Then we will only pay the schools $10 for each incremental, and only take $10 for the voucher.
Our district gets money based on the number of students enrolled and present each day (no payment for unexcused absences for example). Whatever formula is used for one could be used for the other.
That should make the math clean.
Let’s cut the bullshit. I am not gonna devote any more time to reading potentially biased studies on either side given I have no access to the data, and no inclination to crunch the numbers. Suffice it to say that data in the hands of a guy who works at Friedman Foundation for educational choice, or someone like Diane Ravitch will be interpreted in a way to support their preconceived conclusion despite what I’d imagine are earnest attempts to look at the data. Let’s just talk about what we see in reality.
First, even most conservatives have given up on vouchers. And it’s not because of democratic resistance, but rather because they don’t think they work. There are 23 states where the GOP has full control of the governorship and the legislature. Only a handful have even attempted vouchers, and none have done it across the board. Why do you think this is? If the pure rationale behind vouchers is in fact correct, then school choice and competition would improve even good schools and the schools of the rich. Why not give everyone choice? Why have all these seemingly friendly state governments not embraced this idea that you argue has indisputable proof of efficacy? Could it be because they results are far less clear cut than you make it seem.
Second, no one has ever disputed the basic idea that moving some kids from bad schools to good schools via money in the form of vouchers, or by other means, will improve some of their outcomes. It is perfectly obvious on it’s face. It’s part of why rich people send their kids to well regarded private schools, and why people move to the suburbs. What is less obvious is if vouchers are a necessary component of those improvements, and whether they are an effective means of reaching that goal.
Let’s look at the second part first. If you gave all poor kids (for example) vouchers, would they all be able to get a better education? The answer is no. Not only because a substantial percentage of all kids and parents regardless of income don’t value education, but also because private schools will never be able to accommodate all kids at the same costs. That’s because of some of the reasons I mentioned in my last post wrt costs, but also because there aren’t enough spots, nor are the financial incentives there to lead to the creation of enough spots. If a voucher is $x, and it costs several times $x/kid to educate a certain population, then why would a private school ever want those kids? Why would a private school want a lazy kid who drags down their scores, or one who is a disciplinary problem? This is why you cannot buy your way into the most exclusive schools. To them, pretty much no amount of money is worth taking certain kids. A private education system, will always leave kids behind who will be left in ever worsening public schools.
Additionally, the negative consequences of a injecting lots of public money into private schools is tuition inflation- just like we see at colleges. These are costs that government has far less direct control on them. What do you think will happen when some private school getting great results screams poverty and threatens closure a few weeks before school starts unless they get more money per student?
Now if these private schools are required to take all comers, than their populations will closely mirror the local public school. If that is the case, then just copy or buy the private school, or just send all the kids there. If you truly think that a particular public school is broken, and that these private schools can do a better job for less money, then just offer to hire all the administrators and teachers they have at higher salaries to teach in the public school. Just like most companies do.
There is also the issue of effectiveness. Why is giving a kid a voucher for school better than just giving them money to spend as they please, or subsidizing their rent in a place with better schools? I live in the DC area. The yearly rent differential between SE DC and Montgomery county or Fairfax is usually less than DC’s voucher. Much less if you have multiple kids. Why not just tell them to move? It’s has the intended benefit of a new school, and the positive side effects of a new environment and better services. The federally funded DC voucher program, for example, was limited to students under 185% of the poverty line, and the average recipient comes from a household with three children and an income of $17,356. The voucher paid up to $7500. Don’t you think just giving them $22,500 to move, stay home and tutor their kids, or hire a private tutor to supplement their schooling would be much easier, and likely just as effective?
Also, what do you do about poor people who want to take the voucher, and home school their kids? Should they have that option?
Third, competition via vouchers is not going to make failing public schools improve. Let’s just look at the logic here. You take away the best (or at least among the most motivated) students, and expect things to get much better? Let’s focus on one teacher. At first, she has 25 kids in her class, but after vouchers come in, she has 22. Does that really give her more time in the day? Does it make teaching easier? If you argue that fewer students make her job easier, or allow her to do a better job by some strange mechanism, then logic states that even fewer kids would be better, which would only arise (paradoxically) from more students choosing to leave, which implies continued poor results. So while you might reach some equilibrium, it’s not gonna be at any desirable point in terms of quality. That’s not usually how markets work. The restaurant market doesn’t only contain good food options, and the most popular food options are generally shit from a nutritional point of view. Why would an education market yield better educational outcomes when most markers don’t do that?
If you think that it’s not competition, but rather accountability and consequences, then you don’t need vouchers. There is also the issue that one great teacher will suffer because her peers might suck given that a student who chooses to left leaves both the good and bad employees of a given school.
But I would be all for vouchers given this basic and simple rule. Private schools tell the local school board how many spots they have for voucher kids, and the public schools will pick who they send to fill those spots. Also, those kids can’t be expelled from their private schools. Do you think ANY private school would agree to that?
I didn’t ask abotu the argument in the thread. I asked how you do not see the difference between the two systems.
No, the full argument is money will go to religious based schools* to indoctrinate kids who are compelled to utilize their services*. Money goes to all sorts of religious institutions in the form of tax exemptions, grants, etc. The issue is problematic because kids, who have no choice whether to go to school, and have little means to travel and live independently, are involved.
Again, we don’t REQUIRE people to go to college unlike primary school. Being rejected from Harvard doesn’t put you in violation of the law like not being accepted to a private school might.
Those are both the same for K-12 or Higher Education.
2/3 live there BY CHOICE. Again, it’s not like a kid can rent an apartment several states away if they chose to.
I’ve already addressed this point multiple times. If you need me to, I’ll point you to the post in which I explained most clearly why I’ve not provided the evidence you’ve demanded.
I think brickbacon just ended the voucher debate for good. The debate is over. Vouchers, as they exist right now, are bad for schools and bad for kids. We shouldn’t have them. That’s why Democrats are opposed to them, the end.
There is no cite in this thread that vouchers are bad for schools.
We should look for ways to make them work.
LHOD has raised some good issues, and I have commented when and where I agreed.
The debate is far from over. The only reason it is not pushed more is that the people who are really screwed by poorly run school systems have minimal political power. The rich just walk away from the public schools and put their kids into private schools. The middle class moves to the suburbs to get to better schools, and holds bake sales and raffles to make their schools better.
The poor get screwed, except in those few cities where they have been able to put in Charter schools (against the wishes of the Democratic party supporting unions) or where they have been able to get vouchers passed.
It makes little practical difference to me. After struggling with the local public school system, I put one kid in private school and manipulated the system to take care of the other (I couldn’t get a teacher fired, so I ensured that my kid wouldn’t be exposed to that teacher again - and I passed on that teacher’s name to other parents to help them as well).
I see the difference, do you see the similarities? Your refusal to see the parallels diminishes your argument.
No compulsion. The kids can stay at the local public school if their parents prefer, or they can go to the local private school, or they can move, etc. There is ZERO compulsion to attend a religious school - just like with a Pell grant. You choose where to attend once you are accepted.
So go to public school if you don’t like it, or homeschool, or choose a secular private school. There is nothing about vouchers that is closing down public schools.
Kids don’t choose their school, the parents do. Parents move to find better schools when they have the financial ability. A voucher puts more schools within reach of those parents.
See, I disagree. We all agree that there are some truly terrible schools out there. The honest disagreement (and yes, it’s an honest one: I neither subscribe to the conspiracy theories about Republicans cult, or the “Democrats just want poor kids to suffer” cult of the OP) is whether vouchers are the best solution, or whether they’ll cause more harm than they cure. There are, I think, plenty of desperately poor folk who do not believe vouchers are the way to go.