School voucher support and demographics

[Meadmaker]

I’m an advocate for school vouchers, and I’ll support them in this thread, but, to the extent it is possible to do so, I would like to focus on one aspect of the school choice debate.

Why are people opposed to vouchers? And why do people support them? I’ve read all sorts of reasons, and different people have different motivations, but in researching the issue, something leapt out at me.

In analyzing voter patterns, something became clear. People without children, who own their own homes, and who live in poor neighborhoods, support vouchers. People without children, who own their own homes, and who live in wealthy neighborhoods, oppose vouchers.

It isn’t hard to figure out the difference here. People with no children have no specific self interest related to the education of their own children. However, they have a great interest in property values, and also in quality of life in general.

Apparently, people in all neighborhoods seem to think that school choice would make bad neighborhoods better, and good neighborhoods worse (or at least, less elite). I agree, and that has always been my primary motivation for supporting school choice. I think the public school system as it exists in the US is a major contributor to racial and economic segregation. On an anecdotal level, I have several friends who were middle class whites, and they lived in the city of Detroit, right up until their oldest child turned 4 years old. In fact, I did the same thing. (I didn’t live in Detroit, but I lived in a poor, mostly black, suburb, and when my child was four years old I moved to richer, lily white, suburb, and I did it for the quality of the schools.)

Here’s some discussion.

http://www.fordhaminstitute.org/institute/gadfly/comment_add.cfm?edition=&content_id=477

 

[Alt+F4]

People with no children have no specific self interest related to the education of their own children.

Huh? What point are you trying to make here or is this just another teacher bashing thread?

 

[Tricky]

The article you linked seems to be discussing only one single voucher program: the one in California. There are many different ways vouchers can operate and support for them among various economic groups is highly dependant upon what kind of vouchers are being discussed.

Many upper class people are in favor if vouchers IF the voucher simply means that everybody is given money for their child's schooling. Essentially, this means that they can send their child to a private school, which they were doing anyway, and have it subsidized. However, if the voucher program is based on proving "need", then upper and middle class people tend to oppose it because it will increase their taxes and lower their property values (if "lower class" students are infiltrating their private schools and frequenting their neighborhoods.)

What is almost universal is that everybody wants better education for their kids and nobody wants to pay anything extra in taxes for it.

I am opposed to almost any voucher program because I feel it will turn inner-city schools into little more than training grounds for juvenile delinquents, as all the good teachers and students move out. If education is required, then there must be some schools that are required to take students. Private schools are not. They can dump their problems on the poor schools. I feel this will lead to even greater and more dangerous social stratification.

Of course, depending on how the voucher program is structured, some of these problems can be mitigated. How much, I don't know.

 

[Alt+F4]

I for one don't want my tax dollars supporting Scientologist or Mormon fundamentalists schools.

 

[Tricky]

I for one don't want my tax dollars supporting Scientologist or Mormon fundamentalists schools.

I don't even want them supporting Catholic schools. I want a well defined curriculum with specific standards for teachers and for student advancement. I also want no religious dogma of any kind. In short, just like public schools.

 

[pgwenthold]

In analyzing voter patterns, something became clear. People without children, who own their own homes, and who live in poor neighborhoods, support vouchers. People without children, who own their own homes, and who live in wealthy neighborhoods, oppose vouchers.

It isn’t hard to figure out the difference here. People with no children have no specific self interest related to the education of their own children. However, they have a great interest in property values, and also in quality of life in general.

What other characteristics do they have? Are they more educated? Are they less religious? What are the statistics for those with children as opposed to without?

I am in the second group, and do not agree with your explanation.

I oppose school vouchers because I do not think that my taxes should be used to support religious schooling.

I think that this so-called analysis is missing a lot of correlating factors.

 

[pgwenthold]

Huh? What point are you trying to make here or is this just another teacher bashing thread?

I think the point is that childless couples do not base their opinions on doing something for "their" children, since they don't have any.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don't even want them supporting Catholic schools. I want a well defined curriculum with specific standards for teachers and for student advancement. I also want no religious dogma of any kind. In short, just like public schools.

I can certainly understand your point, and I kinda feel the same way. However, isn't the way the vouchers are set up important?

If we make funding of the private or religious education conditional on them teaching a certain cirriculum, it may be beneficial. After all, there will be some parents who send their kids to religous schools regardless of the cost. At least if we say "make sure they learn proper science and you'll get partial funding" there is at least some chance they'll get some actual knowledge mixed up with their dogma.

Here in Ontario (Canada), we don't have vouchers, but we have separate catholic boards which are publically funded. For some reason, the kids coming out of the catholic schools have a better understanding of science (including evolution) than those in the public system.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm opposed to school vouchers because I fail to see how taking money away from public schools helps the common good in any way.

 

[pgwenthold]

Many upper class people are in favor if vouchers IF the voucher simply means that everybody is given money for their child's schooling. Essentially, this means that they can send their child to a private school, which they were doing anyway, and have it subsidized. However, if the voucher program is based on proving "need", then upper and middle class people tend to oppose it because it will increase their taxes and lower their property values (if "lower class" students are infiltrating their private schools and frequenting their neighborhoods.)

Interestingly, if there is any voucher to be supported, I would prefer it be need-based. However, this is just a band-aid on the real problem. Instead of giving poor people money to get out, it would be much better to give the schools in poorer areas more of what they need to be successful. To do that without raising taxes, of course, would require re-routing money from more affluent areas (such as the one I live in) to other places, and I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with that. Then again, I think my neighbors with kids might have more of a problem with it.

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't even want them supporting Catholic schools. I want a well defined curriculum with specific standards for teachers and for student advancement. I also want no religious dogma of any kind. In short, just like public schools.

That's what we should be doing, forget about vouchers and make public schools better so all children can be well educated, not just those who have parents who are "education savvy".

 

[Meadmaker]

I think the point is that childless couples do not base their opinions on doing something for "their" children, since they don't have any.

Thanks. That was my point.

 

[pgwenthold]

Thanks. That was my point.

Just so it can be said that I do understand what you are saying, regardless of how much I vehemently disagree with it

 

[Katana]

That's what we should be doing, forget about vouchers and make public schools better so all children can be well educated, not just those who have parents who are "education savvy".

That gets at my issues with vouchers somewhat.

If there are "bad" schools, then fix them.

And I completely agree with the concerns about tax dollars going to religiously-based schools. That should not be permitted.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm opposed to school vouchers because I fail to see how taking money away from public schools helps the common good in any way.

I think at least part of the argument for vouchers is that by allowing parents to have more flexibility in where they place their kids, it will force schools to improve themselves (offer the best educational programs) to attract the best students they can get, as opposed to just warehousing kids because you're getting funded the same amount anyways.

In that case, the big question is whether a school's ability and desire to improve themselves would be greater or less than the loss of students from 'bad' schools.

 

[Billdave2]

There is a simple solution to the voucher plan. Parents who send their kids to private school get a voucher for 3/4 of the amount of money the school district has per child. Example, school district has 10,000 children with a budget of 10,000,000 dollars. If your child attends private school you get a voucher for 7,500 dollars. The amount of money per child in the public school increases by (2,500 X number of children in private school)/ number of children in public school. It is a win/win situation.

 

[Tricky]

Interestingly, if there is any voucher to be supported, I would prefer it be need-based. However, this is just a band-aid on the real problem. Instead of giving poor people money to get out, it would be much better to give the schools in poorer areas more of what they need to be successful. To do that without raising taxes, of course, would require re-routing money from more affluent areas (such as the one I live in) to other places, and I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with that. Then again, I think my neighbors with kids might have more of a problem with it.

My wife and I are childless, and I agree with you. I would be happy to see a restructuring of taxes, indeed, I'd even be willing to suffer a tax increase, if it was a real fix for our education problems. I consider education to be part of our infrastructure, and if we don't maintain it, it will collapse like an old bridge.

 

[tsg]

There is a simple solution to the voucher plan. Parents who send their kids to private school get a voucher for 3/4 of the amount of money the school district has per child. Example, school district has 10,000 children with a budget of 10,000,000 dollars. If your child attends private school you get a voucher for 7,500 dollars. The amount of money per child in the public school increases by (2,500 X number of children in private school)/ number of children in public school. It is a win/win situation.

Where does the $7500 come from?

 

[Tricky]

There is a simple solution to the voucher plan. Parents who send their kids to private school get a voucher for 3/4 of the amount of money the school district has per child. Example, school district has 10,000 children with a budget of 10,000,000 dollars. If your child attends private school you get a voucher for 7,500 dollars. The amount of money per child in the public school increases by (2,500 X number of children in private school)/ number of children in public school. It is a win/win situation.

Except you still have the problem that the public schools are left with

• All the dregs that no private school will take
• People who are so miserably poor that they can't even afford to make up the voucher gap.
• Children of parents who don't care what kind of education they get

While your plan might make economic sense, it doesn't make educational sense.

 

[Segnosaur]

Except you still have the problem that the public schools are left with

• All the dregs that no private school will take
• People who are so miserably poor that they can't even afford to make up the voucher gap.
• Children of parents who don't care what kind of education they get

While your plan might make economic sense, it doesn't make educational sense.

Well, it depends on what is done with the 'extra' money.

If, out of the $10,000 available for education, only $7,500 gets transfered to the new or private school, then that remaining $2,500 could be reinvested back into the 'poorer' school the student was originally supposed to go to. That increases the per-capita funding of students at poorer school (which can only help). Of course, I'm not sure if that's going to encourage schools to get rid of students (so they can get the remaining funding), but the idea has some merit... the parents who want a private education can afford it, middle income people may be able to afford private schools where they couldn't before, and any parents who still could not afford or did not wish to use private schools has their kid going to a school with more resources than they'd otherwise have.