We already have a political party, the Republicans, whose blatant, high-profile commitment to a religious group (one in particular) short-circuits the Constitutional separation of Church & State whenever they can bypass/subvert the Courts.
The notion that a fair & impartial certification committee would be seated is nonsense.
And, contrary-wise, those (inevitable) Church-orient schools would be de-certified when political winds changed, driving children out, & disrupting their education.
Is this fundamentally different than public funding for busing to private schools? I don’t think so, and I don’t see either as a violation of the establishment clause, so long as vouchers aren’t restricted in some arbitrary and unconstitutional manner (say, if only Christian schools are eligible).
Do you have this same objection to all government spending? How do we assure that recipients of welfare, social security, medicare, veteran’s benefits, and a host of other government programs spend their money responsibly, and not in ways that you find objectionable? How do we assure that people spend government money on real doctors and not witchdoctors and shamans? Could it be that the government certifies medical practitioners and hospitals, just like it could do with teachers and schools, even if they aren’t officially state institutions?
I’m also puzzled by your belief that government is too partisan and religiously influenced to even certify private schools, but is perfectly capable of running fair and secular public schools.
As for the OP, I’ll point out that AFAIK (a) nobody in the pro-voucher camp is holding private schools to the same levels of accountability as public schools, and (b) I haven’t seen any provisions that will prevent private schools from rejecting students because they aren’t rich/white/privileged/religious enough. I can easily imagine a voucher-funded-education scenario where all the quality schools pick and choose from the best applicants, leaving the underperformers to be segregated into whatever’s left.
The article doesn’t describe a voucher system in San Francisico. It is about a system which provide choice within a decentralized, money- follows- the-student school district. The decentralization allows principals to control a much greater amount of money than they can in traditional districts and spend the money in way which they believe will benefit their students. I’m all for a system like this, although I oppose vouchers.
It doesn’t answer my objections to vouchers, because my objections don’t apply in this case.
Most voucher proposals make the voucher some percentage of the average cost per pupil. This is likely to be quite different from the cost per average pupil given the incredibly high costs of some special education students.
Even if the cost per average pupil is used, the district may not save as much as they lose. For example, if the cost per average pupil is $4000 per year, losing one pupil doesn’t save the district $4000. Salaries and insurance costs for teachers, janitors ,principals and support staff don’t decrease simply because here is one fewer student. Neither do heating and maintainence costs. In order to actually save the whole $4000, students have to leave in a distribution which allows entire schools to close.
3)There’s no way to keep the private schools from raising tuition once the vouchers come in, unless so much regulation is imposed that they are no longer really private schools. In the voucher system I last heard proposed for my state, I would have gotten a $4000 voucher for each of my kids. I guarantee that any of the three private schools my kids have attended would have immediately raised their tuition at least $2000 per year, and eliminated the fundraising which currently makes up the difference between the tuition and the actual costs of running the school. Vouchers will help some people, but not most, and not the ones who are currently stuck in the worst schools.
The biggest one. Every voucher program I’ve heard of allows children already in private schools to receive vouchers. This may be politically necessary, at least in certain areas (I’m sure it is in mine), and I think fairness requires it. This would mean I would be eligible even though my kids have never attended a public school. The school district would lose $8000 (under the last one) and save not a dime. Either taxes have to be raised or conditions in public school will get even worse. But no one ever mentions that.
Very well then. I was using “voucher” as sort of a catch-all for any opener, more choice-oriented program than the one we have now, not a particular policy.
As seen in SF in the article, there is no reason this need be. The amount can be tweaked based on individual needs.
The entire school needn’t close. Obviously one student won’t decrease maintenance costs, but 20 or 30 is enough to jettison 1 or 2 teachers, remove a portable building, not heat one empty room, etc.
Nor should there be. The beauty of the voucher system is that it allows each parent to decide how much education their child should have, and then actually pay that amount, above a certain minimum threshold (the voucher amount). Let’s say, for example, that your student costs 4k/yr to educate adequately. But you don’t want an “adequate” education–you want the best school in the state, with tons of advanced classes, and extracurricular activities, and language immersion, etc. There’s a private school that offers that for 6k/yr. Under the current system, you pay the whole 6k, and (if you have average income), pay ~4k/yr in taxes that don’t benefit you in the slightest. Under a voucher system, you’d only pay an extra 2k/yr to give your kid a better education.
Parents make this decision all the time with college, and should be able to do so with lower levels as well. Economics runs everything, as it should.
Excellent point, but I disagree with the conclusion. As it now stands, parents whose kids go to private schools still pay their share of taxes for the schools, but get absolutely nothing in return. You apparently have no problem with paying 8k/yr in taxes to educate other people’s kids. That’s your choice. But, I think it is far more fair to distribute such cost among all taxpayers, and not disproportionately punish those whose kids go to private schools.
How is it disproportionately punishing them? They’re paying the same taxes everyone else is paying.
Besides, this type of argument goes for any government program that one doesn’t directly benefit from. Why should someone’s taxes go to public health programs, or daycares, or small business subsidies, or what have you, if that person doesn’t use those programs? What about the childless? Why should they have to pay to educate other people’s children?
No,* no control at all *over their tax money. Sure, they get a choice over where their voucher cash goes, but that’s just their portion. And, they are not nessesarily supporting “better institutions”. Private schools can teach nothing bot the Bible if they like.
So what? Does forcing better students into the public school system somehow make the crappy students smarter or better or whatever? What does this do except mask the problem?
And private schools can have whatever admission policies they’d like. So long as voucher programs do not make only those schools with certain admission policies eligible, it still ain’t a violation of the establishment clause.
Finally, I’d be A-okay with holding private and parochial schools accountable to the same god-awful standards public schools are held to. Any school that can’t meet the standard shouldn’t be eligible? Okay. I suspect it won’t be much of a problem.
It’s disproportionate because in order to obtain a slightly better education from a private school, the parents must pay not merely the added cost, but the entire cost of that education. As a libertarian, I would agree that there’s a lot of stuff that the government supports with my tax dollars that don’t benefit me, and that I wish it would not do. That’s neither here nor there. As long as the government is redistributing money so that all children can be educated, it should try to take money based on income.
A concrete example: Two families, each making 60k/yr, each with 1 child. Family A pays 5k/yr in taxes to support public schooling, while receiving only 4k/yr in benefits, as that is what it costs to give a standard, public school education to their child. Thus family A comes out a slight “loser,” which is what you would expect of a family making a slightly above average income.
Now family B. These parents aren’t satisfied with their child receiving a standard education. They want their child to attend a private school that costs 6k/yr, but gives a 50% better education and is thus, at least to these parents, worth the money. Under the current system, these parents will still pay 5k/yr in taxes, + 6k to the private school, or a whopping 11k/yr, for an education that’s only worth 2k more than the public school education.
Under a voucher system, family B would get a 4k voucher, and thus be out only an additional 2k, not 6k. Where would the extra 4k in lost tax income be made up? Presumably by incrementally raising taxes for everyone, rather than socking it to a handful of families.
I would hope that in addition to paying the entire cost of their kids education, those who opt out of public schools would also be liable for their fair share of public school taxes. Anything less would disproportionately burden those without kids.
I caught fragments of a radio story today where Andrew Macintosh, Deputy Director of the Australia Institute was interviewed about a detailed report they have just produced looking at the pros and cons of the voucher system.
The recommendation was against the voucher system, despite it appearing like a good idea at face value.
I’ll repeat what I said before: the public school system does not exist to turn a profit. Therefore, economic principles such as “competition is what drives progress” are meaningless. Let’s take it one step further: If vouchers are enacted, and everyone flocks to the few good schools, abandoning the mediocre ones, what “progress” has been made for the children at the latter schools? And worse, with their sources of funding destroyed, exactly how are the administrators at the latter school supposed to show any improvement? The end result will be a few really good schools, and a bunch of underfunded, declinging ones. How is that “progress” for the majority?
By placing limits on how those things can be used. It is impossible to use food stamps to buy alcohol, cigarettes, and lottery tickets. Medicare reimburses medical practitioners directly, not the patients. No system is perfect, but if people choose to waste their allotment on things that aren’t necessities, they will suffer the consequences. It’s a self-regulating mechanism. Children are the ones who suffer when people monkey with schools, and they have no way to correct the problems themselves.
The government does certify teachers! I’m in the middle of two years’ worth of education just to gain the certification. That’s what No Child Left Behind is all about–adding another layer of credentials to what was already a well-regulated profession. Teachers have to pass a series of three tests before they can be a certified, and even they they aren’t guaranteed a job. And after they are certified they must continue their education–they are required by law to do so, to maintain their certification.
And your reasoning is flawed when it comes to religious schools. Such schools raise First Amendment issues if the government attempts to regulate them. In fact, the public has far less control over what goes on in these schools than in public schools. The only control parents might have is pulling their kid out. They don’t necessarily have the ability to vote in a school board.
I have come to believe the real problems at schools are the result of social ills the schools and their administrators have no control over. Vouchers do nothing to solve problems like poverty, unemployment, gangs, etc. And by undermining one of the few unifying forces in some communities–the local school–they might make all these problems worse.
Depends on the distribution of the 20 or 30. If they are all in the same class, in the same school, you might be able to eliminate a teacher. You might be able to not heat a room, assuming the heating system is set up in such a way that not heating a single room actually saves a significant amount of money. However, if those 20-30 children are spread across five or six grades, you’ll only save the cost of consumable items- soap, paper etc.
Except that, in my experience, the school that charged $6k a year before vouchers will raise their price after the vouchers. Why wouldn’t they? If I was paying $6K before the vouchers, I’ll surely pay $8K if I get a $4k voucher. (I actually heard one private school principal discuss this- if vouchers were passed, she would be able to raise the tuition, get rid of fundraising, provide more services and the parents would still save a thousand or two a year.) Helps me- I get a a $2000 break. Doesn’t help the most of the kids who are currently in public school at all. Sure parents (or students) make this decision all of the time with colleges. Except there’s a couple of differences with college- the government is not obliged to have a system of free public colleges to provide everyone with a free college education, and even where public colleges exist, their budgets don’t get cut because a student who lives in Queens gets state financial and uses it to attend Columbia.
Except I don’t pay $8K in taxes to send other people’s kids to school . The amount of my taxes which goes to education is far less than $8K .I pay about $13K in state and local income taxes and property taxes to provide all government services, those I use and those I don’t use. Police, fire , sanitation, public hospitals, parks, libraries, courts, prisons and a free public education for any child whose parents want it .I don’t get a refund because I prefer having health insurance to using the public hospital, I don’t get a voucher if I prefer buying books to using the library. My mother and the thousands of other people who don’t have children in schoool don’t get their taxes reduced because they don’t use the schools. If I were to get a $4000 per child voucher, I wouldn’t just be getting my share of taxes for the schools back- I’d be getting more than I paid in.
I might not have any problem with a truthful voucher program- one which acknowledged that in order to keep public schools operating for those who couldn’t afford the appropriate education even with a voucher and give vouchers to all private school students taxes for everyone would have to go up. Haven’t seen it yet. It also probably wouldn’t get much support.
Economics does not apply only in industries that attempt to make a profit.
The progress is the same as in any open marketplace: new schools open, poor ones close, teachers are hired based on merit, there is competition for student dollars, etc.
Did you read the article I linked to about how this works in the real world? Crappy schools get closed–the teachers and students get to move elsewhere. Stop thinking of schools in terms of a brick and mortar building. Land is relatively fungible, especially if the government is involved since it has eminent domain capacity. A free market system is not going to result in a bunch of half empty schoolhouses filled with the dregs of the teachers and students while the privileged few get a decent education.
Illegal, far from impossible.
You almost sound like a libertarian! It’s true that children are generally voiceless in almost any political system. So the issue is, who is in the best position to serve as their surrogate–their own parents, or the government? I know my choice.
I hope I didn’t imply that I thought otherwise. My point was simply that anyone who thinks that the government can decently run a school should not have difficulty wrapping his mind around the idea that a government can at least oversee a private school to make sure there’s nothing particularly untoward going on. I am skeptical on both counts, but certainly the latter is less difficult than the former.
I’m not going to further address any issues of the tax fairness of vouchers. I don’t consider taxes particularly fair to begin with, so I’m probably worlds apart from many people here. My position is simply that if it costs a certain amount to educate a typical child–say, $4,000/yr–then each family should have that amount (+/- certain adjustments for things like disability status, as discussed in the link) to spend on each child in the form of a voucher. Any amount above that that the parents wish to spend on educating their child can come from their own pockets. As it now stands, parents who desire a marginal increase in education for their children must pay the entire increased cost, not merely the marginal cost.
So schools are an industry? I think not. They are a government service, which are intended to be democratic and universal. The last time making schools deliberately less universal and democratic was practiced it was called segregation. How would vouchers give a different result?
Give me one good reason parents couldn’t simply pressure the school board to achieve these things under the current system. To say they could not is to indict our entire system of representative government. No elected officials are closer to the community they serve than school board members. Many of them have or had children in the system themselves. They work more hours for less money than any elected officials I’ve ever known. Not only that, but the Superintendents who run districts as the board’s proxies routinely have Ph.Ds. They are the most well-educated civil servants there are. There is nothing people this motivated and intelligent could do if there was a strong consensus and the right conditions to do it. It’s not their fault those conditions don’t exist.
The truth is, as other posters have said, many of the people agitating for vouchers want to have more autonomy and have their school district pay for it. They are not content to be part of the greater social contract, nor are they willing to take action to benefit the system as a whole.
I also read the other poster who noted (and you admitted they were somewhat correct) the article was not really about vouchers as they are commonly understood.
Land is fungible? Where, on the Moon? I’m a former education reporter who spent years covering these subjects, and from I sit you are talking very cavalierly about a subject of mind-boggling political, social, and economic complexity. It’s often said land is the one thing god’s not making more of, and that applies to schools the same as anyone else. The government does not apply eminent domain by snapping its fingers and giving itself the title to a tract. Often years of litigation results, and then the board would have to explain to voters why they had to spend a million dollars in legal fees before a single building was built.
Are you asserting this as a fact that can be proven empirically, or should we take what might happen to our children on faith?
The government takes children out of the hands of their parents or mandates care beyond what a parent might do routinely. It’s what Child Protective Services does. It’s what the juvenile court does. It’s what laws requiring child safety seats do. Your choice, in this instance, is comparing apples to oranges. Parents look out for only their own kid; the government, in a sense, must look out not just for the interests of all children, but for society as a whole. Your argument above clearly shows parents using vouchers don’t serve any interests but their own. Why then should anyone who believes in the social contract support vouchers?
I support vouchers and not because I wanted my child around rich, white, religious kids. I eneded up helping start a Montessori Adolescent School that was integrated racially, in terms of income, religion, and ability (there was a brain damaged child as well as kids who scored 1500 on their SATs). We did not get any public subsidy and we got by on $2,000 less per-student then the public schools.
People get to choose what store they shop at, what park they play in, etc., but they get no little or no choice on what public school to send their kids to. Is it fair that kids living one block apart may go to schools that differ in funding by 50% or more?
On top of that, public schools are pretty much a joke. The bureaocracy drives out the good teachers and the low pay attracts the bottom tier of college grads. Thank god for the handful of dedicated teachers that stick it out.