for all those who might want to use a voucher? Do any of these private schools have a policy of taking the hard to teach children that the public schools must accept by law?
Dunno about where you live but here private schools have a limited number of scholarships. Everyone in PS 126 is not going to be able to go to St. Anthony’s down the street because St. Anthony doesn’t have enough money to cover costs for every Johnny and Suzy knocking on their door. Also, as rjung said, private schools DON’T have to help your child get into their school. They could have all the schloarship money in the world but that doesn’t mean squat if they don’t want your poor ass in there in the first place.
I know financially strapped private schools are always featured in the news around here. These schools are often located in poor neighborhoods. Perhaps vouchers would help these schools stay a float…but why should my tax money go to helping a private institution get out of the red? Other private institutions don’t get this kind of help, so why should schools be any different? And how do we know if voucher money won’t be squandered away on new basketball uniforms or on a new BMW for the school headmaster? If they’re going to be receiving public money, private school administrators need to be under the same kind of scrutiny as public school administrators.
More questions:
Would parents who home school be eligible for vouchers? If private schools can take them, why can’t private citizens?
Most households have more than one child, and yet parents don’t pay more property taxes if they have more than one child. So what is the rationale behind granting parents more than one voucher? If you want your twin boys to attend St. Anthony’s and not PS 126, do you receive two vouchers or one? If it’s the former, how is this fair?
Do parents have to be property owners to receive vouchers? If not, how does this make sense? Aren’t schools funded directly through property taxes? And what’s stopping someone from arguing that they deserve a larger voucher than someone else since they pay more property taxes?
I have no children but I want a voucher too, since all this money is being handed out and I should have a choice where it’s being spent. Maybe I want to donate my voucher to the local PTA. Maybe I want to donate to a scholarship fund at a private school somewhere. But I have a feeling I won’t be receiving a voucher. How is this fair though? I pay taxes. Why does having a child suddenly grant you the priviledge of diverting public monies?
Yeah, and looking at it from a different angle, it’s the same technique that defines “money-laundering”.
No matter how you spin it, when all is said and done, it is the subsidizing of political agendas with taxpayer dollars. It leaves the same bad taste in my mouth as when the FedGov takes my tax-dollars and doles them out to welfare broodmares under the guise of a “tax refund”.
Both are examples of “Orwellian newspeak” facilitating “Big Brother’s” vision of a collectivist utopia.
Glad to see that I struck a nerve. Your posturing is a transparent effort to mitigate the “point”, but, nevertheless, the point was made and made well.
(My, how they recoil at having their noses rubbed in the stench of their own ideology.)