Omnibus Spending Bill proposes end to DC Vouchers

[Texas]

It's not an inherently bad thing, but the goal should not be for children to be the slaves of their parents but for power over a child's life to be arranged in such a way as to best advance their interests. Parents are often best at that by nature of them being intimately involved in a child's life by definition, but when they are not good at their jobs, then giving more power to them isn't exactly going to resolve that.

Who should decide if a parent is worthy?

 

[UserGoogol]

Who should decide if a parent is worthy?

I wasn't talking about anyone deciding whether individual parents are worthy or not, but merely contemplating whether in the aggregate giving more power to all parents produces beneficial results, but it should be noted that the ominous government already judges whether parents are worthy, in the sense that Child Protective Services will swoop in if parents are doing a flagrantly horrible job. (Although obviously child abuse is a much worse tier than merely insufficiently educating a child, and should be treated differently.)

 

[BPSCG]

Lately, it seems only to redistribute wealth upward.

Yeah, as is demonstrated by how everyone's stock portfolios have tripled in value over the last six months. Woo-hoo! We're all rich!

(Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh lefty?)

No. Reagan and the Shrub cut the rates on exactly the maggots who should be paying more right now for th4e mess they got us into. I do not consume the resources that a Walmart consumes, nor do I drive mom-and-pops out of business, no can I just enjoy a reduced rate on my income like the Walton larvae do. They get off easy with the reduced cap gains rates, while we working schlubs have to bear some of their burden. You realize, don't you, that the wages of the store workers is taxed at a higher rate than the capital gains of the Walton larvae?

Okay, I'm just going to ignore this nonsense except to remark that the general attitude of most people towards maggots and insect larvae is that they must be exterminated. I therefore assume that you are calling for the deaths of people who are well-off. What a sweet person.

You expect them to compete with a millstone around their necks.

What millstone? The people who pay public school taxes pay public school taxes whether they send their kids to private school or not.

They can't turn down the problem students like the yuppie academies do.

"Yuppie academies" again. Yuppie academies that enroll poor black kids. Odd what you consider to be a yuppie.

If the private school system was stuck with the same kinds of students, they would notr enjoy the illusion of superior results they do today.

Ah, there's an issue.

You complain that poor parents who care about their kids' educations are given money to send their kids to private schools so they can escape the failing public ones.

But then you observe that the public schools can't expel the problem students, at least not until they've knifed someone at lunchtime.

So in your world, poor parents who care about their kids' education:

• Would not be given money to help their kids go to a school where they could actually get an education, and;
• Would be forced to stay in schools where the most important lesson a kid can learn is how to stay away from the criminals-in-training.

Mom: "Could you please have the government give me some money so I can send my kid to a school where he'll be safe and get an education?"
LeftySergeant: "No. Stay where you are. Don't you people know your place?"
Mom: "Could you then at least have the public schools throw out the kids who are preventing mine from getting an education?"
LeftySergeant: "No. What's the matter with you people? You know, you people once knew your place, but you've gotten pretty uppity lately."

For instance, The cost of funding students is nonlinear due to economies of scale and whatnot, so the costs incurred by transferring one student to another school are not something you can resolve simply by taking money from one school and giving it to another.

Can you demonstrate that that's what happens? Do DC schools lose a certain amount of their funding for each child who gets a voucher?

Which is why I think the idea of vouchers kind of misses the point. Maybe vouchers help (I really don't know) but when it comes right down to it, parents (their wealth, their involvement, all sorts of factors) are the biggest factor in a child's academic success.

Agreed. Vouchers are only part of the solution, but, as MeadMaker has shown, they have had at least a certain amount of success, and seem to be popular in school districts that are not subject to the caprices of the US Congress.

Moving power from the public school system to parents does not really address this issue, and kind of makes things worse by concentrating more power in the hands of parents.

I don't understand why this is a bad thing. What is this paternalistic mentality that thinks that bureaucrats know what's best for people? The same people who would argue that the government has no business telling a woman what choices she may or may not make regarding the fetus she is carrying seem to think nothing of telling the same women that she is not intelligent enough to decide what choices to make regarding her children's education? Hypocrisy much?

 

[Meadmaker]

it hasn't shown any benefit, ...The only good thing is that the parents in the program feel better,

I don;t believe you, but I look forward to seeing the evidence.

If it is like what I have seen in the past, it will be of the form, "At first glance, it may appear that things got better under the system, but once you account for factors such as socioeconomic conditions and moon phases, you find that really, the tiny amount of benefit that comes from the program is really very small and the apparent savings may be taken up somewhere else, but we aren't sure."

From everything I have read about vouchers, there is a slight benefit and no harm done by implementing them. Of course, I am talking about real programs in real places, not fantasy programs which either create free market utopias or which drive the public schools to ruin. I haven't seen any evidence of either of those outcomes anywhere.

To me, the "only good thing" you mentioned is a very, very, big thing. If that's the only good thing, that's enough.

 

[Meadmaker]

The irony about reading lefty's posts and his rants about yuppie larvae is that I support vouchers because I think they will solve, or at least slightly improve, the very problems he is concerned about causing. Let me illustrate by my own experience. I know several people with stories like mine.

As a young, single, man, I decided to buy a house. I could afford it after all. Why pay rent? I bought in a low income neighborhood, because house prices were low. Later, I got married and had a child. Roughly four years later, the child turned four years old. Now, I had to look around and figure out where to send my kid to school.

My neighborhood was a nice, pleasant neighborhood, but it was, income wise, on the low end of the middle class. It had all the problems associated with that demographic. Gangs were active. There were five teenage girls on my block, and two were pregnant. (Yes, I understand that girls get pregnant everywhere, but check the stats.) The crime rate was higher. I could look at statistics for the school and see that there were high dropout rates and low college attendance rates among graduates.

I was ok with living there, but I wasn't going to send my kid to school there. I bought a house a mile to the north. It was almost an identical house as far as features (square footage, bathrooms, etc.) were concerned, but it cost $100,000 more than the house I sold. That was the premium I was willing to pay so that my kid could go to school with the other yuppie larvae in the public schools.

Everything that lefty is complaining about is already present, and worse, due to our current school funding methods.

 

[BPSCG]

The irony about reading lefty's posts and his rants about yuppie larvae is that I support vouchers because I think they will solve, or at least slightly improve, the very problems he is concerned about causing. Let me illustrate by my own experience. I know several people with stories like mine.

As a young, single, man, I decided to buy a house. I could afford it after all. Why pay rent? I bought in a low income neighborhood, because house prices were low. Later, I got married and had a child. Roughly four years later, the child turned four years old. Now, I had to look around and figure out where to send my kid to school.

My neighborhood was a nice, pleasant neighborhood, but it was, income wise, on the low end of the middle class. It had all the problems associated with that demographic. Gangs were active. There were five teenage girls on my block, and two were pregnant. (Yes, I understand that girls get pregnant everywhere, but check the stats.) The crime rate was higher. I could look at statistics for the school and see that there were high dropout rates and low college attendance rates among graduates.

I was ok with living there, but I wasn't going to send my kid to school there. I bought a house a mile to the north. It was almost an identical house as far as features (square footage, bathrooms, etc.) were concerned, but it cost $100,000 more than the house I sold. That was the premium I was willing to pay so that my kid could go to school with the other yuppie larvae in the public schools.

Everything that lefty is complaining about is already present, and worse, due to our current school funding methods.

You yuppie maggot. Where do you live? I'm sending the Terminix Man after you.

 

[UserGoogol]

Can you demonstrate that that's what happens? Do DC schools lose a certain amount of their funding for each child who gets a voucher?

I intended to say I don't know, and I am agnostic on whether school vouchers are a good idea, and was merely saying that these are valid arguments that could be made instead of just saying "CAPITALIST LARVA, RAR!" Although if public schools don't lose funding, then the program doesn't pay for itself, (at least in the short term) as I thought someone else said.

 

[Beerina]

It isn't about paying "your share" based on your kids. It's aboput yourt share as a beneficiary of the infrastructure from which you derive your income.

Vouchers take money that we all contribute to the betterment of society as a whole to subsidize those who would turn their backs on the society that supported them. Totally narcissistic.

Wanting your child to have a better education than that which "the infrastructure" provides is narcissistic? Making your child better is not for the betterment of society?

And even if it's not, so what? One doesn't raise kids to be "for the betterment of society", if it is going to hurt the child.


If it were about making the smartest kids possible, then there should be no problem trying experiments with vouchers and alternative and private schools. That unions that profit from not having these things are, purely coincidentally I'm sure, against them with the argument that "they won't work." This should strike the skeptical mind as odd. "We", if you choose to believe in "society", would want the best possible outcomes for children, and therefore society. It has nothing to do with an "educational infrastructure" -- as that is just one method to attempt such an outcome.

 

[Ziggurat]

One doesn't raise kids to be "for the betterment of society", if it is going to hurt the child.

In lefty's world, one does. The individual is subservient to the state, so sacrificing one's children for the good of the state is not only right, but required. L'etat, ce'est tout.

 

[Meadmaker]

Although if public schools don't lose funding, then the program doesn't pay for itself, (at least in the short term) as I thought someone else said.

I don't know about DC. The vouchers might be funded with a special appropriation from Congress, leaving the DC City Council with just as much money available from wherever it is they get their money.

In Milwaukee, which has the longest running and largest voucher program in the country, public school funding is reduced for each student that goes to a voucher program instead of going to the public schools. Despite this, the quality of the public school system in Milwaukee has not declined, and is generally considered to have gotten better.

A recent study from the University of Arkansas found that the net cost of the program provided savings to taxpayers. You can read about it here: http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/SCDP/Research.html

(note the web page contains links to DC studies as well, but I found when I clicked on those links, I was directed to Milwaukee studies.)

 

[WildCat]

In Milwaukee, which has the longest running and largest voucher program in the country, public school funding is reduced for each student that goes to a voucher program instead of going to the public schools. Despite this, the quality of the public school system in Milwaukee has not declined, and is generally considered to have gotten better.

Why shouldn't the funding be reduced? After all, there's one less student to "educate". So long as they have the same amount to spend per pupil nothing changes.

Except, of course, the number of teacher's union members required, which is what opposition to vouchers is really about. Screw the kids education, public schools are a jobs program for the teacher's union. The kids aren't even a secondary or tertiary concern.

 

[leftysergeant]

Wanting your child to have a better education than that which "the infrastructure" provides is narcissistic? Making your child better is not for the betterment of society?

If it drains money from the common schools, it does harm to the system.

And even if it's not, so what? One doesn't raise kids to be "for the betterment of society", if it is going to hurt the child.

So you're cool with subsidizing kids in schools which teach various religious superstitions in place of science? I'm not.

If it were about making the smartest kids possible, then there should be no problem trying experiments with vouchers and alternative and private schools. That unions that profit from not having these things are, purely coincidentally I'm sure, against them with the argument that "they won't work."

Charter schools are a weak alternative to what we have now, valid only as a test bed.

It seems to me, though, that a lot of the voucher advocates are actually anti-union and your comments show that. That twaddle always shows up when the topic is addressed.

 

[Texas]

If it drains money from the common schools, it does harm to the system.



So you're cool with subsidizing kids in schools which teach various religious superstitions in place of science? I'm not.




Charter schools are a weak alternative to what we have now, valid only as a test bed.

It seems to me, though, that a lot of the voucher advocates are actually anti-union and your comments show that. That twaddle always shows up when the topic is addressed.

So it finally comes to the truth. You want to protect the "system" and Unions. You said nothing about the kids beyond being warehoused in the "system".

 

[WildCat]

Except, of course, the number of teacher's union members required, which is what opposition to vouchers is really about. Screw the kids education, public schools are a jobs program for the teacher's union. The kids aren't even a secondary or tertiary concern.

And lefty comes along to prove my point:

It seems to me, though, that a lot of the voucher advocates are actually anti-union and your comments show that. That twaddle always shows up when the topic is addressed.

The only thing lefty cares about is kids are forced to be "taught" by union teachers. Who cares if half end up dropping out, and those that don't can barely spell their own name? lefty sure doesn't.

 

[WildCat]

So it finally comes to the truth. You want to protect the "system" and Unions. You said nothing about the kids beyond being warehoused in the "system".

Of course it is! Notice that not once in any of lefty's posts does he express concern about the kid's education.

 

[Meadmaker]

If it drains money from the common schools, it does harm to the system.

"The system" certainly thinks so, but there is no evidence to support this.

At least, none that I'm aware of. Perhaps someone will present some.

 

[BPSCG]

Lefty, here's how it works in real life:

Dick Durbin has a nasty surprise for two of Sasha and Malia Obama's new schoolmates. And it puts the president in an awkward position.

The children are Sarah and James Parker. Like the Obama girls, Sarah and James attend the Sidwell Friends School in our nation's capital. Unlike the Obama girls, they could not afford the school without the $7,500 voucher they receive from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. Unfortunately, a spending bill the Senate takes up this week includes a poison pill that would kill this program -- and with it perhaps the Parker children's hopes for a Sidwell diploma.

Known as the "Durbin language" after the Illinois Democrat who came up with it last year, the provision mandates that the scholarship program ends after the next school year unless Congress reauthorizes it and the District of Columbia approves. The beauty of this language is that it allows opponents to kill the program simply by doing nothing. Just the sort of sneaky maneuver that's so handy when you don't want inner-city moms and dads to catch on that you are cutting one of their lifelines.

Deborah Parker says such a move would be devastating for her kids. "I once took Sarah to Roosevelt High School to see its metal detectors and security guards," she says. "I wanted to scare her into appreciation for what she has at Sidwell." It's not just safety, either. According to the latest test scores, fewer than half of Roosevelt's students are proficient in reading or math.

That's the reality that the Parkers and 1,700 other low-income students face if Sen. Durbin and his allies get their way. And it points to perhaps the most odious of double standards in American life today: the way some of our loudest champions of public education vote to keep other people's children -- mostly inner-city blacks and Latinos -- trapped in schools where they'd never let their own kids set foot.

This double standard is largely unchallenged by either the teachers' unions or the press corps. For the teachers' unions, it's a fairly cold-blooded calculation. They're willing to look the other way at lawmakers who chose private or parochial schools for their own kids -- so long as these lawmakers vote in ways that keep the union grip on the public schools intact and an escape hatch like vouchers bolted.

(...snip..)

As for Sidwell, the school has welcomed the Opportunity Scholarship program. Though headmaster Bruce Stewart declines to get into either politics or the Obamas, he says that a program that gives parents more educational options for their children is not only good for their kids, it's good for the community. Plainly he's not doing it for the money: Even the full D.C. voucher covers only a small fraction of Sidwell's actual costs.

All of which leaves the First Parent with a decision to make: Will he stand up for those like his own children's schoolmates -- or stand in front of the Sidwell door with Mr. Durbin? It's hard to imagine white congressional Democrats going up against him if he called them out on an issue where they have put him in this embarrassing position. This, after all, is a man who has written of the "anger" he felt as a community organizer, when his attempts to improve things for Chicago school kids ran up against an "uncomfortable fact."

"The biggest source of resistance [to reform]," he said, "was rarely talked about . . . namely, the uncomfortable fact that every one of our churches was filled with teachers, principals, and district superintendents. Few of these educators sent their own children to public schools; they knew too much for that. But they would defend the status quo with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of two decades before."

Link

 

[Meadmaker]

As for Sidwell, the school has welcomed the Opportunity Scholarship program. Though headmaster Bruce Stewart declines to get into either politics or the Obamas, he says that a program that gives parents more educational options for their children is not only good for their kids, it's good for the community.

This is the thing I've never gotten about vouchers and the politics behind them. You can give people more choices, or you can give them less choices, and the left comes down for.....less choices?

What's up with that?

I consider myself, philosophically, a leftist. What I see in vouchers is a way to take money from taxpayers (which means in large part from rich people), and give it to anyone with a child, to give them opportunities that would only be available to them if they were rich people. I want to use rich peoples' money to give poor people choices. And my fellow liberals are against it? I don't get it.

 

[Alt+F4]

Except, of course, the number of teacher's union members required, which is what opposition to vouchers is really about. Screw the kids education, public schools are a jobs program for the teacher's union. The kids aren't even a secondary or tertiary concern.

Could you provide evidence that teacher's unions are opposed to vouchers because the they don't care about children's education? I didn't see anything about "screwing the kids" at the AFT website.

 

[WildCat]

Could you provide evidence that teacher's unions are opposed to vouchers because the they don't care about children's education? I didn't see anything about "screwing the kids" at the AFT website.

Actions speak louder than words. And the action is to stop those damned poor kids from getting into a better school.

eta: and the next time teachers go on strike over the poor quality of education the kids are getting will be the first time. It's always about more pay for less work.