Well, unload it, then. How would you phrase the question?
Universal compulsory education was as great a human achievement (in the countries that have it) as penicillin was to medicine. The only thing that makes it possible is taxing the public for this system. Allowing the very rich to opt out and apply the $7k to $10k that goes to public schools to send their children to private schools undermines (as in leads to the destruction of) the public school system. Private schools already allows the very rich to ignore the problems of public schools and remove their civic commitment to public schools. Without support of the rich and elite, public schools will continue to lose funding.
I went to a public school system (high school and UCLA) that were comparable to the best schools of their kind. And some of the richest people in the SF Bay Area sent their kids to the same high school. We were all in the same boat, and that boat was important to everyone in the community. There were problems that needed to be addressed, but they weren’t addressed in political think tanks with a one-size fits all solution devised by people who had never taught school and had no children in the local schools. Those problems were addressed by everyone that could help. And it worked.
Commitment to good education starts with the parents, but extends to the whole community. You let people opt out for religious or other reasons, fine, but don’t let them take away the money from the schools too. Quality schools cost a huge amount of money, and public districts can get some economy of scale benefits that private schools cannot.
I think a part of the puzzle you’re missing is that elite schools are elite schools because the children of people like Clinton and Obama send their kids there, not because the facilities are especially nice, or the teachers are super-geniuses.
People want their children to go to school with the children of the nation’s elite, because that’s how your children get to be part of the nation’s elite.
The problem is there is only a small - a very tiny small - number of anything that can be elite. (See “elite”: definition.) No number of vouchers will solve that problem. I promise you, no matter how many vouchers you hand out, those voucher kids are not going to wind up going to school with the children of Senators and Congressmen.
Another part of the puzzle you might be missing is that bad schools are not bad schools because of schools. They’re bad because they’re full of kids who are poor, disadvantaged, neglected, angry, dangerous, and abused. Handing out vouchers doesn’t solve that problem either.
Anyway, after admitted not having read the thread up until here, I will make a suggestion: if you’re sincerely trying to convince people - say Democrats, for example - that vouchers are a Good Thing, you should steer away from the “Democrats are hypocrites because they don’t want to send their kids to Gang Banger High.”
I say that as a Democrat who would not send his daughter to GBH either, but who is not closed minded about vouchers.
The Democrats are hypocrites thing plays well on AM talk radio (I imagine), but of you’re trying to actually convince people of something, it’s a poor strategy. In fact, it seems disingenuous.
No, they expel kids who disrupt the classroom, who do not do the homework, and who fight against the school.
I attended private school for middle school, public for high school. In my high school, they took the top students and effectively tracked them (we were the only 25 kids taking advanced courses, the only thing to do was to create a track). That meant that my classes never were disrupted by problem students.
One of my sons spent time in public and private high schools. In public school, he had classmates drunk or stoned in class. In private school, they did random drug testing.
Now, what will vouchers do? Allow those poorer kids who have engaged parents to leave the local public school system and instead join the local private school that can select its students - that is correct. The public schools in poorer areas will then become the last option for the bottom of the class. That is a real problem.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that school vouchers pay 100% of private tuition.
The exact analogy is the Postal Service. I may use BoxesЯUs to ship something now and then, but I really, really do want the USPS to be there all the time. In fact, private carriers even use the Postal Service to cover areas they find too costly (N. Peaudunc).
And this is the point. Private schools may be wonderful to the extent that they provide service, but the private sector simply cannot handle the load that the public education system does and still maintain high quality at a reasonable price. Private schools work because there are so few of them, if they were the only option, expect broader quality to go into the toilet in favor of the bottom line.
No, I never said that.
Vouchers can make up the difference for a middle class family. They pick up a %, the voucher covers the rest.
Vouchers can provide enough so that a private school can afford to scholarship the rest of the difference for a poorer family. There were kids on scholarship at my school, and at my son’s school.
Well, I’d be concerned about the profit motive playing a role in education, because it’s not an industrial or service process that lends itself to profit-seeking, i.e. a school seeking to maximize profit is likely to cut costs, which means lower teacher salaries, less spending on infrastructure and maintenance, bigger class sizes etc. It’s not like a factory process where students can be cranked out more efficiently with just-in-time inventories and six-sigma quality control. The primary indicator of income is quantity of students, not whether or not those students can read the diplomas they get after four years or whatever.
Now if there was a private school that arranged to get a cut of graduates’ future salaries and was thus incentivized to get them into high-paying jobs… I could sort-of see that being a workable profit scheme. But overall, education is more of a public-infrastructure thing, like fire departments and police. It’s not expected that they be profitable but they need to kept running, for the benefit of the society overall.
Screw “scientific evidence.” Let’s look at the real world for a minute.
Here in the St. Louis area we have two poor, inner-ring suburban school districts that have lost state accreditation. According to state law, that means students from those districts can transfer to an accredited district and the failed district must pay their tuition.
This gives us exactly the kind of situation that voucher advocates want. Even better, because we’re only talking about public schools, so there’s no church/state or other side issue.
Approximately 25% of students from those districts have taken advantage of the program and transferred to other public schools. It’s obviously too early to tell how this is going to work out for the students, but we know one thing already: the two districts are rapidly going broke.
The math is simple. The school districts’ state funding (approximately 50% of their total budget) is tied directly to their enrollment. So for every student that transfers, the district loses half its funding, but has to pay the other school district 100% of the tuition.
When the districts go broke (probably sometime late this school year) a) who pays the tuition b) how do they pay for the education of the 75% of students who didn’t transfer and c) how do they finance the transfer program on a sustainable basis?
And all this is because those two school districts are educationally inadequate. Do you want to extend that type of financial instability to school districts who are doing a decent job just because parents want to send their kid to a private school?
Instead of: “Do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose a private school to attend at public expense?”
let’s load the question the other way:
“Do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to use their share of public funding that would educate the student in a public school and use it as tuition for a private school, improving the student’s education and reducing the load on public schools?”
What do you think the answer would be?
Well, I agree that’s certainly loaded the other way. The equivalent (in the opposite direction) would be something like “Do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to use public funds (including taxes paid by you) as tuiton for private schools which would not be accountable to any elected body and could teach whatever sectarian religious beliefs they please?”
How about, “Would you like it if other people paid for your children to go to a public school?” I think that’ll get the response you’re looking for.
State and national standardized tests. The percent of kids that go on to college, which colleges, etc. These are metrics parents use when they are looking to move into a school district. With vouchers, they’d be able to shop without moving.
We shouldn’t use public money to support religious institutions and the inculcation of religious dogma. But you’re assuming that is the point of a voucher system. It’s not. The point is a better education. And if a school is better able to educate kids and have them do better on tests, getting them into colleges, etc., why would you let the fact that a tiny part of the day is spent on some religious instruction—when the parents are choosing to send their kids their, or not?
Let the failing schools…FAIL. This is where Charter Schools come in. It would be a WONDERFUL scenario if most of the kids found themselves in vouchered schools, doing well, and a handful of kids were stuck in a shitty, failing school. First, we’d only be subjecting a handful of kids to a poor education. Second, it’s now easier to identify what these kids need and provide it, via Charter and Voucher schools that offer alternative education goals, like trade skills, arts, etc…
The hypocrisy mentioned in the OP comes about when you have a party that professes wanted to help and empower the poor and middle class, then does not want to increase the ability of poor and middle class to improve their children’s education the way the elites in the party do. They say, well, keeping the kids there is the way to make a bad schools better. But even if that’s true, they don’t want to be part of that solution and send their kids to the poor public school in order to improve it over time. “Fuck that! My kid’s going to Sidwell!”
The status quo is this: the government itself classifies almost half its own schools as “failing”, including a majority of schools that serve poor areas.
How does preserving the status quo “help the public schools not fail”? It seems to me that refusing to make significant changes to the status quo does the exact opposite. It helps the public schools fail. It doesn’t help the public schools not fail.
For the same reason many conservatives oppose federal funding of Planned Parenthood, when such a tiny part of their services are abortion related.
Supposing this to be the case, the obvious question is: so what? Contrary to what most people seem to think, public schools have lots of money, and the big urban districts where most voucher programs go into effect are the ones with the most money per pupil. That money does not lead to great education results, though:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/06/06/School-Budgets-The-Worst-Education-Money-Can-Buy
As I’ve already quoted, the research on the matter shows that when students are allowed to escape from failing public schools using vouchers, the nearby public schools improve. Competition keeps 'em honest.
Because private schools can’t and won’t educate the vast majority of kids stuck in failing schools. They will cherry-pick the students they want with scholarships, and the rest will be abandoned with useless vouchers that pay a fraction of a private tuition. Unless eligibility for vouchers is means tested and pay 100% of tuition, this is just subsidies for elitists.
Actually there is. There already are non-government organizations, such as the NAIS and comparable state-level organizations, that provide and enforce standards for member private schools. Voucher programs have been running in some cities and states for decades and have already addressed this issue.
The research that I quoted in the OP says that they are.
It seems a shame if poor children are denied access to a good education merely because of prejudices against religion.
Are you referring to this source:
The home page of that website features clips from FoxNews, worshipful mention of Milton Friedman (whose ‘Shock Approach’ for his friend Pinochet slashed education spending, vouchers or not) and repetitious usage of the words “freedom” and “choice.”
I like to educate myself but there’s only so many hours in a day. I’m sure that, like a needle in a haystack, there is some truth hidden in right-wing babble – but if there is, rational thinkers will have picked up on it and discussed it in reputable media. Please point your URL’s to those, if such exist. Many of us have clicked enough right-wing links to know what they’re worth … and to know what to think about those who quote them.
If the only links you can find to support your arguments are to FoxNews, Koch Brothers’ sites, Friedman sites, etc. it makes it a waste of time to wonder if they have validity.
(ETA: BTW, as others point out, your accusing wealthy liberals of hypocrisy for enjoying their wealth is ignorant and itself hypocritical. Start a new thread if you don’t understand why.)
Does that mean that you’re opposed to large portions of the federal government, which the Democrats generally support and expand? Consider:
[ul]
[li]The government gives poor people hundreds of billions of dollars in food stamps each year. They use these food stamps to buy food from private companies. Democrats have recently passed a large expansion of food stamps.[/li][li]The government gives tens of billions of dollars in Section 8 housing vouchers, some of which is used to pay private landlords.[/li][li]Under the PPACA, commonly called “Obamacare”, the government will provide subsidies to the poor and middle class, which they will use to purchase private health insurance plans on state or federal exchanges.[/li][li]And there are countless other government programs that function likewise.[/li][/ul]
So if tax dollars are used to provide vouchers that go to private, for-profit institutions in so many other areas, why not education?