An Argument against School Vouchers

[DialecticMaterialist]

Semi-and super

Now there's some brilliant thinking. Despite the fact that their tax bracket is higher than yours and their property taxes most likely are and the fact that they already send their kids to private school, how is it that a 300 dollar voucher comes out of your pocket?

The semi-rich have a problem with this. The actual rich get lawyers to bail them out of fair taxes.

I know a guy who makes miilion but paid a mere 600 dollars a month for child support. That was due to lawyers. That's less the a middle class person pays a month. Hell that's less then a poor person is required to pay a month.

Also why do the rich need vouchers? Do they lack money?

They pay more in taxes then you make in a year.

Maybe so but who got them the money to get it? Did they land on a desert island and start companies out of thin air?

The fact also is, in most states the money does tend to go to local schools instead of being spread through your area. That is one reason why the public schools change so drastically in quality according to neighborhood. The rich people get taxed a lot more then the middle class overall(not proportion wise though) but then all their money still goes to their local schools.

I imagine vouchers could change this a bit, but then again we have problems plus the guy has a low 30 grand while the rich gets 30 grands plus their original buying power.

A better solution is doing what they did in Vermont, spread all the state money evenly.

 

[blackadder65738]

Re: Control

Richard:

Private schools, even accredited ones can also teach creationism and other psuedoscience. They can also teach their own personal political views, like they can say the separation of church and state is a "bad thing". Which is just what we need, more ignorant, scientifically illiterate, propoganda fed fundamentalists now directly supported with state funding.


We're missing the bigger picture here. We need to look at the motivation of the people who are pushing the "vouchers" and other assaults on public education.
When the Supreme Court made its ruling in the sixties (i think) that Christian prayers and other Christian expressions in the public schools were unconstitional, the Fundies made a decision: "If you won't allow Christian indoctrination in the public schools, then there won't be any public schools." Ever since then we have seen a two-pronged attack on the government-run school.

Prong 1) The constant and mostly groundless perception that the public schools are cesspools of incompetence, with kids getting shot, failing tests, falling behind other countries, etc. While public education in the US may have some problems, due to underfunding, silly rules and laws that hinder them, etc. (whole other debate) the stories that don't get reported are the millions of success stories that go on every day, with the dedicated teachers and the students who get educated. The "public schools are terrible" mantra is so common now that it's not even noticed anymore. Nobody thinks twice when Bill O'Reilly or Rush says how bad the schools are. Nobody considers the ideological motivation they have to say that.

Prong 2) The assault on the funding of the schools, under the disguise of "parental choice". If you can't make an argument (at least that will be taken seriously) that the public schools need to be abolished, then the best avenue left is to suck the money out of them until they collapse. The strategy is to do things that sound like you want to help public education (No child left behind, etc.) while you hammer at their funding with the other hand. This works on two levels, since the schools degrade at a rapid pace, allowing you to pull more resources from them, which makes them collapse even further. Perhaps in the future, not the next few years, but a few decades from now, the US will abandon public education altogether. If not, the only students left will be those who are trapped and can't afford to get out. Either way, the Fundies win.

These people are organized, determined, and they move in lock step. I know these people, I live in southwest Missouri. Right near the HQ of Assemblies of God. These people have drank the f*cking Kool-Aid. The end justifies the means for them. If we have to have a generation of black boys and girls who have to be thrown in jail because they can't escape poverty and oppression, that's a small price to pay for saving the souls of our little white boys and girls, and keeping them away from that horrible Darwin, among other things.

Sorry to go on so long. This ◊◊◊◊ keeps me awake at night, people.

 

[hammegk]

I curious, have you ever attended a school board meeting, or attended a parent-teacher conference, or sat in on a class?

Actually, yup, & currently have a couple relatives serving on local school boards. PTA has always been a joke imo.

Oh, you might want to run your response through a spell checker

I may spel funny, but does that mean I'm as dumb as you?

 

[hammegk]

If you say you'll boycott or something I can see this. But this isn't about parents....it was about tax payers in general. This is also more difficult to do as there are no regular meetings and info is harder to get.

Yeah, talk about taxation by misrepresention.

IIRC, Jefferson thought that more intelligent children -- black and white -- should be identified by testing and receive the bulk of the educational effort, which should be administered on a local level. I agree with him.

Work in the burger joint and keys have pictures on them anyway.

Absurd, the PTA here can actually decide on something as relevant as an expulsion and school book/sex ed. standards among other things.

What school district might that be? Location (blank) is unhelpful doncha know?

Does the NEA & Washington know you exist?

 

[RichardR]

I think that taken to its conclusion, the voucher idea becomes absurd. So say, hypothetically, that some students can actually receive better educations in private schools. Then what? What about the kids still in public schools?

The theory is that the public schools have to compete for parents' vouchers, and so they will either get better, or go out of business. If the latter, the school will be taken over by new owners, and they will have an incentive to make the school succeed.

Under a voucher system, if schools fail their students, the students will walk. Now, if the school fails, the students are stuck there.

It's a fine theory. Has it worked anywhere, that anyone knows of?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

hammek

What school district might that be? Location (blank) is unhelpful doncha know?

La Costa school destrict. In Southern California. Why is that such a terribly important thing? You think I just *invented* it?

Seriously you make an extraordinary claim(PTA has no say, even though it's suppose to according to law) and then act like MY claim concerning a school is dubious.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Interesting

The theory is that the public schools have to compete for parents' vouchers, and so they will either get better, or go out of business. If the latter, the school will be taken over by new owners, and they will have an incentive to make the school succeed.

See I agree competition can lead to improvements. However the school is very different then any other commodity. This can lead to overcrowding in some schools and underfunding in others. And if a poor school goes out of business the other school may be too far from the parents.

Under a voucher system, if schools fail their students, the students will walk. Now, if the school fails, the students are stuck there.

Ok I understand your point. I like the idea of giving children more freedom but you can likewise do this by letting students change districts at will.

I like the idea of more freedom for the students but I think other points outweigh that one.

It's a fine theory. Has it worked anywhere, that anyone knows of?

Another ify thing, it's untested. If we did try it at the very least we should start small, just to see how it does work.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Re: Interesting

Without jumping into the main points, I wanted to make a good-natured, smart-*ss remark. This isn't 100% serious, it is just a comment on taking your message 100% literally.

Just to front load that disclaimer:

See I agree competition can lead to improvements. However the school is very different then any other commodity. This can lead to overcrowding in some schools and underfunding in others. And if a poor school goes out of business the other school may be too far from the parents.

. . . Whereas it is much, much better to keep a close school that sucks?

"Well, the kids aren't getting an education, but at least the drive is short to their crappy school. . . ."


NA

(tongue in cheek -- just thought the literal application of your statement was kind of funny)

 

[dmarker]

A voucher program was just enacted in Colorado. It will use my taxes to send kids to private schools. If that's not bad enough, that money would normally go to public schools, which means, of course, that public schools will get that much less. I fully expect scores will drop, those supporting vouchers (who don't like public schools) will say, see how bad public schools are. A self fulfilling prophecy, which I believe is exactly what our Republican legislator expects (and has planned) to happen.

I wonder if anybody has tried to challenge school vouchers on the grounds that I've laid out?

 

[dmarker]

Re: Re: An Argument against School Vouchers

Do they pay into the system?
Do they have children in the system?
If they do, just like you, and they are not allowed to have a voucher system as they want, isn't this also "taxation without representation"?

What exactly do you mean by "representation"? Isn't a choice between public school and a voucher a form of representation? A very direct form at that!

I pay into the system with my property tax. So part of the money is mine. Whether or not I have a child is irrelevent since I pay the same property tax as a person with school age children.

Let's say a family pays $2000 a year in property taxes. Let's say that 25% of that money goes to the local school system. The family who wants to opt out of the school system should only get $500 a year. My portion of school tax dollars should stay in the local school system where I have the right to be represented by elections such as the school board and the superintendent when I cast a ballot and the right to go to school board meetings and express my views on curriculum, staff, allocation of funds, et. I'm not saying that I'll be successful with my efforts, but the point is that I have the right to be represented as much as every other tax payer.

When vouchers remove my tax dollars from public schools to private schools, I have no say on curriculum, staff, et. Essentially my tax dollars are going to a place where I have no say in how it is spent. I cannot vote against or for the administration of a private school. I cannot attend the meetings of a private school where they discuss the next year's text books and currculum. Nor can I make suggestions on allocations at these meetings.

I do not mind supporting public schools with my tax dollar. However my tax dollar is not a free gift to anybody, it comes with strings attached. And as I said before, if I pay, I get a say.

 

[Thumper]

I've always enjoyed listening to people say that schools are failing, so we need to cut their funds.

Make no mistake, this is exactly what is going to happen.

If private schools really care about their mission, they will find ways of offering scholarships and 'leave no child behind.'

Oh, just to set things straight... I taught in both public and private schools. Middle and high. Both had their good teachers and bad. The school board in Portland is a joke. Parents were much better able to change things in the private schools in which I taught.

Curriculum? The private schools had religion required. The public schools did not. This allowed public school students to take other courses (or a study hall). However, the religion classes were a great place for the students to practice their writing and thinking skills. And as one of the science teachers, I was a gate-keeper on what science truly is. We taught evolution. In the middle school, I faced down parents who insisted on creationism (not even ID Evolution). Backing me the entire way was my principal. (May he rest in peace.) In the high school, there was no problem; it was expected. My (private) high school students went to Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, Vanderbilt, Stanford, etc. AND they went to Portland State, Mt Hood COmmunity COllege, SouthWest Oregon COmmunity College, etc. And I am proud of each and every one of them.

Hmmmmmm... did I get off topic?

 

[dmarker]

Representation does not mean that you have a say in how every dollar is spent.

I’m not sure what you mean by accreditation. But parents should only be able to apply the vouchers to schools that taught a curriculum in accordance with a standard set by elected politicians. Then you have taxation with representation.

In addition, if the majority had voted at an election for the party that said it was going to introduce vouchers, then you also have representation.

Do you have any other objections to vouchers?

That's accreditation. And also I addressed that in my original post. I have the right to vote against the administrators of public schools, I have the right to attend school board meetings, and I have the right to lobby the school board with ideas on text books, curriculum, and the like. Having a say does not mean having my way, it just means that my opinion will be heard, just like every other tax payer.

Yes, vouchers mean that my local taxes are leaving my neighborhood. I'd like my local tax dollars to stay and benefit me, the person working for them.

 

[dmarker]

And you feel like you have this kind of control now when it comes to government schools?

Where do you live?

Look at my location under my name.

Yes, I have the right to vote, attend, and lobby, just like every other tax payer.

 

[dmarker]

Here you are wrong. The taxes of the people sending their kids to private school pay for it, not yours. The voucher gives the people back THEIR tax money, not yours, to direct to the school of their choosing.

Nope, a portion of my tax money goes to public schools. I pay the same property tax as someone with school age children. Are you going to suggest that I pay more than my fair share for law enforcement, fire, and other government services that everybody uses?

 

[dmarker]

Re: Re: Control

I'd call this an error of fact -- iff you have children that attend a private school -- since if you can gather a group of like-minded parents who agree that you are right & the school is wrong, they might and actually could change.

Publik skools are run by local, state & federal administrators & the NEA; your input, or the input of every parent combined will make - zero - difference. School boards are a wonderful, meaningless artifice, although they might be able to enter the get-a-kickback-from-the-book-salesman sweepstakes. Just my 2 cts...

And if everybody votes out the administration of their local schools, you don't think that the next people would tow the line when it comes to the public?

But the point is that I have no school age children, thus no customers to offer a private school, thus I have no say at all in how my tax dollars are spent.

edited to add the word "the" between "tow" and "line"

 

[dmarker]

Now there's some brilliant thinking. Despite the fact that their tax bracket is higher than yours and their property taxes most likely are and the fact that they already send their kids to private school, how is it that a 300 dollar voucher comes out of your pocket? They pay more in taxes then you make in a year.

Then they should get a refund of their tax dollars that are earmarked to pay for public schools. They should pay their fair share of other public services like law enforcement, fire dept, road repair et.

 

[QuarkChild]

However, the religion classes were a great place for the students to practice their writing and thinking skills.

Thinking skills? You obviously didn't teach at the parochial high school that I attended. Most of my classes there were AP/Honors classes, and were challenging, useful, and thought-provoking. The religion classes, on the other hand, were a joke. The work was almost exclusively busy work--parroting whatever was in the textbook. The level of writing that was expected in those classes was almost insulting.

Example:
Textbook (paraphrased.): "Some Catholic doctrine has been passed on orally, rather than being written down. An example is the preservation of the Virgin Mary's virginity throughout her life."
Question on quiz: "Name one example of Catholic doctrine that has been passed on orally, rather than being written down."
Etc.

One of my religion classes was an exception. It was taught by Mr. McLean, who cared deeply about social justice issues and was passionate about the ethical questions brought up in the course material; hence it was a fairly thought-provoking class. Unfortunately, the diocese decided to crack down on the less dogmatic religion classes at my school and demand that they concentrate more heavily on Catholic doctrine. So I suspect that Mr. McLean's class has been discontinued.

Could a religion class be more useful academically than an elective or study hall?
In my experience, the answer is "it depends on the diocese." And, of course, the teacher.

 

[apoger]

Re: Re: Re: An Argument against School Vouchers

Rich people send their children to private schools.
Rich people do not need vouchers.
Vouchers are not meant to give extra help to rich people.
Vouchers are meant to allow those who are not rich to get their children a competitive education.

I see a good deal of "screw the rich" mentaility in many posts here. Apparently people are so used to associating private school with the wealthy that they are unable to grasp that vouchers are not to help the rich, but to help those of lesser means acquire an opportunity to get their children an education that only the rich can afford at this time.


To be quite frank, I'd rather see our money put towards improving the public school system. However I am very aware that we have been trying that route for a long time and the complexity and corruption in the system appears to be winning. At this point I feel that it would be a good idea to explore alternatives, and vouchers might be a valid way to go. Why not set up some test areas and measure it's effect so we can determine which path is more effective? Test the systems and bring me evidence! HA! A call for experimentation and evidence. Bet you never expected to hear that in a skeptic forum.

 

[DavidJames]

hammegk, your clever comment was:
"I may spel funny, but does that mean I'm as dumb as you?"

You must be so proud of yourself

I've had very good, direct experience and success working within the public schools my children have attended. Can you provide specific examples of problems you have experienced and what actions you've tried to correct the situations?

 

[peptoabysmal]

So far most of the experiments with school vouchers in this country have gone to low income families, usually chosen by a lottery of some sort.

I haven't seen any data that shows any significant improvement in the student's abilities who have undergone these experiments.

Another aspect of this idea that I have a little trouble with is that a good portion of the private schools are religious schools, which can be selective about the student. A student could recieve a voucher, but that is no guarantee that the student can get into a certain school.

It's another desperate act like the California State Lottery was supposed to be to improve our school systems. California's schools are still in dire straights. The entire US school system is in need of serious reform. These poorly thought out band-aids won't make much difference.

When the government gets involved with these experiments, usually the bureaucracy generated to support such ideas eats up most of the money available within the experiment.