What are the arguments for and against school vouchers

Great Debates
61

Those who say vouchers provide parents with greater choice usually live in populous areas. Out in the country, creation of a voucher-supported private school could easily destroy the single, solitary public school in the community. There’s a minimum number of students required to keep the doors open, and if the public school falls below that number, it’s dead.

If that happened in a town like this one, my choices would be to send my kids to a private school (possibly one supported by a religion I disagree with), or drive them off to another town’s school at my own expense. Scylla and Charybdis, here I come.

[QUOTE=Lizard]

Give me one good reason parents couldn’t simply pressure the school board to achieve these things under the current system.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll give you two: the state and Federal school laws, and the teacher’s union.

My wife is chairman of our local school board. It seems like every logical move is blocked by some law or another. Budgets are tied up in a web of restrictions. It doesn’t matter what the parents say…bizarre laws written by people who live hundreds or thousands of miles away take precedence.

And the union is far more powerful than the parents. I’ve been a member of the teacher’s union, and I’ve watched my wife deal with it. That union seems to exist to serve only itself; not the schools, the students, nor (if my own experiences are representative) even the teachers themselves.

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Spare me. Some members of the Republican party do what you say. I know plenty of Republicans who believe in separation of Church & State, and plenty that aren’t fundamentalist Christians. I grow weary of your overgeneralizations, especially in non-partisan debates.

62

[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
This is essentially what happened when the government tried to control Medicare costs by letting HMOs get in the game. The HMOs’ payments were based on the average cost of a Medicare patient. But the HMOs promptly signed up people with the lowest expected costs and let traditional Medicare deal with the more expensive patients. Result: HMOs get rich, Medicare gets more expensive.

What makes anyone think that vouchers would be different?
[/QUOTE]

I agree: I think there’s a fundamental economic issue with vouchers, which I will attempt to illustrate with a (rather strained, I admit) metaphor:

Imagine that there exists a small land consisting of cottages in various states of disrepair: some are in almost pristine condition, their damage limited to perhaps a burnt out lightbulb, some are literally falling apart, and many are in conditions between the two extremes. For as long as anyone can imagine, the government has simple taxed everyone and assigned handymen to cottages as it sees fit. Handymen, of course, have varying degrees of skill: some are highly skilled, able to rebuild a house from the foundation up in a single day, and others are inept, taking an entire day to change a lightbulb. Sometimes cottage owners get lucky and are assigned one of the better handymen, but mostly they are not so fortunate.

Now, a torrent of complaints about bad handymen convinces the government that it is too much trouble to assign handymen itself, and so it decides to give each cottage owner a ‘handyman voucher’ to the amount of 4000 dollars to be spent on any handyman the cottage owner desires. Similarly, handymen are freed from having to work at government pay, and they may set their prices as they see fit.

I ought to mention at this point that handymen can only work on a limited number of houses in a time period, regardless of the houses’ conditions, and that licensing means that there are high entry costs to becoming a handyman.

What can we expect to happen? Well, since each cottage owner is unused to spending money on handymen his or herself, he or she is likely to just try to hire the best handyman possible with the $4000. Thus, the best handymen get first pick from a large number of jobs, each worth exactly $4000; to maximize the amount they get paid to the amount of work they have to do, the best handymen choose the easiest jobs. Since, in order of best to worst, the handymen all pick the easiest jobs available, the result is that the best handymen are matched to the easiest jobs, and the worst handymen are matched to the hardest jobs.

The undesirable outcome is that the handymen who are capable of rebuilding entire houses are stuck changing lightbulbs, and those barely qualify to change lightbulbs are attempting to rebuild houses.
To make sure this is super obvious, note that handymen = teachers/schools, cottage owners = parents, and cottages = children. The bright, eager to learn children are the cottages in the best shape, and so forth.

The problem, economically, is that the benefit of educating a child isn’t in any way correlated to the voucher amount: it takes fewer resources to educate a bright child to a certain level than it takes to educate an average child to the same level, yet both children would recieve vouchers in the same amount. I have sort of glossed over the fact that cottage owners might pay more than the $4000 they are alloted, but it seems that in real life the parents of the students best prepared to learn would tend to have more income to devote to education, and so the effect would be even worse (since the easiest jobs would actually pay the most).

Also, in the long run the prospect of being able to take on low-cost students might motivate the creation of new schools, but these schools would face large initial costs as they are initially forced to take on higher-cost students.

63

I just realized that I have been implicitly thinking of education as a sort of well that starts off at negative depth and is filled in until it reaches ground level, at which point the child is Educated. But you might think of education in the opposite way: starting off at ground level and building a tower up, with no upper limit on how high you can build.

If you think of it in that way, then (again assuming everyone gets and spends the same amount) the tower builders (teachers) will preferentially choose the tallest towers, so that the tallest towers get the best builders, and hence get taller, but at the expense of the lower towers which would have increased more in height with the better builders.

The question then becomes one of preference: do we want to maximize the height of the tallest towers (which the voucher system accomplishes quite well), or do we want to maximize the sum of all the towers’ heights (in which case the voucher system fails)? That is, do we want to maximize the education level of the most educated students, or would we prefer to maximize the total amount of education?

64

[QUOTE=EJsGirl]
Anything that threatens to change what teachers get or how they are dealt with gets killed- it could be changes in pay, hours, tenure, hiring/firing, whatever.
[/QUOTE]

I can only speak for my own experience in my own geographical area, but in that vein what you have stated is utter bullshit. Plural of anecdote not being data and all like that, but you are woefully mistaken.

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
So, any institution that accepts public funding must accept your daughter, eh? Try getting her into any school that accepts federal funds even if she doesn’t meet the school’s admission standards. Let me know how you make out. And let me know how that’s any different from school vouchers.
[/QUOTE]

Y’know a little reading comprehension goes a very long way. As I have previously stated, my daughter has Down Syndrome, the odds of her going to college are pretty slim. Further, at no point in time did I say that any institution that accepts public funding must accept her. What I said was that schools, you know, those buildings wherein learning is afoot?, that cherry pick their student bodies do not deserve to be supported by public funds. If they want to get in on the act and accept tax dollars, then they had damned well better be prepared to accept anyone who shows up. That certainly includes MR kids, but BD kids as well. Basically those kids who they (the schools) feel aren’t quite up to their standards. Until they are willing to do that, then they can piss right the hell off. Because I will rally troops to defeat any voucher nonsense that makes it’s way down the food chain.

As a member of a school board, I take issue with some of what you claim. Now, I’m willing to accept that there are differences between one area and another, but as a board, we are given a wide degree of latitude in regards any number of issues, budget included. Now, are there byzantine bullshit laws that hamstring us? You betcha. NCLB being the most pervasive, but there are others such as state standards.

Whereas I am a member of the local board, and my former spouse is a teacher, so I, too, have seen it from both sides. And sometimes the union is right. Sometimes they’re misguided, to my mind, but hell, the union is an organization made up of people. And something that too many folks seem to forget is that people do boneheaded things. Up to and including those who bag on the teachers union as an unstoppable force that will roll right over any and everyone who stands in their way. Or, y’know, make overgeneralizations.

-Waste

65

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Oddly according to Freakonomics, “a good school district” has no significant effect on a childs learning. Books in the home, a climate of learning and such were all far more important.
[/QUOTE]

You know, I don’t know if it’s true one way or the other but I find that to be likely. In which case vouchers won’t make much of an impact one way or the other.

Marc

66

[QUOTE=MGibson]
You know, I don’t know if it’s true one way or the other but I find that to be likely. In which case vouchers won’t make much of an impact one way or the other.
[/quote]

…which is in line with the Department of Education report released earlier this month, that students in private schools show the same test scores as students in public schools.

Not that it’ll stop the Bush Administration from pushing for vouchers anyway.

67

[QUOTE=MGibson]
You know, I don’t know if it’s true one way or the other but I find that to be likely. In which case vouchers won’t make much of an impact one way or the other.

Marc
[/QUOTE]

I believe they tend to save money. Much of that is due, no doubt, to the skimming off of the children of involved parents, but so what? Much of the arguments that such children shouldn’t be allowed to escape mediocrity amount to a desire to hold the best hostage to the worst.

The other set of arguments that leave me cold are arguments about the impact on the public school system and teachers. I don’t care about the public school system and teachers, and neither should you. The only important factor in the equation is the quality of the education delivered to the students - only.

Schools in general are not entitled to a certain level of spending, nor is it necessary that that level must increase every year. That’s just talk from the NEA, who have a lip lock on the public teat and don’t intend anything to interfere with that.

Regards,
Shodan

68

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I believe they tend to save money. Much of that is due, no doubt, to the skimming off of the children of involved parents, but so what? Much of the arguments that such children shouldn’t be allowed to escape mediocrity amount to a desire to hold the best hostage to the worst.

[/quote]

Shodan, I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Could you rephrase?

The fear some have is that the voucher system would cripple some public schools. I’m not convinced this is the case but I do think it’s a valid concern.

I’ve wondered about that as well. If you have less students then you’ll need less teachers, administrators, etc. If there’s to much space then you can just close down a few schools or combine them. Though I suppose that might not be an option for every district.

Marc

69

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I believe they tend to save money. Much of that is due, no doubt, to the skimming off of the children of involved parents, but so what? Much of the arguments that such children shouldn’t be allowed to escape mediocrity amount to a desire to hold the best hostage to the worst.
[/quote]

Might you be so kind as to point out where anyone in this thread has used the arguments that you are striving mightily to slay? Because otherwise you’re just going to look like a fool struggling with that strawman.

Fine. Then pull your children from the public schools. Frankly, it’s people just such as you that I don’t want to have kids in the system. What with your making up arguments just so you can knock them down and feel more like a man.

If you’ve got something to back this up that won’t be laughed out of the room, I would love to see it. Otherwise it signifies nothing.

-Waste

70

The way the money has been structured here, the voucher schools get a little bit higher than the average cost per kid. There are some problems I see with that.

#1 They don’t have to take everyone. This means that they can insist on parental involvement, and they don’t have to take special ed students.

#2 The average cost per kid is just that. It doesn’t mean that every kid gets 4000 dollars spent on him. Most kids its considerably less than that, but there are some who are substantialy more expensive. These are the special ed kids that the choice schools don’t have to take. Whether it is the wheel chair bound kid who has to have an attendant with him at all times or the emotionaly disturbed kid who can’t deal with more than 5 other people in a room with him. These kids cost more.

#3 Because of the Americans With Disabilites Act, public schools can not skimp on the care for special ed students (although some sure have tried to float the line), this means that although the voucher schools get 4000 for each of their ordinary kids, the pubic schools are left with maybe 3000. So sure DanBlather was able to spend less per student than the average cost of a student in his school. Public schools have to do it all the time.

#4 The biggest problem is that vouchers do not address why schools are failing. Schools aren’t failing because teachers don’t care or are mean. Schools fail because they are more segragated than ever. They fail because students live in households that think “it is raining” is an acceptable reason to miss school. They are failing because kids stay home to watch their brothers and sisters. They fail because the students have no male relatives not in jail. They fail because everyone else in that young lady’s family had their babies before 16 too. They fail because the students are hungry or homeless or abused and the ones who are not get skimmed off by vouchers leaving the hopeless behind.

71

[QUOTE=furlibusea]
T

#1 They don’t have to take everyone. This means that they can insist on parental involvement, and they don’t have to take special ed students.
.
[/QUOTE]

Parental Involement is supposedly critical, and one reason private schools are perceived as doing better is that you clearly have some parental involvement.

72

[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
Might you be so kind as to point out where anyone in this thread has used the arguments that you are striving mightily to slay? Because otherwise you’re just going to look like a fool struggling with that strawman.

[/quote]
I was talking about posts like this one from EJsGirl -

Too bad you missed it, but at least I am not the one looking like a fool.

Isn’t that one of the reasons why vouchers are a good idea? So people get to choose what kind of education is made available to their children.

Which strikes me as a Good Thing. Why doesn’t it strike you that way?

Kind of a non sequitur, doncha think? My arguments don’t really have a lot to do with how valuable my kids are to the public school system.

Unless you are saying “anyone who disagrees with me on some public policies should have his kids kicked out of public school”. Which is also kind of a goofy thing to say. I thought it was those narrow-minded, bigotted home-schoolers who were so eager to protect their children from exposure to anyone who didn’t agree with them. Here I find it happens with the anti-school choice types. Imagine that.

What sort of thing are you looking for? Some discussion of NEA contributions? Easily provided. If you are interested. If you had anything specific in mind, feel free.

Regards,
Shodan

73

[QUOTE=Shodan]

Isn’t that one of the reasons why vouchers are a good idea? So people get to choose what kind of education is made available to their children.

Which strikes me as a Good Thing. Why doesn’t it strike you that way?

[/QUOTE]

Of course dudes should get to choose what kind of education is made available for their kids (within limitations- being trained as sex-slaves isn’t a choice even a parent should be able to make for their kids).

But as long as they want ME to help pay for that education, I feel that their choices should be limited to the kinds of education that is reviewed by Public oversight and Elected officials- both of whom I have a say in. Thus, dudes who want a choice AND want me to help pay for their kids are limited to those choices within the Public school system- which include running for Board, electing a slate of Officials that agree with the parents views on education, and choices within the School District (such as Charter schools).

If they want to send their kids to a Fundy school that teaches Evolution is false- well, *I am NOT going to help pay for that. * And, vouchers FORCE me to help pay for that sort of bullshit. Thus, Vouchers give choice to some parents, but take choice away from ALL taxpayers. Ergo, they are a Bad Thing.

74

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I was talking about posts like this one
[/quote]

Which don’t demonstrate that vouchers save money. But keep striving mightily. Someday you’ll make it, I feel certain.

Have at choosing what kind of education is made available to your children. Just don’t think for a moment that I’m going to subsidize it. As DrDeth points out, subsidizing someone else’s choice to send their kids to a school that teaches YEC is a bad thing. Ditto for private schools that cherry pick their student populations. Bottom line: you want vouchers? I want to see a private school (screw Fundy schools for now) that will take my daughter and educate her. Until that happens, I will fight vouchers with every ounce of my being.

Fair enough. My bad for slagging on your arguments.

You’re right, it is kinda goofy. Fortunately for me, I said nothing of the sort.

Really now. A decade old article from the Phyllis Schlafly Report? Something remarking on The Wall Street Journal Editorial page? This is the same editorial page that declares anything left of Rick Santorum as “liberal” is it not? And something that discloses how the NEA spent it’s funds? Said action which was perfectly legal? (Not that I necessarily agree with the way that funding takes place in the political arena, but that’s a whole 'nother thread) I think you misunderstood. I asked for things that wouldn’t laughed out of the room. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I will strive for clarity in the future, rest assured.

-Waste

75

[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
Which don’t demonstrate that vouchers save money. But keep striving mightily. Someday you’ll make it, I feel certain.
[/quote]
That’s fair enough.

OK, vouchers increase efficiency and thus save money.
A 52 percent use of vouchers statewide among all students now enrolled in public schools could reduce California’s state education budget by $3 billion

Actually, you already do - education is publicly funded in the US, as I am sure you already know. The issue is that the anti-school choice side doesn’t want parents to decide. Like I asked, why is that not a Good Thing?

I must be missing something - why would a voucher system exclude your daughter?

*On preview, if this is too personal, please disregard. *

No problem.

I took your “Frankly, it’s people just such as you that I don’t want to have kids in the system” as meaning that you didn’t want your children to go to school with mine because I disagreed with your position.

:shrugs:

If you prefer to simply wave away things without addressing them, clarity of request is not the issue. If you have any actual refutation, go ahead. If not, I suppose we’re done.

Regards,
Shodan

76

Again, Shodan, you have provided nothing that supports your thesis. The first link simply alludes to a study that I’m still trying to find and which, according to the article, “. . .show the benefits: lower costs, greater parental satisfaction, and increased achievment not only of scholarship students but of students who remain in public schools.” If I find it, I will remark on it. The second talks of savings as if it’s as simple as “$X are spent on each kid, therefore, Shodan, you are allowed $X to send your child to Greenwich Country Day.” And doesn’t deal with the fact that the figure of $X is an average, not an absolute. Maybe you have no trouble accepting intellectually dishonest math. I, on the other hand, do.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Actually, you already do - education is publicly funded in the US, as I am sure you already know. The issue is that the anti-school choice side doesn’t want parents to decide. Like I asked, why is that not a Good Thing?
[/quote]

Not anti-school choice at all. If you want vouchers, then I want to make damned sure that everyplace that gets tax dollars is certified, has instructors that are certified, that doesn’t teach something that stands in stark opposition to the separation clause of the Constitution of the United States and that will take every student that shows up. Y’know, just like public schools do. Level playing field and all like that. Until that happens, though, I’m comfortable with my opposition.

Way ahead of you. Thank you for previewing.

Not at all. I simply don’t want someone kvetching about how they are being shat upon because their tax dollars can’t be redirected to a private/parochial school. If anyone really feels that their child is being mistreated because they aren’t being subsidized with tax dollars to go to a private school, then by all means, pull that child. Because I have enough crap to deal with, purposefully obtuse parents who choose to cling tightly to intellectually dishonest math are something that I don’t need.

Y’know, if you provided something that demonstrated that the NEA has, “. . .a lip lock on the public teat and don’t intend anything to interfere with that.” I wouldn’t have dismissed your links. All you provided were articles that piss and moan about the monies that the NEA has. I could provide several myself that bitch about programs with which I disagree and their funding levels. But doing so would do nothing to back up your claim. Kinda like what you provided. If you prefer to simply throw things about that do nothing to demonstrate proof of your claim, then clarity of request most assuredly is of the issue. What would you like to see refuted? That the NEA gets a buttload of money? That people who work for the Phyllis Schlafly Institute get their collective bloomers in a twist over this? That there exist organizations that are trying to track down every NEA dollar? None of these things can be refuted, as you well know.

So, again, back up your claim with something that isn’t laughable or, as you say, I suppose we’re done.

-Waste

77

[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
Y’know a little reading comprehension goes a very long way. As I have previously stated, my daughter has Down Syndrome, the odds of her going to college are pretty slim. Further, at no point in time did I say that any institution that accepts public funding must accept her. What I said was that schools, you know, those buildings wherein learning is afoot?, that cherry pick their student bodies do not deserve to be supported by public funds. If they want to get in on the act and accept tax dollars, then they had damned well better be prepared to accept anyone who shows up. That certainly includes MR kids, but BD kids as well. Basically those kids who they (the schools) feel aren’t quite up to their standards. Until they are willing to do that, then they can piss right the hell off. Because I will rally troops to defeat any voucher nonsense that makes it’s way down the food chain.
[/QUOTE]
Just back from a business trip, and I just saw this. Yes, indeed, a little reading comprehension would help the matter quite a bit. Okay, try real hard here. A college is a…(wait for it)…school! And (and this will shock you) many, many, MANY of them accept federal funds. And here’s the corker: they aren’t required to accept anyone who applies. Ain’t that a bitch? So, colleges (which are schools–you know, locales with those buildings wherein learning is afoot?) not only accept tax dollars, they (gasp!) cherry pick their students whilst sucking at the teat of the Federal government, those SOBs. And therein lies my point. Does this produce equal outrage for you? If not, why not? Why is this substantially different from school vouchers?

Does this help the cause of reading comprehension for you? I hope so.

78

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Busing does not fund the schools in particular. You’re merely transporting students from A to B.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, come on now. You’re transporting them from A to B so that they can get a private school education at B. Period. This is a meaningless distinction. They are funds that keep those schools vital. Certainly there are at least some children who could not go to a particular private school if they weren’t provided busing. A voucher program that pays for tuition or books or transportation or school uniforms, still serves the same god. It helps keep that school operating.

79

[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
Whereas I am a member of the local board, and my former spouse is a teacher, so I, too, have seen it from both sides. And sometimes the union is right. Sometimes they’re misguided, to my mind, but hell, the union is an organization made up of people. And something that too many folks seem to forget is that people do boneheaded things. Up to and including those who bag on the teachers union as an unstoppable force that will roll right over any and everyone who stands in their way. Or, y’know, make overgeneralizations.

-Waste
[/QUOTE]

I must chime in and agree with EJsGirl and InvisibleWombat with respect to the teachers union.

I have a 10th grader, a 7th grader and a 5th grader in a good school district. My kids have had some great teachers, but unfortunately, they have also had a few teachers that were incredibly, stunningly, bad. Any system where teachers as bad as these ones continue to teach because they can’t be removed (due to teachers union) is a broken system. Maybe vouchers is the wrong answer, but when you have dealt with situations like this personally, vouchers sound appealing.

80

I believe vouchers should be up to the ruling local jurisdiction, as defined by the democratic process. If most people in a district believe vouchers are or aren’t the answer, so be it. I may disagree, but it’s the product of the democratic process. I see nothing about vouchers that violate any constitutional issue, so long as they are not permitted arbitrarily (e.g., only to Christian schools). In my opinion, it’s a good use of tax dollars. Others may disagree. If a majority do not, hooray for me.

My point being, sure this is a use of tax dollars. Certainly it may involve schools with different standards and requirements. But so long as it involves no constitutional violation (say, violating the establishment clause), then it’s up to the voters. Period.