Why are Democrats opposed to school vouchers?

[brickbacon]

@ITR_champion

Let’s review what the evidence has found. Quoting from the paper by Dr. Forster:

Here are some critiques of the study you cited in addition to the critiques already mentioned in this thread. Suffice it to say that it is no surprise the guy you citing cherry picked data to support his preconceived notions.

@ITR_champion

D.C.'s opportunity scholarship program costs $8,000 a year for K-8 students and $12,000 a year for 9-12 students. The D.C. public schools spend $27,000 per year per student. (The government also appears to lie about how much they spend.)

No, they don’t really. You are misinterpreting the data. One figure is attempting to quantify direct expenditures on education per student while the other is calculating the money spent by DCPS divided by the number of students. The latter is also highly suspect given it’s origin and lack of corroboration. Either way, not all money spent by DCPS is spent educating students, nor are the costs all under DCPS’s control (eg. paying private school fees for students).

@ITR_champion

And likewise you can look up the figures for voucher costs vs. public school costs for any other voucher program; the story is the same. If you want to claim that vouchers lead to reduced per-student spending in public schools, perhaps you could offer a citation.

You are generally right that vouchers are usually granted for less than the per pupil cost, but your conclusion in misleading. While a crude measurement like per pupil spending may go up, the value each dollar is less. Why?

First, because fixed costs (and most other costs) are not based solely on the number of students enrolled, nor can they be easily changed. So even if I can pawn off a few students to a private school at less that my per pupil spending rate, I can’t reduce my costs by an equivalent amount. I can’t pay my teachers x% less because I lost students. It doesn’t cost any less to heat the school because fewer students are there, and I cannot trade in my building for a smaller one. Losing students might require more money in aggregate because I essentially have the same fixed costs, and now I have to pay the voucher.

Second, even though per pupil costs might go up, it doesn’t tell you how effective the remaining money can be. For example, let’s say my school has 10 kids and I pay $10k/pupil. Let’s also stipulate my voucher is for $7,500. If I lose one kid, the per pupil spending goes up by 2.7% or $277. That sounds great, but that remaining money has to educate students who are usually far more costly to educate. Let’s pretend for a second I can reduce my fixed costs to so that I really have that $10,277 to educate each remaining kid. The problem is that the per pupil spending tells you nothing about how that spending is distributed. While the average kid may cost $10k to educate, some may cost $5k in (more) direct costs, while others cost $25k. A private school taking in kids with voucher of $7.5k will rarely take in a kid that costs more than that to educate them. They certainly won’t take in kids that cost $25k to educate. Thus, you are leaving the expensive kids behind, while the cheap kids leave. That means that even though the average spending per pupil may increase, the average cost to educate each pupil might increase by more.

The combined effects of the two issues I raised, in addition to the increased costs of attending private school borne by the school or the individual voucher recipients are why vouchers are usually not a win-win.

[brickbacon]

@Algher

I support vouchers for schools, and I would be interested in seeing how a voucher program could work for medical care as well.

I also support the existing education voucher programs for higher education in the Pell Grant system and the federally subsidized student loan programs. Funny how Liberals don’t seem to be fighting to shut down those evil programs, in favor of only allowing money to be used in a local public university of college.

But people are funny, huh.

You don’t see the difference between a compulsory system for minors with little ability to travel freely, and a elective system for adults? The differences are borne out of practicality, not ideology.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@brickbacon

Here are some critiques of the study you cited in addition to the critiques already mentioned in this thread. Suffice it to say that it is no surprise the guy you citing cherry picked data to support his preconceived notions.

Thanks for the link. I’ve gotten to page 7, and I suggest folks read pages 6 and 7 for some examples of how fundamentally dishonest that original “study” was.

[ITR_champion]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

None of this, as near as I can tell, addresses your claim that “Voucher programs therefore usually lead to an increase in public school spending per student.” Can you give an example–say, North Carolina–and show how much each voucher increases the per-student spending on public education?

North Carolina currently spends about $9,000 per student. Let S be the total # of students, then the total spent is S * 9,000. If one student takes a voucher of $4,200 and leaves, the amount of money going to public schools is (S * 9,000) - 4,200 while the # of students is now S - 1, so the public schools have more money per student, by basic mathematics.

That said, you’re the one who opened this branch of the debate by claiming that vouchers will hurt public schools by denying them money. You’ve not yet provided an iota of evidence to support this claim, presumably because there isn’t any evidence to back up what you said.

[ITR_champion]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Jesus Christ, this is the EXACT SAME STUDY that randroid refuted in post 86. Do you forget that we can go back and look at that post?

I’ve looked back at post #86 and not seen how it “refutes” Dr. Forster’s study; it doesn’t even mention Dr. Forster’s study. I’ve asked you to explain how it “refutes” Dr. Forster’s study, and I’m not surprised to see that you’re not able to do so.

In any case, let me remind you that you made a definite claim that vouchers hurt public school systems. That was several days ago, and I’ve asked you for evidence to back up your claim several times. You have yet to provide an iota of evidence to back up your claim. That doesn’t surprise me either.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley

I love watching conservatives try to support school vouchers, apparently blissfully unaware of the fact that the vouchers violate virtually all of their most dearly held principles.

Nah, school vouchers are right in line with what is, for many if not most conservatives, their most dearly held principle: I’m gonna get mine no matter what it takes.

To be fair, greed really has no idealogy other than itself and greedy people are often able to overlook any potential moral or ethical failings if it leads to the accumulation of more wealth. Hell, I know people who think that as long as someone has acquired wealth, any illegallity committed or moral/ethical lapse that didn’t result in jail time is A-OK. Seriously.

ETA: This thread has been intermittently interesting, but I haven’t seen anything that changes my opinion that school vouchers are really just a way to funnel more tax money to the private sector (and it seems that many hope for that to include religious institutions, particularly Christian religious institutions).

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ITR_champion

North Carolina currently spends about $9,000 per student. Let S be the total # of students, then the total spent is S * 9,000. If one student takes a voucher of $4,200 and leaves, the amount of money going to public schools is (S * 9,000) - 4,200 while the # of students is now S - 1, so the public schools have more money per student, by basic mathematics.

Are you under the impression that NC spends $9,000 per student, every student, and that if a single student gets $8,500, that student has been robbed of $500 worth of education? Or do you actually understand that a per capita amount is an average? Do you further understand that private schools generally offer fewer services, precluding their attendance by children at greatest need?

Because, y’know, I’ve explained that to you several times, but it’s been a few days since the last time, so maybe you’ve forgotten again.

That said, you’re the one who opened this branch of the debate by claiming that vouchers will hurt public schools by denying them money.

Yes, I’m the first person in history to suggest that removing money from a service will impede the quality of service. Excellent point! It’s definitely not a point you attempted a feeble refutation of in the OP.

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Nah, school vouchers are right in line with what is, for many if not most conservatives, their most dearly held principle: I’m gonna get mine no matter what it takes.

You’re right, of course; my post was poorly worded. Vouchers don’t violate their most sacredly held principles, they violate the talking points that they *claim *are their most sacredly held principles. The funny thing about vouchers is they demonstrate how little thought the republicans actually put into their “principles,” and how they will blindly support anything that helps them, while rabidly opposing anything that helps somebody else.

[Cheesesteak]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Are you under the impression that NC spends $9,000 per student, every student, and that if a single student gets $8,500, that student has been robbed of $500 worth of education? Or do you actually understand that a per capita amount is an average? Do you further understand that private schools generally offer fewer services, precluding their attendance by children at greatest need?

Besides the fact that the kids leaving would not be the expensive kids to educate, there is also the matter of fixed costs. 10% of the student body leaves a school, the school can’t fire 10% of the maintenance staff, 10% of the administrative staff, 10% of the Gym teachers, 10% of the Art teachers, 10% of the Music teachers. They can’t cut 10% less of the lawn, and repair 10% less of the sidewalks. The bus routes don’t become 10% shorter. Well, not without reducing services and coverage significantly, at any rate.

At best, you can take out a couple of regular classroom teachers, although, if you have something like 5 3rd grade classes pre-voucher, you can’t go down to 4 when 10 kids leave without increasing the number of students in each class, which may not be a viable option.

[ITR_champion]

@brickbacon

Here are some critiques of the study you cited in addition to the critiques already mentioned in this thread.

Okay. We’ve focused on two main questions in this thread. First, do poor students who use vouchers to move to private schools do better than demographically similar students who remain in public schools? Second, when voucher programs are implemented, what happens to the nearby public schools?

I note first of all that the review by Lubienski that you linked to is in response to an earlier version of A Win-Win Solution, which was published four years ago. The most recent version, just published, contains a great deal of studies and data that weren’t in the older version.

Second, Lubienski’s review focuses mainly on the question of the effect of vouchers on nearby public schools, with no substantial focus on the question of whether students who use vouchers do better. Hence there’s no reason to question the conclusion that vouchers do give poor students an option which, on average, leads to a better education. Denying those students vouchers thereby denies them the best possible education.

Third, Forster’s review contains summaries of dozens of studies, including 17 focused on the effects of vouchers on nearby public schools. (19 in the latest version.) Lubienski offers a substantial critique of Forster’s reporting of only one such study. Other than that, Lubienski’s review is the same old accusations that the research is be biased. No substantial reason to doubt the conclusions of the great majority of studies is offered.

Fourth, concerning the Carnoy study in Milwaukee, according to Lubienski it was a two-part study, one part finding a positive effect on public schools, one part finding no effect on public schools. Now the main Democratic talking point, as presented by Left Hand of Dorkness among others, is that voucher programs hurt public schools. Carnoy’s study shows that in Milwaukee they did not hurt public schools. The main Democratic talking point is wrong in that case, and no one has found a single case in the entire country where it’s right.

[Czarcasm]

@ITR_champion

Okay. We’ve focused on two main questions in this thread. First, do poor students who use vouchers to move to private schools do better than demographically similar students who remain in public schools?

First, do poor students who use vouchers and are acceptable to private schools in the area do better than demographically similar students who remain in public schools by choice and/or necessity?

[ITR_champion]

@Ravenman

Hey, do you want to know two reasons why DC per-student funding is so high?

1. DC has something like 4 times the rate of special needs students, often because of things like emotional disturbances.

2. DC often pays the full cost of having special needs students attend private schools. Apparently at a cost of $64,000 per student (1,700 students, total cost $109 million).

Private school: what a bargain!

The question of special needs students is a whole 'nother debate. Laws allow any student who gets classified as “special needs” to receive virtually endless amounts of money. In some cases, there are private schools established specially for milking that stream of money. Who’s responsible for creating this situation? It ain’t Milton Friedman, I can tell you that much. The way that the government deals with this group of children needs to be reformed, but I’m not holding my breath while waiting for the Democrats to do anything about it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ITR_champion

Third, Forster’s review contains summaries of dozens of studies, including 17 focused on the effects of vouchers on nearby public schools. (19 in the latest version.) Lubienski offers a substantial critique of Forster’s reporting of only one such study. Other than that, Lubienski’s review is the same old accusations that the research is be biased. No substantial reason to doubt the conclusions of the great majority of studies is offered.

This is more nonsense. If virtually all the studies it’s citing are done in-house, by an advocacy organization, and are not peer-reviewed, it’s absolutely acceptable for a lay-person to cast a skeptical eye on them. The entire point of having experts in a field is that they can offer an expert opinion, and those of us who are not experts don’t need to perform every study and every statistical analysis ourselves. This process works best in a peer-reviewed setting, and I’m going to trust an expert more who works within that setting, compared to an expert whose work is funded by an organization founded to achieve one particular outcome.

In other words, the accusations that the research is biased are strongly substantive accusations, just as substantive as accusations that the cancer research done by the tobacco industry was biased. The accusation isn’t enough to prove that the study’s conclusions are incorrect, but the accusation is enough to suggest that the study shouldn’t be taken all that seriously.

Unless, of course, you’re an ideologue whose preconceptions are supported by the study. In that case, by all means take it seriously, because it gives you an easy alternative to peer-reviewed work that might not support your pet cause.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ITR_champion

The question of special needs students is a whole 'nother debate. Laws allow any student who gets classified as “special needs” to receive virtually endless amounts of money.

Yet more nonsense. Watch my jaw drop in astonishment that you’d say something so misleading.

[ITR_champion]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This is more nonsense. If virtually all the studies it’s citing are done in-house, by an advocacy organization, and are not peer-reviewed, it’s absolutely acceptable for a lay-person to cast a skeptical eye on them. The entire point of having experts in a field is that they can offer an expert opinion, and those of us who are not experts don’t need to perform every study and every statistical analysis ourselves. This process works best in a peer-reviewed setting, and I’m going to trust an expert more who works within that setting, compared to an expert whose work is funded by an organization founded to achieve one particular outcome.

I note without surprise that you still haven’t provided any evidence from any source, peer-reviewed or otherwise, to support your assertion that voucher programs are detrimental to public schools. If you trust the experts and their peer-reviewed work so much, then why are you unable to cite anything they’ve written in support of your beliefs?

[Algher]

@brickbacon

You don’t see the difference between a compulsory system for minors with little ability to travel freely, and a elective system for adults? The differences are borne out of practicality, not ideology.

I disagree. Two of the chief complaints in this thread:

1. Money will go to religious based schools.
2. Not everyone will be accepted.

Those are both the same for K-12 or Higher Education.

Next, 2/3 of college students live at home or with relatives (per Sallie Mae, using 2012-2013 data). Mobility is not an issue.

[Algher]

@doreen

Funny how I never see those programs being funded by cutting the budget of the public colleges.

Colleges get money for each student enrolled. The cost is split between the student and the taxpayers. Additional Federal money is available as a voucher or with Federally subsidized student loan programs.

I have watched state support for public universities drop as more Federal money became available.

[doreen]

@Algher

Colleges get money for each student enrolled. The cost is split between the student and the taxpayers. Additional Federal money is available as a voucher or with Federally subsidized student loan programs.

I have watched state support for public universities drop as more Federal money became available.

Assuming that you really don’t understand what I mean- public colleges are funded by both tuition paid by students and direct goverment funding. If State A Public University gets $10M in government funding in 2013-2014, that funding is not reduced because some student in State A instead took his Pell grant, work-study grant , student loan and state aid to a private university. That financial aid is used for the student’s expenses- tuition, books, room and board. Items that would have been the student’s responsibility even at the public university. If the enrollment goes down, that will of course affect the budget, but it will have the same effect whether enrollment is down because people are going to private colleges, not attending any post-secondary education or if its just a function of a smaller college-aged cohort and it will not be on a per-student basis. That’s not what vouchers do. If you want to provide vouchers to students without cutting the budget of the school district based on nothing other than X number of students from your district ( including those who have never attended a public school) received vouchers, that’s fine with me. Haven’t seen that proposed yet. Oh wait a second, yes I have. But it involves private charitable organizations , not public funding.

And BTW as state support for public universities dropped, tuition rates went up ( and up and up) . Total Federal grant expenditures may have gone up as a function of that, since they are based on tuition.

[Algher]

@doreen

Assuming that you really don’t understand what I mean- public colleges are funded by both tuition paid by students and direct goverment funding. If State A Public University gets $10M in government funding in 2013-2014, that funding is not reduced because some student in State A instead took his Pell grant, work-study grant , student loan and state aid to a private university. That financial aid is used for the student’s expenses- tuition, books, room and board. Items that would have been the student’s responsibility even at the public university. If the enrollment goes down, that will of course affect the budget, but it will have the same effect whether enrollment is down because people are going to private colleges, not attending any post-secondary education or if its just a function of a smaller college-aged cohort and it will not be on a per-student basis. That’s not what vouchers do. If you want to provide vouchers to students without cutting the budget of the school district based on nothing other than X number of students from your district ( including those who have never attended a public school) received vouchers, that’s fine with me. Haven’t seen that proposed yet. Oh wait a second, yes I have. But it involves private charitable organizations , not public funding.

And BTW as state support for public universities dropped, tuition rates went up ( and up and up) . Total Federal grant expenditures may have gone up as a function of that, since they are based on tuition.

You are correct - as, for example, the State of CA dropped support for the UCs, the UCs had to raise their “fees” to make up the difference.

As the feds raised the amount you could borrow or receive in grants, overall tuition across the country went up at the same time. Whether that was in response or not is a question for the conspiracy theorists and economists.

However, the various levels of scholarship, grants and loans available go with the student, and helps cover the per student costs. Just like a voucher would. When that student does NOT enroll at the public university, the money from the State drops based on enrollment. Just like in school.

The bit of math that needs to be determined is what is the variable cost of the incremental student. That should be the minimum value of a voucher. In many cases, voucher programs are much less than the average cost per student (which is appropriate IMHO). There are, after all, fixed costs to keep the public schools open as well.

Education is not a one-size-fits-all system. Vouchers will allow us to provide more options to those that matter - the students. I support vouchers, charter schools, private schools, public schools, home schooling, alternative schools and magnet schools. The more options there are, the more opportunities there will be for a student to find the place that works for them.

Give people options, the same way we give them options for college.

[doreen]

@Algher

You are correct - as, for example, the State of CA dropped support for the UCs, the UCs had to raise their “fees” to make up the difference.

As the feds raised the amount you could borrow or receive in grants, overall tuition across the country went up at the same time. Whether that was in response or not is a question for the conspiracy theorists and economists.

However, the various levels of scholarship, grants and loans available go with the student, and helps cover the per student costs. Just like a voucher would. When that student does NOT enroll at the public university, the money from the State drops based on enrollment. Just like in school.

But the grants and loans don’t come from the colleges budget directly, so that if I take 5000 worth of grants to a private college the public college loses $5000. And the funding is not on a per-student basis.The public college won’t lose a dime’s worth of funding for having one student less and will lose quite a bit if their enrollment drops by 1000- even if the drop is due to the birthrate as it has nothing to do with grants and loans. Only the number of students to be educated. I don’t think anyone has a problem with a school getting less funding because it has 400 students instead of 500 if those hundred are lost in a way that provides savings. The problem is deciding that it should get less funding for having 499 or 498 because one or two want vouchers - that doesn’t happen with public colleges.

The bit of math that needs to be determined is what is the variable cost of the incremental student. That should be the minimum value of a voucher. In many cases, voucher programs are much less than the average cost per student (which is appropriate IMHO). There are, after all, fixed costs to keep the public schools open as well.

And suppose that incremental cost is $10? Really, when my kids attended a private school, one kid leaving would have saved about $10 worth of soap and toilet paper. If 20 kids left it would have depended which 20 kids- if the entire sixth grade left, the salary and benefits of the teacher could be saved, but if it was 2 second graders and 3 first graders etc almost nothing would have been saved. Certainly not the per pupil tuition for each child leaving. (which BTW was much less than the cost of education)